Delhi District Court
Sc No.3/14 State vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 1 Of 6 on 11 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET
COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID NO. 02406R0002592014
SESSIONS CASE NO. 3/14
FIR NO. 296/13
POLICE STATION : SARITA VIHAR
UNDER SECTION : 376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
SHYAM @ BEERU
S/O SEHDEV SINGH,
R/O H.NO. 316, CHAUHAN MOHALLA,
MADANPUR KHADAR, NEW DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.12.2013.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 11.08.2014.
DATE OF DECISION : 11.08.2014.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.08.2013 Smt. Nirja Kumari W/o Sh. Uday Prakash R/o H.No. 446, Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar along with her husband and daughter 'A' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) came to police station and gave her statement that on 10.08.2013 one boy namely Beeru, who SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 1 of 6 resides in their neighbourhood, had committed rape. On this, SI Adrina Topo recorded the statement of complainant/prosecutrix 'A' who stated that she resides with her parents and studies in 10th class in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Madanpur Khadar. On 10.08.2013 at around 10 AM she was going on foot to Coaching Center, CHS, Madanpur Khadar.
When she reached at Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Madanpur Khadar, accused Beeru @ Shyam met her and asked her to sit on his motorcycle. She told her to accompany him to Peer Baba Mandir and stated that he will drop her for tuition classes within 10 minutes. She sat on his motorcycle. Accused Beeru took her to a jungle between Ali Gaon and Madanpur Khadar. He then stopped the motorcycle and committed rape with her forcibly and thereafter left her in the jungle and ran away from the spot. She returned back to her home on foot. She did not disclose anything to anybody due to fear of accused Beeru. Subsequently after building up her strength, she disclosed the incident to her father and came to police station and reported the matter to the police. Case was registered and prosecutrix 'A' was medically examined. Exhibits were taken into possession. Prosecutrix 'A' was produced before the NGO and her counseling was got conducted. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant/prosecutrix 'A'. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C got recorded. Accused was arrested. Exhibits were sent to FSL for examination. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act was filed against the accused in the court.
SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 2 of 6Charge against the accused:
2. Prima facie case under section 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge under Section 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
4. PW1 is prosecutrix 'A' herself. She has stated that accused present in the court is her neighbour in Madanpur Khadar and they both belong to the same village in District Farookabad, UP. They both often used to talk to each other as they were native fellows. They became good friends and often used to go for outings. During their friendship accused proposed to prosecutrix, which she accepted. On 10.08.2013, she called Shyam/accused and planned to go to the temple and from there they went for the outings on motorcycle. She stated that their family members were aware that they often used to go for outings. They were also aware of their friendship and love affairs but on 10.08.2013 she became late in coming home so her parents scolded her and asked her to make a complaint against the accused which she reluctantly agreed under the pressure of her parents. Her parents called up the police who enquired from her about the case. She stated that police had not recorded her statement in this case. During examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 3 of 6 APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material came in the cross examination.
5. PW2 is Ms. Niraja who stated that she knows accused Shyam present in the court as his family and accused family resides in Madanpur Khadar, hails from same village in Uttarpradesh. They have visiting terms at Madanpur Khadar. Her daughter/prosecutrix 'A' and accused often used to talk to each other and were good friends and often used to go together for outings etc. On 10.08.2013, her daughter had gone to her coaching classes and did not return home for long time. When she returned late in the night, they questioned her at which she told that she voluntarily accompanied the accused on a motorcycle and moving around the markets and shopping complexes in Delhi. As they did not like her stay for late in the night, out of anger they reported the matter to the police. She stated that she does not know anything else about the case.
During examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material came in the cross examination.
6. PW3 is Sh. Uday Prakash Singh who deposed that he knows the accused Shyam present in the court. His family as well as family of accused resides in Madanpur Khadar and their families hail from the same village in Uttarpradesh. In Madanpur Khadar also their families have visiting terms. His daughter 'A' and the accused often used to talk to each other and were good friends and often used to go together for outings etc. On 10.08.2013, his daughter had gone to her coaching classes and did not return home for long time. When she returned late in the night, on questioning her she told that she voluntarily accompanied the SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 4 of 6 accused on a motorcycle and moving around the markets and shopping complexes in Delhi. As they did not like her stay for late in the night, out of anger they reported the matter to the police. He stated that he does not know anything else about the case. During examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material came in the cross examination.
Conclusion:
7. Perusal of the file reveals that PW1 to PW3 are the only star witnesses of this case who all have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. PW1 prosecutrix 'A' has stated that she and the accused often used to talk to each other and used to go for outings and on 10.08.2013 she called up the accused and planned to go to temple and from the temple they went for outing on motorcycle. She became late so her parents scolded her and made a complaint. In her cross examination by the APP, she has denied that the accused asked her to sit on the motorcycle on pretext of going to a temple and took her to a jungle where he forcefully committed rape with her. She has stated that infact accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her and whatever she has stated to the police or to the doctor or to the Magistrate, it was at the instance of the police. She has also stated that she was more than 18 years on the day of reporting the matter but her father got recorded her less age in the school records in order to secure admission. On the similar lines, mother of the prosecutrix PW2 and father of the prosecutrix PW3 have deposed. They have also not supported the case of prosecution and stated that as they did not like the stay of late in the night of their daughter, out of anger SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 5 of 6 they reported the matter to the police. Since PW1 to PW3 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution, it is futile to record the statement of remaining formal witnesses because even if the statements of remaining witnesses are recorded it cannot bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, prosecution evidence stands closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, accused Shyam @ Beeru is acquitted of the offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC.
9. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, accused is directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that he shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any.
10. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.08.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR ) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI SC No.3/14 State Vs Shyam @ Beeru Page No. 6 of 6