Delhi District Court
State vs . Javed on 29 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02, DISTRICT
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Javed
FIR No. 273/16
PS. Mayur Vihar
U/s. 377 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 1221/17
2) The date of commission of offence : 14.07.2016
3) The name of the complainant : 'S' (Name withheld to
conceal identity of the
victim).
4) The name & parentage of accused : Javed
s/o Abdul Wahid
5) Offence involved : 377 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 29.06.2019
Date of Institution : 23.11.2016
Judgment reserved on : 29.06.2019
Judgment announced on : 29.06.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 1 of 6
1. The FIR No.273/16 was registered on the basis of statement Ex. PW1/A dated 15.07.2016 made by the complainant 'S' to the effect that on 14.07.2016 at about 8.00 PM at 29 Block, Trilok Puri, Delhi accused Javed had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with her and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 377 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 377 IPC was filed by the IO and the accused was consequently summoned. Charge for the offences punishable U/sec. 377 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 complainant Ms. 'S' deposed that she did not remember the date, month or year of the incident. She and the accused who were married at that time had a quarrel. That she went to the police station and several other persons from her neighborhood had also accompanied her. That she made a complaint mentioning the quarrel to the police. That she had not made any other complaint except quarrel to the police.
Ld. APP for State sought permission to crossexamine the witness on the ground that she was resiling from her statement made to the police. During her crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, she admitted that statement Ex. PW1/A bearing her signatures however she could not FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 2 of 6 tell the contents of the said complaint. She admitted that she had also lodged a complaint against the accused u/s 376 IPC vide FIR No.199/13. She admitted that the said case was got quashed from the High Court of Delhi after she and the accused got married. She denied telling the police that accused remaining good till the pendency of the case but thereafter he ran away. She denied the suggestion that said complaint she had mentioned that the accused used to leave her company and then to return or that she used to permit him to live with her considering his apologies. She admitted that she and the accused lived in a rented accommodation in Block No.29. She denied the suggestion that she had told the police that on 14.07.2016 at about 8 PM accused returned or that he established physical relations with her. She denied the suggestion that she had told the police that he had committed carnal intercourse against nature with her on that day. She could not tell the police that due to such relation she suffered bleeding and was not in a position to visit the police station on that day and thereafter had visited the police station on the subsequent day. She admitted that she was medically examined in the LBS Hospital on that day. She admitted that the site plan Ex.PW1/B bears her signature but told that she did not know who had prepared it. She admitted that copy of the statement Ex.PW1/C bears her signatures. She denied the suggestion that accused had forcibly aborted her child when she was pregnant by giving her some medicine. She denied the suggestion that accused had done carnal intercourse with her forcibly. She denied the suggestion that accused had left the house after committing the carnal intercourse. She denied the suggestion that accused had destroyed her life and caused her FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 3 of 6 a lot of suffering. She stated that she did not know if any of her clothes were seized at the LBS Hospital. She denied the suggestion that she was not deposing correctly or that she has settled the matter with the accused or that she had been won over by the accused.
5. PW2 W/Ct. Kavita deposed that on 15.07.2016 she was posted at PS Mayur Vihar as Constable. On that day she was sitting on woman help desk when at about 4 PM one lady came to the PS, who was not looking well. The SHO concerned was informed about the situation. Thereafter SHO deputed SI Rekha as IO of the case. Thereafter she alongwith complainant and her mother and IO SI Rekha went to the LBS Hospital for medical examination of the complainant on ERV Van. IO had requested the medical officer for medical examination of the complainant. That one lady from NGO also arrived at the hospital and counseled the complainant. Thereafter MLC of the complainant was prepared and two sealed pullandas alongwith MLC were handed over by the concerned doctor to her. Thereafter they returned to the PS. IO had sealed the pullandas vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. The counselor of the NGO had handed over one report to the IO.
6. In the present case, the PW1, who is the only material witnesses and who also happened to be the victim in the present case, has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The witnesses remaining to be examined were concerned with the material aspect of the case and their testimonies could not connect the accused with the alleged FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 4 of 6 offence. Hence vide order dt. 29.06.2019, PE was closed and the matter was fixed for statements of accused.
7. Statements of the accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him in toto and submitted that he has been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld counsel for the accused and have also perused the record.
9. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
10. In the instant case the most material witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution were the victim namely the complainant. This witness has been examined by the prosecution but before the court she did not support the case of the prosecution. She has not deposed anything to prove the allegations of the prosecution that the accused had committed carnal intercourse with her against the order of nature. Even in the cross FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 5 of 6 examination of the said witness conducted by Ld. APP, nothing material could have been elicited which could connect the accused with the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the case of the prosecution has not been proved before the court.
11. As a consequence of the abovesaid discussion, the allegations pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC against the accused stand not proved. Accordingly accused Javed is acquitted of the said offence. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed
JITENDRA by JITENDRA
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2019.07.01
SINGH 16:33:24 +0530
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH)
on 29th day of June, 2019 MM2/East/KKD Courts
Delhi
FIR No.273/16 State Vs Javed 6 of 6