Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh Tandon on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST,
NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0338382014
SC No.189/14 Date of assignment : 08.12.2014
FIR No. 97/14 Date on which arguments
PS. Jyoti Nagar were heard : 09.01.2015
U/S. 328/376/376(2)(n)/ Date of judgment : 09.01.2015
313/384/323/506/354B IPC
State Versus Suresh Tandon
S/o Late T. R. Tandon
R/o E-2/4/18, Sector-15, Rohini,
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix filed a written complaint dated 15.01.2014 at police station Jyoti Nagar against the accused. In her complaint, she made following allegations:-
(i) On 24.12.2012, she alongwith her one friend went to Kamla Nagar market. Her car collided with SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 1 of 18 another car which was driven by the accused and some altercation took place between them. Accused told the prosecutrix that he is in hurry and will get her car repaired. The prosecutrix gave her mobile phone number to the accused.
(ii) After three days, the accused made a call to the prosecutrix and stated that now he is ready to get her car repaired and he also intimated her the address of his office. Accordingly, next day at about 11.00 am in the morning, the prosecutrix went to the office of the accused where the accused asked for the key of the car of the prosecutrix and told her that his employee will get her repaired. The prosecutrix told the accused that she is in search of a job. Accused told her that she can join his company or he can search a good job for her. The prosecutrix gave her biodata to the accused. Thereafter the accused started speaking to the prosecutrix on phone and assured her that he will arrange a job for her. Prosecutrix also met the accused a number of times.
(iii) One day, the accused asked the prosecutrix to appear for interview in the company of his friend but the prosecutrix refused saying that she is busy with some work in connection with the air conditioner of her car. Accused told her that he is coming to pick up her. Accordingly the accused picked the prosecutrix from her house. On the SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 2 of 18 way, the accused told that the prosecutrix that he wanted to have some food as he is hungry. Accused went to McDonald restaurant and purchased some burgers and cold drinks. After consuming the same, the prosecutrix started feeling headache and giddiness. In the evening when she regained her consciousness, she found herself in a room. She was not having clothes on her body. At that time, accused was also present in the room. When the prosecutrix scolded the accused, he threatened to kill her if she will disclose the incident to any person. Accused had also made an obscene video film during the course of his sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He also showed her that video film. Thereafter the accused dropped the prosecutrix near her house and she reached her house. Thereafter accused started threatening the prosecutrix of putting her video film on the Internet and he repeatedly committed rape on her. Prosecutrix became pregnant and informed about her pregnancy to the accused. Accused called the prosecutrix to his office and made her consume some tablets by force due to which her pregnancy got terminated. The accused thereafter again made calls to the prosecutrix but the prosecutrix asked the accused not to harass her and not to make phone calls to her. The accused also assured the prosecutrix to return her video film. Accused also pressurised the prosecutrix to sign an SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 3 of 18 agreement. When the prosecutrix asked the accused to return her video, accused threatened to kill her. Thereafter the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother.
(iv) Prosecutrix further alleged that the accused also demanded Rs 20 lacs from the prosecutrix and due to fear of her reputation, mother of the prosecutrix agreed to pay amount to the accused. On 11.01.2014 accused came to the house of the prosecutrix and demanded money from them. The prosecutrix asked the accused to return her video film. Her mother kept the money in front of the accused but the accused said that the demanded amount is not complete. Mother of the prosecutrix assured him that she will pay the remaining amount in parts. Thereafter some argument took place between them and accused beat the mother of the prosecutrix and he also tried to tear the clothes of the prosecutrix. In the meantime, some colony people reached there. Accused also beat an aunt of the prosecutrix and thereafter he ran away from there.
2. On the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix, an FIR u/s 328/376/384 IPC and u/s 66(E) IT Act was got registered against the accused. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded by the learned MM on 12.02.2014.
SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 4 of 18
3. In the chargesheet, it is further averred that during hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused, the prosecutrix handed over a marriage contract agreement and an agreement of live-in relationship, twelve papers, twelve photographs, a CD containing video to the IO. On 27.02.2014, the accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and accused was formally arrested and he was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. The exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet under section 328/376/384 IPC was filed against the accused.
4. Since the major offence in this case was triable by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 02.12.2014, learned M.M. committed this case to the Court of Sessions and on allocation, it was assigned to this court.
5. Vide order dated 10.12.2014, a charge u/s 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/506/354-B IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 5 of 18 two witnesses i.e. prosecutrix as PW1 and Sh. Ravinder Kumar as PW2.
7. PW1(prosecutrix) is the material witness of this case. She has not supported the case of prosecution in her deposition. She has deposed that on 24.12.2012, she went to Kamla Nagar Market with her friend in her Honda City car which collided against the car of the accused. Some altercation took place between her and the accused. At that time, the accused provided his mobile phone number to the prosecutrix and he assured her to get her car repaired on some other day as he was in hurry. Prosecutrix has further deposed that after three days, she received a phone call from the accused and he told her that now he is ready to get her car repaired and called the prosecutrix to his office at Pitampura at 11.00 am on next day. Prosecutrix has further deposed that next day, she reached the office of accused and met the accused. She handed over the key of the car to him for repair of her car. In between, the prosecutrix and the accused started talking to each other. The prosecutrix informed the accused that she is in search of a job. Prosecutrix also deposed that the accused assured her to provide a job in his company or in some other company. Accordingly, she submitted her biodata to the accused. She has also deposed that she met SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 6 of 18 the accused several times at his office and she developed friendship with him. She has further deposed that she established physical relations with the accused of her own with free will and consent on several occasions. Prosecutrix deposed that due to this relationship, she became pregnant and she consumed some medicines of her own due to which her two months pregnancy got terminated. The prosecutrix further deposed that her uncles and an aunt came to know about her relationship with the accused and they asked her to demand Rs.28 or 30 lacs from the accused and hand over the money to them. She has also deposed that they also threatened her that if she will not demand money from the accused, they will disclose about her physical relations with the accused to her mother and other relatives. Prosecutrix has further deposed that when she refused to demand money, they pressurised her to lodge a complaint against the accused. Accordingly, she wrote a complaint under pressure and under dictation of uncles and aunt and handed over the same to the police. Prosecutrix has further deposed that due to lodging of complaint against the accused under pressure, she came under depression. Prosecutrix further deposed that she also made her statement to NGO Manav Jagriti Samiti on the pressure of above said uncles and aunt. She has further deposed that her statement under section 164 SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 7 of 18 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/C was got recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and she made that statement under pressure of her uncles and aunt which is not true and correct.
8. Prosecutrix has also deposed that on 27.02.2014 she reached at police station Jyoti Nagar and handed over e-stamp papers pertaining to her marriage contract agreement and agreement of live-in-relationship with the accused and also twelve photographs of accused alongwith a CD containing video recording to the police which were taken into possession by the police. She proved the documents handed over to the police as Ex. PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. She also deposed that she has cordial relations with the accused and she does not want any action against him as she has no grievance against him.
9. Since the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by the learned Addl. PP for the State. During her cross examination she denied that the accused brought burgers and some cold drinks from McDonald and after consuming the same she started feeling headache and giddiness. The prosecutrix further denied that when she regained consciousness, she found herself without clothes and accused was also SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 8 of 18 present in the room. She also denied that when she scolded the accused, he threatened to kill her. She denied that accused threatened to put her obscene video film which he had prepared at the time of their sexual intercourse on Internet if she will disclose the incident to any person. Prosecutrix further denied that the accused continued to make physical relations with her on the threat of putting video on Net. This witness further denied that in the month of March, she became pregnant and she informed the accused on telephone about her pregnancy. She further denied that accused forcibly made her consume some tablets due to which her pregnancy got terminated. She maintained that she had consumed medicine for termination of her pregnancy of her own. The prosecutrix denied that the accused told her he had prepared her video film. The prosecutrix denied that the accused forced her to sign one agreement by threatening to put her video film on Internet or by extending threats to kill her. Prosecutrix also denied that at the time of insisting to sign the agreement, accused demanded Rs.20 lacs from her. She also denied that to save her reputation her mother agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20 lacs to the accused. She maintained that accused never demanded any money from her or her family members. Prosecutrix further denied that on 11.01.2014, accused came to her house and demanded SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 9 of 18 money. She also denied that on that some altercation took place between her mother and the accused and he started abusing her and beat the prosecutrix and her mother. She also denied that the accused also misbehaved with her and attempted to tear her clothes. She also denied that in the meantime some colony people reached there and accused slapped her neighbour. She also stated that the accused never threatened her or her family members in any manner. She also deposed that the accused never made her obscene video film.
10. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused also. During her cross examination, the prosecutrix deposed that she and her family members were never beaten by the accused. She also stated that the accused never misbehaved with her. She again reiterated that she made physical relations with the accused with her consent and he never raped her. She further maintained that the accused never administered any intoxicating substance to her and he never attempted to tear her clothes. She also stated that the accused never threatened to kill her and never made her obscene video film. She admitted the suggestion on behalf of the accused that the accused never demanded any money from her. She maintained that she made the complaint SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 10 of 18 Ex.PW1/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C at the instance of her uncles and aunt which are not true. She also stated that her mother never paid any money to the accused. She further maintained that she consumed tablets for termination of her pregnancy of her own without any pressure of the accused.
11. PW2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar is the person in whose presence the prosecutrix handed over contract agreement and agreement of live-in relationship with the accused, twelve photographs of accused alongwith CD of video recording to the Investigating Officer. His testimony is not of much significance as the defence has not disputed handing over of the documents and CD by the prosecutrix to the IO. He did not say anything which incriminates the accused in any manner.
12. In the testimonies of PW1 (prosecutrix) and PW2, no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused to connect him with the charged offences. Perusal of chargesheet and material attached with the chargesheet would show that even during the pendency of the investigation, the prosecutrix had herself submitted documents and a CD favouring the accused to the Investigating Officer to show that the accused had physical SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 11 of 18 relations with the prosecutrix with her consent. The prosecutrix at the relevant time was about 25/26 years of age and in view of her statement that she made physical relations with the accused of her own volition, the evidence of the other witnesses was not going to be of any relevance. The remaining prosecution witnesses were the police officials who were involved in the investigation of this case, the doctors who medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused or the learned MM who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. or a Nodal Officer from Airtel Limited. None of these witnesses can have personal knowledge of the facts of this case. As the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining witnesses. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
13. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel and perused the record.
14. The accused is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under section 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/ 384/323/506/354-B IPC.
SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 12 of 18
15. As far as offence punishable u/s 376/376(2)(n) IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix maintained that she and the accused made physical relations with each other with her free will and consent on several occasions. During cross examination on behalf of State, the prosecutrix denied that the accused put some intoxicating substance in the burger and cold drink which was brought by him and after consuming the same she became unconscious and at that time accused committed rape on her. Prosecutrix also denied that the accused performed sexual intercourse with her repeatedly on the threat of putting her obscene video film on the Internet. During her cross examination on behalf of accused also the prosecutrix maintained that the accused made physical relations with her with as per her free will and consent and he never raped her.
16. As per the record, the prosecutrix is aged about 26 years and thus she was capable in law to give consent for sexual intercourse with any person. Under these circumstances, sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix perse would not amount to rape. As the acts of the sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix were with consent of the prosecutrix, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 13 of 18 376/376 (2)(n) IPC.
17. As far as offence punishable u/s 328 IPC is concerned, as noted above, the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused never administered any intoxicating substance to her at any time. She stated that she developed friendship with the accused and made physical relations with accused with her free will and consent. The photographs and CD placed on record by the prosecutrix alongwith chargesheet have been perused but these documents are of no help to the prosecution. These documents and CD clip cannot be considered as obscene in any manner. The prosecutrix is only seen sitting with the accused in these photographs while they were having tea/food. In view of nature of evidence which has come on record, accused is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 328 IPC.
18. As far as offence punishable u/s 313 IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix has deposed that she herself consumed some tablets for termination of her two months pregnancy and accused never pressurised her to consume any tablet for termination of her pregnancy. During her cross examination on behalf of accused, she also maintained that she had consumed tablets for termination SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 14 of 18 of her pregnancy of her own without any pressure and instigation of the accused. Under these circumstances, there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence punishable u/s 313 IPC. Thus accused is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 313 IPC.
19. The accused is also facing trial for the commission of offence of extortion punishable u/s 384 IPC. During evidence, the prosecutrix deposed that the accused never made any obscene film and he never demanded any money from her or her family members. During her cross examination conducted on behalf of State also she maintained that the accused never demanded any money from her and she never paid Rs.1,00,000/- to 1,50,000/- to the accused on his demand in lieu of return of her video film. It is not the case of the prosecution that any obscene film or photograph was recovered during investigation or at any other time from the accused. As noted above, there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence punishable u/s 384 IPC. Thus accused is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 384 IPC.
20. As far as offence punishable u/s 506 IPC SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 15 of 18 concerned, the prosecutrix deposed that the accused never threatened to kill her and her family members or to put her video film on Internet. She also deposed that the accused never threatened to show her video film to the public. She stated that the accused never made her obscene film. Under these circumstances, there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence punishable u/s 506 IPC also. Thus accused is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC.
21. The accused is also facing trial for the commission of offence punishable u/s 354B IPC. In her testimony, the prosecutrix has denied the allegation that on 11.01.2014 accused came to her house and tried to tear her clothes. She also denied that the accused administered her some intoxicating substance in burger and cold drink and thereafter he committed rape on her during her unconsciousness state. She also denied that when she regained her consciousness, she found herself without clothes. Thus there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence of intentionally disrobing her. In view of nature of evidence which has come on record, accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 354B IPC.
SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 16 of 18
22. As far as offence punishable u/s 323 IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix has deposed that she made her complaint and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C only on the pressure of her uncles and aunt and accused had never beaten her or her family members or any neighbour person. She also deposed that the accused never misbehaved with her. The MLC dated 11.02.2014 of the prosecutrix records that no physical injury was found except a few cigarette burn scars on her person. The prosecutrix in her evidence has nowhere deposed that the accused caused any burn marks with cigarette on her person. Under these circumstances, accused cannot be connected with the alleged burn injuries marks. Thus accused is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC.
23. In view of above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/506/354B IPC. Thus, the accused is acquitted of the offences SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 17 of 18 punishable under section 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/ 506/354B IPC.
24. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 09.01.2015 (SARITA BIRBAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 18 of 18