Delhi District Court
State vs . Abhishek on 25 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI
DELHI
Sessions Case No : 84/2016
State Vs. Abhishek
S/o Mohan Singh Chouhan
R/o Khasra no. 201, Gupta Colony, Village Prahaladpur,
Delhi.
Also at: Village Simta Mau, PS Rajpur, District Kanpur,
UP.
FIR No :50/16
Police Station :Shahbad Dairy
Under Sections : 376/511/34 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 04.07.2016
Date on which Judgment reserved : 19.09.2017
Date on which Judgment announced : 25.09.2017
J U D G M E N T
1.In the present case, charge in respect of offences under Section 376/511/34 IPC was framed against accused Abhishek on 13.2.2017 with the allegation that on 14.1.2016 at about 8.05pm, near Peer Baba Majar, Gupta Colony, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, he in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused Sayed (not arrested so far), attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix without her State Vs. Abhishek Page No. 1 FIR No. 50/2016, PS Shahbad Dairy consent and against her will.
2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined only one witness. She is prosecutrix.
4. She has deposed that he alongwith her husband Jitender has been residing at Shahbad Dairy, near Roop Krishna School, Delhi. On 14.01.2016, at about 8:05 p.m., she was going to the house of her Mausi, at ABlock, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi where Abhishek came from other side and started quarreling with her. She made a call on 100 number. Police came and obtained her signatures on the paper. She was taken to BSA Hospital, where she was medically examined.
5. She has further deposed that on next day i.e. 15.01.2016, she was produced before ld. MM. On the asking of police officials, she gave the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/A. Accused Abhishek is present in the court.
6. Since, PW1 has not supported the prosecution story, she has been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, wherein she has admitted that Ex.PW1/B bears her signature at point A, but has volunteered that the statement was not read over to her and she only told the name of accused as Abhishek.
7. She has deposed that she had not stated in her statement Ex.PW1/B that on 14.01.2016 at about 8:05 p.m., when she reached near Peer Baba (Mazar), accused Abhshek came from front side alongwith his State Vs. Abhishek Page No. 2 FIR No. 50/2016, PS Shahbad Dairy associates and that sister of accused lodged a complaint against her husband Jitender @ Kallu and that accused caught hold her hand, pulled her, in bushes, torn her cloth and attempted to commit rape upon her with the help of his associates and that after committing rape, he alongwith his associates ran away from there. She has denied that she is deposing falsely as compromise has been effected between her and accused Abhishek.
8. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused she has stated that she deposed in the court without any pressure or influence. She has admitted that she had given the statement before ld. MM on the asking of the police officials. She has further admitted that accused had not committed any wrong act with her.
9. The recording of statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, was dispensed with as nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused.
10. I have heard arguments from ld counsel for accused, who has prayed for acquittal of the accused by submitting that prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that prosecutrix had initially supported the prosecution story but, later on, she been won over by the accused.
12. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. In Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cri. LJ 1471 State Vs. Abhishek Page No. 3 FIR No. 50/2016, PS Shahbad Dairy (DB) (Punj), it was held that:
"The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record. Even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole the prosecution may be true but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
14. In the present case, the star witness of the case i.e. prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story either in examination inchief or crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP. She has categorically deposed that on 14.01.2016, at about 8:05 p.m.,when she was going to house of her Mausi at ABlock, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, Abhishek came from other side and started quarreling with her. She made a call on 100 number. Police came there and obtained her signatures on the paper. She was taken to BSA Hospital, where she was medically examined. On next day she was produced before ld. MM. On the asking of police officials, she gave her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW1/A.
15. In crossexamination by Ld. Addl.PP she has deposed that State Vs. Abhishek Page No. 4 FIR No. 50/2016, PS Shahbad Dairy police obtained her impression on the paper and the statement Ex. PW 1/B was not read over to her and she had only told the name of accused to police. She has denied all the contents of the statement Ex. PW 1/B when the same were put to her by Ld. Addl. PP. She has further denied that she deposed falsely to save accused, as compromise has been arrived at between her and accused.
16. Since, the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story and there is no other material on record to connect the accused with the commission of Offence. Hence, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Accordingly, accused Abhishek is acquitted of the offences, he was charged with.
18. However, in term of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC, the accused has furnished fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted for a period of six months with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against the judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Bimla Kumari)
on this 25th September, 2017 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
State Vs. Abhishek Page No. 5
FIR No. 50/2016, PS Shahbad Dairy