Delhi District Court
State vs Deep Chand @ Deepu on 16 March, 2017
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. : 102/16
STATE
versus
1.Deep Chand @ Deepu, Son of Sh. Kali Charan, r/o H.No. T37, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, N. Delhi FIR No. : 197/16 Offence U/S : 376 IPC Police Station : Anand Parbat DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE AFTER COMMITTAL: 25/07/2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT:16/03/2017 JUDGMENT
1. Accused Deep Chand @ Deepu has been charge sheeted for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that between January, 2016 till March, 2016, accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity).
2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 26/08/2017, charge for offence under section 376 IPC was framed against
-:: Page 1 of 4 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
the accused Deep Chand @ Deepu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1 (name of prosecutrix mentioned in file, but withheld to protect her identity).
4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that on 08.03.2016 he made complaint against accused Deep Chand @ Deepu at PS Binda Pur and later on the same complaint was sent to PS Anand Parbat. She had stated that she along with her husband and three children were residing at Patel Nagar and she was doing the job of maid in the area of Military gate in front of Baba Farid Puri, Patel Nagar. She further deposed that she and accused became friends and they both established physical relations with each other with their own consent and accused had not committed any rape upon her. She further deposed that when her husband came to know regarding their relations, then the matter was reported to the police and she was medically examined in the hospital vide medical document Ex. PW1/B. Her statement was recorded before Ld. Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW1/C and it bears her signatures at point A. Since prosecutrix was not supporting the case of prosecution, Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine her. In her cross examination, prosecutrix refused about any sexual assault having been committed by accused upon her person.
-:: Page 2 of 4 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
5. The prosecutrix, has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that Deep Chand @ Deepu has not committed any offence against her and thus has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
6. All the other witnesses to be examined in the present case are formal in nature as they are Doctors who have examined the prosecutrix or accused, Ld. MM who has recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses are the police officials who have taken part in the investigation of the present case. The only public witnesses to be examined by the prosecutrion is Mr. Panche Lal, husband of prosecutrix and even he is not the eye witness of any such offence , alleged to have been committed by the accused.
7. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the material witness has not supported the prosecution case and no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused. Once the incident in question has been denied by the prosecutrix, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.
8. Requirement of recording statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as nothing incriminating against him has come on record when the
-:: Page 3 of 4 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
prosecutrix has turned hostile & has stated that physical relations were established between her and the accused Deep Chand @ Deepu with her own consent.
9. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused Deep Chand @ Deepu had committed rape on the prosecutrix. Hence, accused Deep Chand @ Deepu is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under section 376 IPC.
10. As per provisions of 437A Cr.P.C, accused is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount. Accused be not released from the jail till furnishing of bonds or for further six months, whichever is earlier.
11. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 16.03.2017. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 4 of 4 ::-