Delhi District Court
State vs . Gurvinder Singh on 14 October, 2016
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. : 49/16
STATE
versus
Gurvinder Singh,
son of Sh. Jagbir Singh,
R/o WZ10A, Ground Floor, Gali no. 5,
Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, N. Delhi.
FIR No. : 922/2015
Offence U/S : 376/506 IPC
Police Station : Tilak Nagar
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE AFTER
COMMITTAL:12/04/2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:14/10/2016
JUDGMENT
1.Accused Gurvinder Singh has been charge sheeted by Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi for the offence under section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that prior to 18.06.2015 at DDA Flats, Tilak Vihar , 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 19.05.2016,
-:: Page 1 of 5 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
charge for offence under section 376/506 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1. PW2 Dr. Naved, CMO, DDU Hospital.
4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with Inderjit Singh about 1012 years ago and she is blessed with two daughters from Mr. Inderjit Singh, who had expired. Her both daughters were kept by her in laws and she started residing with her parents at Tilak Nagar, Delhi. She further stated that she was knowing accused Gurvinder Singh as he was residing in the same locality. She further stated that she wanted to marry accused but he refused and therefore, due to anger she lodged a report at the P.S. Tilak Nagar against him. It is specifically stated by witness that accused had not established any physical relations with her forcibly or on the false promise of marriage and she was never threatened by the accused. She further proved the complaint Ex. PW1/A and she submits that she was taken to DDU Hospital and her MLC is Ex. PW1/B. In the crossexamination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP, she has categorically stated that she was angry with accused as he refused to marry her & due to anger she lodged the present complaint against the accused.
5. PW2 Dr. Naved , CMO of DDU Hospital stated that on 18.06.2015 proecutrix was brought for medical examination
-:: Page 2 of 5 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
and he referred the patient to duty Gyne department. He further stated that he prepared MLC no. 155 Ex. PW1/B.
6. The prosecutrix, has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and thus has not deposed anything incriminating against 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, thus prosecution evidence was closed. PW2 is the Doctor who had prepared MLC of the prosecutrix . All other witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been part of investigation. 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 under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, of the accused is dispensed with as nothing incriminating against him has come on record when the prosecutrix is hostile & has stated that physical relations were not established between her and the accused forcibly or under false promise and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
9. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the
-:: Page 3 of 5 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused Gurvinder Singh had committed rape on the prosecutrix. Hence, accused Gurvinder Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under section 376/506 of the IPC. His personal bond is extended for further six months u/s. 437A Cr.P.C on same terms and conditions.
10. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 14th October, 2016. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 4 of 5 ::-
FIR No : 922/15 State Vs. Gurvinder Singh PS: Tilak Nagar 14.10.2016 Present: Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P. for State.
Accused present on bail.
PW IO/SI Renuka is stated to be on medical rest from 11.10.2016. PW Ms. Shilpi is not served.
In the present case, prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. She is star witness of present case. Hence, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by examining remaining witnesses, hence prosecution evidence is closed.
Requirement of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused.
Vide my separate judgment, the accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 376 IPC. As per provisions of order 437 AIPC, bail bond of accused is extended for further six months.
File be consigned to record room.
(Shail Jain) (Shail Jain ASJ(Special Fast Track Court)01 West, THC, Delhi 14/10/2016