Delhi District Court
"State Of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) ... vs . on 20 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case No. 268/2017
State V Vijay Singh s/o Ram Singh, r/o 44, T
Huts, Rani Jhansi Road, Motia Khan,
Delhi.
FIR No. 274/2016
U/s 376 (2)(n)/506/313/323 IPC
Police Station Pahar Ganj
Assigned to Sessions 10.04.2017
Charges framed on 24.04.2017
Arguments heard on 12.10.2018
Judgment pronounced on 20.10.2018
Decision Acquittal
JUDGMENT :
1. That, the case of prosecution is, the Station House Officer of Police Station
Pahar Ganj had filed a challan vide FIR No.274/2016 dated 09.07.2016 u/s.
376/506 IPC for the prosecution of accused Vijay Singh in the court of ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207
Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track
Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the
Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in
"State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs.
State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being
disclosed in the judgment.
Case No.268/2017
State Vs. Vijay Singh 1/21
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. That, in this case criminal law was set into motion on the basis of statement of prosecutrix 'M' dated 09.07.2016 Ex.PW1/A and FIR No.274/2016 u/s 376/506 IPC was registered. In her statement, prosecutrix had narrated that on 16.04.2014, she got married with Arjun @ Kalu and she knew accused Vijay from earlier. After her marriage, accused Vijay started harassing her and also instigated her husband and in laws due to which her husband left her. She also alleged that accused established physical relationship with her several times including on 06.04.2016, 10.04.2016, 06.05.2016 and 15.05.2016 and he lastly committed sexual intercourse with her on 06.07.2016. She alleged that accused had raped her sometime in house of her friends, some time in car and sometime in Azmal Khan park. She also alleged that in June'2015 and on 23.04.2016, accused got her pregnancy terminated and thereafter, family members of accused also threatened her.
3. That, during investigation, W/SI Devender Kaur prepared Rukka on 09.07.2016 and got the case registered. She got the prosecutrix counselled. She inspected the place of incident and prepared site plan and arrested the accused on the identification of prosecutrix.
4. That, W/SI Devender Kaur taken the prosecutrix to Lady Harding Medical College on 08.07.2016 where she was medically examined.
5. That, on 09.07.2016, accused was arrested and he was also medically examined in the RML Hospital and on 14.07.2016 his potency test was conducted from RML Hospital and his blood sample was taken.
Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 2/216. That, on 15.07.2016, statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by Ms. Ambika Singh, Ld. MM.
7. That, during the course of investigation, exhibits were sent o FSL Rohini and chargesheet was filed in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. During course of trial, I.O. of the case has also filed the FSL report in the court.
CHARGE:
8. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 24.04.2017 framed charges against accused Vijay Singh for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(n)/506/313/323 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
9. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 12 witnesses namely PW1 ASI Jaswant Singh, PW2 Prosecutrix 'M', PW3 W/Ct. Anju, PW4 Ct. Shaitan, PW5 HC Sanjeev, PW6 ASI Jal Singh, PW7 Dr. Gargi, PW8 Dr. Rahul Sharma, PW9 Dr. Sahana, PW10 Ms. Ambika Singh, ld. MM, PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur and PW12 W/SI Suman.
PWs Name of the Nature of the Documents proved
Witness witness
Case No.268/2017
State Vs. Vijay Singh 3/21
PW1 ASI Jaswant Police HHe has proved the recording of
Singh Witness
FIR vide Ex.PW1/B.
PW2 Prosecutrix 'M' Complainant She has proved her statement
Ex.PW1/A. She has proved her
MLC vide MarkA. She has
proved her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW2/A.
PW3 W/Ct. Anju Police W/Ct. Anju had taken the
Witness prosecutrix to Lady Harding
Medical for her medical
examination conducted and she
was medically examined vide
MLC MarkA. The examining
doctor of the prosecutrix had also
prepared sexual assault kit and
handed over the same to her
alongwith sample seal which she
handed over to the IO, who seized
the same vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/A bearing her signature
at point A.
PW4 Ct. Shaitan Police He has taken the accused to RML
witness Hospital for his medical
examination where doctor on duty
obtained his blood samples and
handed over the same to him
which was taken into possession
by I.O. vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/A.
PW5 HC Sanjeev Police He has taken the sealed pullandas
witness from the MHC(M) and deposited
the same at FSL, Rohini. He
deposited the receipt of FSL with
MHC(M).
PW6 ASI Jal Singh Police He deposed that W/SI Davinder
witness Kaur has deposited sealed
Case No.268/2017
State Vs. Vijay Singh 4/21
MHC(M) pullandas pertaining tot he
present case at the malkhana. He
has made relevant entry in register
No.19 vide serial no.3715 and
proved the copy of the said entry
vide Ex.PW6/A.
He deposed that
PW7 Dr. Gargi Medical She did the medical examination
witness of prosecutrix vide MLC
Ex.PW7/A.
PW8 Dr. Rahul Medical He has proved the MLC of
Sharma witness accused vide Ex.PW8/A on behalf
of Dr. Anant Prakash Tripathi.
PW9 Dr. Sahana Medical She has conducted the medical
witness examination of accused vide MLC
Ex.PW9/A.
PW10 Ms. Ambika Ld. MM She has recorded the statement of
Singh prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide
Ex.PW2/A.
PW11 W/SI Devender Police She has deposed on the lines of
Kaur Witness investigation. She has proved
statement of prosecutrix vide
Ex.PW1/A. She has got conducted
the prosecutrix medically
examined from Lady Hardinge
Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW7/A.
The doctor who had conducted
medical examination of the
prosecutrix had handed over her
the exhibits pertaining to her in
sealed condition alongwith sample
seal and she seized the same vide
MLC Ex.PW3/A.
During the course of
investigation, she has arrested the
accused vide arrest memo
Case No.268/2017
State Vs. Vijay Singh 5/21
Ex.PW11/A and proved the
personal search of the accused
vide memo Ex.PW11/B. She also
interrogated the accused and
recorded his disclosure statement
Ex.PW11/C. She got the statement
of prosecutrix under section 164
Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A recorded vide
her application already
Ex.PW10/A.
She further deposed that she had
got the potency test of the accused
conducted vide MLC Ex.PW8/A.
Accused was produced at RML
Hospital from jail pursuant to the
order of the court for potency test
on her application Ex.PW11/D.
She had taken into possession the
blood sample of the accused in
sealed condition alongwith sample
seal and she seized the same vide
seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A.
She had also prepared site plan
Ex.PW11/E at the instance of
prosecutrix on the day when FIR
was registered.
PW12 W/SI Suman Police She has has finalized the charge
witness/Inves sheet and filed the same in the
tigating court. She deposed that no
Officer material investigation of this case
was done by her.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
10. That, after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the incriminating evidence put to the accused and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him.
Accused claimed that he is innocent and prosecutrix was pressurizing him to Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 6/21 marry her. He had also made complaint against her in this regard and a Panchayat took place in this regard and in the Panchayat it was decided that prosecutrix should not maintain any contact with him and she was harassing him unnecessarily and wanted to marry him one sided, whereas he was not interested to marry with her. He further claimed that all the incidents of rape alleged by the prosecutrix are false and concocted. Accused has preferred to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
11. Accused has examined defence evidence i.e. DW1 Smt. Vimla, DW2 Raju, DW3 Sh. Phoolia, DW4 Sh. Sandeep and DW5 Sh. Yash Kumar.
12. DW1 Smt. Vimla deposed that she is Pradhan of Ram Nagar area, Jhandewalan, Delhi. She further deposed that four four and a half years before from today prosecutrix used to obstruct the way of accused and used to misbehave with him. She does not remember the date, month and year, however she had called mother of the prosecutrix and some social persons and discussed as to why prosecutrix had been obstructed the way of accused. The parents of the prosecutrix stated to prosecutrix that if she would not improve her conduct they would marry her with some other. They performed her marriage.
13. She further deposed that after her marriage prosecutrix stayed in her matrimonial house for couple of days and left to her parental house and that one day she asked her if everything was good, she told her that her husband was not of her choice. She further told her that as she was before marriage she was same at that time. She further deposed that Two - two and a half years Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 7/21 back from today parents of accused stopped her in the Gali. They made complaint to her that even after marriage prosecutrix had been harassing accused. She made understand the prosecutrix that now she was married and she should not do such act. Prosecutrix replied that she may commit suicide but she would not spare accused and she was insisting to marry accused.
Thereafter, she filed the present case against the accused. She further deposed that when she asked the prosecutrix as to why she had filed the present case against the accused, she told her that she would get lodged more cases against him and she told her that when the accused had told her that he was married (he had not brought his wife after marriage), she asked her as to why she had been stopping the way of the accused. She further told her that she would do the same and she do not want to go to her matrimonial home. She asked her when her husband was not as per her choice why she did marry with him, she told her that it was as per the choice of her parents and not of her.
14. On being cross examined by Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhasin, Ld. Substitute APP for State, she deposed that today, she has not brought any document proving herself as Pradhan. She stated that she is Prachar Mantri of Congress (I) Party. She had denied to the suggestion that she has deposed falsely that fourfour and a half years ago from today prosecutrix used to obstruct the way of accused and used to misbehaved with him or that she has deposed falsely that prosecutrix had once told her that her husband was not of her choice.
15. She had denied to the suggestion that she know the fact that accused had even prior to the marriage of prosecutrix raped her or that she also know the fact that accused had prepared obscene video of prosecutrix or that on the instigation of accused, husband of prosecutrix had left her society or that accused had on Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 8/21 number of times raped prosecutrix or that she is not holding any post as Pradhan or that she has not appeared today voluntarily.
16. DW2 Raju deposed that he is a bullockcart driver and earn his livelihood by transporting goods on bullockcart. He belong to Rajput Chauhan caste and he is the responsible persons in his locality.
17. He further deposed that at about four and a half years ago a complaint had come in his notice by the father of accused that prosecutrix of this case used to stop accused on his way many a times. He further deposed that prosecutrix was in one side love with the accused, whereas accused was already a married person. He had called prosecutrix and her parents and her parents had assured him that they would persuade the prosecutrix not to behave in that manner with accused. Prosecutrix was also married and she was insisting for her marriage with accused for which he did not agree for such illegal proposal. Prosecutrix threatened that she would implicate the accused in a false case if she would not marry with the accused.
18. He further deposed that at about two and a half years from today before registration of this case again accused Vijay and his father made complaint to him regarding misbehaviour of the prosecutrix in the aforesaid manner. Again he had called prosecutrix with her parents but she was not ready to hear anything except insisting to marry with the accused. He further deposed that accused has not done any wrong act with the prosecutrix and he is innocent and respectable person of area. He had also gone to police station but his version was not recorded by the police.
Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 9/2119. On being cross examined by Sh. M. Zafar Khan, Ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that he know the accused and his family for the last about 15 years. He had denied to the suggestion that he has deposed falsely today at the instance of the accused to save him or that accused had raped prosecutrix several times and also got her marriage broken with her husband.
20. DW3 Sh. Phoolia deposed that he is a bullockcart driver and earn his livelihood by transporting goods on bullockcart. He belongs to Rajput Chauhan caste and he is one of the responsible persons in his locality.
21. He further deposed that at about 05 years ago a complaint had come in the notice of his brother namely Raju by the father of accused that prosecutrix of this case used to stop accused on his way many a times. Prosecutrix was in one side love with the accused, whereas accused was already a married person. He alongwith his brother had called prosecutrix and her parents and her parents had assured them that they would persuade the prosecutrix not to behave in that manner with accused. Prosecutrix was also married and she was insisting for her marriage with accused for which they did not agree for such illegal proposal. Prosecutrix threatened that she would implicate the accused in a false case if she would not marry with the accused.
22. He further deposed that at about two and a half years from today before registration of this case again accused Vijay and his father made complaint to them regarding misbehaviour of the prosecutrix in the aforesaid manner. Again they had called prosecutrix with her parents but she was not ready to hear anything except insisting to marry with the accused.
Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 10/2123. He further deposed that accused has not done any wrong act with the prosecutrix and he is innocent and respectable person of area. He alongwith his brother Raju had also gone to police station but his version was not recorded by the police.
24. On being cross examined by Sh. M. Zafar Khan, Ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that he know the accused and his family for the last about 16 years. He further denied to the suggestion that he has deposed falsely today at the instance of the accused to save him or that accused had raped prosecutrix several times and also got her marriage broken with her husband.
25. DW4 Sh. Sandeep has deposed that accused Vijay present in court is his friend for last about 8 to 10 years. He deposed that in the year 2016, accused had told him that prosecutrix was harassing her and on that issue a Panchayat was held, which he had attended. Father of accused had told him that he was in fear of the prosecutrix.
26. He further deposed that prosecutrix had called them at Jhandewalan Temple to sort out the matter. Prosecutrix insisted upon him that she would be got married with accused. When he told her that when accused was already married, but she again insisted that she does not know anything and she would marry accused. He with the help of his friend got the video conversation recorded in his mobile phone. He has proved the transcript of the same was converted into a CD by Yash Kumar vide Ex.DW4/A
27. DW5 Sh. Yash Kumar has deposed that on 08.08.2018, one Sandeep had come in his Chamber No.47, First Floor, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court. He had Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 11/21 brought a mobile phone make Samsung to get converted the facts into a CD from his mobile. He has proved the CD vide Ex.DW4/A and certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act against preparation of aforesaid CD from his computer vide Ex.DW5/A. ARGUMENTS:
28. Ld. counsel for accused argued and submitted that prosecutrix had made material improvement in her testimony when she has stated that she was hit by beer bottle on her head and sustained stitches. This fact she has not mentioned in her complaint, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
29. Ld. counsel for accused further submitted that there is no medical scientific evidence to connect the accused with alleged incident of rape as stated by prosecutrix.
30. It is further submitted by counsel for accused that it is very strange that a lady who had been subjected to forcible rape by accused on several occasions would not call the police or disclose the same to her relative or parents. Prosecutrix has also made contradictions regarding the date of abortion given by her in complaint to the police and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
31. It is further submitted by counsel for accused that prosecution has not come out with clean hands when they dropped three prosecution witnesses who were examined by the accused in his defence and they have stated about the correct fact of the case to unearth the truth of the matter. Further, nothing material has been brought on record by cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. On these grounds, ld. counsel for accused has prayed that accused may kindly be Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 12/21 acquitted.
32. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that PW2 Prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution against the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on account of threat of making her video which he never returned to prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has also specifically stated that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly on many occasions by blackmailing her on account of her video. She has specifically stated that accused on 06.07.2016 at about 6:30 p.m. had committed rape in the bushes of Azmal Khan Park, Karol Bagh and there is no reason why the testimony of prosecutrix should not be believed. As such, accused may be convicted.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
33. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A present FIR Ex.PW1/B was registered against the accused.
34. It is further revealed that on 08.07.2016 PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur was present in PS Paharganj; PW2 prosecutrix alongwith her mother came to PS Paharganj; statement of prosecutrix, Ex.PW1/A was recorded; PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur prepared rukka on the statement of PW2 prosecutrix and gave it to Duty Officer for registration of FIR.
35. It is further revealed that on 09.07.2016 PW1 ASI Jaswant Singh recorded FIR, Ex.PW1/B and made his endorsement, Ex.PW1/C on the rukka; he also gave a certificate Ex.PW1/D under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 13/21 correct contents of computerized copy of FIR. It is further revealed that on 08.07.2016 IO PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur alongwith PW3 W/Ct. Anju took prosecutrix to Lady Hardinge Medical College And Hospital where PW7 Dr. Gargi examined her vide MLC Ex.PW7/A and IO seized the exhibits of clothes, blood sample and sexual kit prepared by the doctor vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/A.
36. It is further revealed that on 09.07.2016 PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur visited the spot of incident and prepared site plan, Ex.PW11/A and thereafter she alongwith Ct. Neeraj reached at home of accused bearing No. 44T, Rani Jhansi Road, Motia Khan, Paharganj, Delhi; accused was arrested in the case vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A, his personal search Ex.PW11/B was conducted; his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/C was recorded.
37. It is further revealed that PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur alongwith Ct. Neeraj took accused to Lady Hardinge Medical College And Hospital, where he was medically examined by PW9 Dr. Sahana who prepared his MLC Ex.PW9/A; thereafter accused was were referred to department Urology for further examination. On 14.07.2016 IO PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur alongwith PW4 Ct. Shaitan took accused to RML Hospital, where Dr. Anant Prakash Tripathi examined accused regarding his potency vide MLC Ex.PW8/A and also took his blood sample which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A; PW8 Dr. Rahul Sharma, Head of the Department, RML Hospital proved the contents of MLC Ex.PW8/A prepared by Dr. Anant Prakash Tripathi being aware of his handwriting and signature.
Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 14/2138. It is further revealed that on 15.07.2016 IO PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur produced the prosecutrix in the court of Ms. Ambika Singh, Ld. M.M., Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and moved application Ex.PW10/A for recording statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A; it was recorded by PW10 Ms. Ambika Singh, Ld. M.M.; IO also obtained copy of the said statement on her application Ex.PW10/B.
39. It is further revealed that PW6 ASI Jal Singh deposed that on 09.07.2016 he deposited sealed pullandas of this case in the Malkhana vide entry no. 3715, Ex.PW6/A of register no. 19; on 14.07.2016 he also deposited pullanda containing blood sample of accused which was deposited vide entry no. 3739, Ex.PW6/B of register no. 19.
40. It is further revealed that on 02.08.2016 PW6 ASI Jal Singh on the directions of IO PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur handed over the exhibits of this case to PW5 HC Sanjeev (then constable) vide RC No.78/21/16, Ex.PW6/C and PW5 HC Sanjeev deposited the same in the office of FSL and he obtained acknowledgement from the office of FSL and gave the same to MHC(M) on his return. It is further revealed that PW11 W/SI Davinder Kaur after obtaining result of FSL of this case filed the same in the court which FSL result Ex.A1 (admitted document) was admitted by accused.
41. Before reaching at any conclusion, let the relevant sections i.e. 376 (2)
(n)/506/313/323 IPC be reproduced, which are as under: Section 376 (2) (n) IPC:
(2) Whoever,
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 15/21 natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 506 IPC:
Punishment criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 323 IPC:
Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 313 IPC:
Causing miscarriage without woman's consent.Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
42. Having heard the submissions made by ld. counsel for the accused as well as ld. Addl. PP for the State and after gone through the case file as well as the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the accused in his defence, this court is of the considered view that the FIR u/s 376/506 IPC was registered on the complaint of the complainant who is PW2 herein and in that complaint she has stated that she got marry on 16.04.2014 with Arjun @ Kalu and she know accused before her marriage who has made physical relation with the prosecutrix from 2014 to 2016 on several times without her consent and accused has instigated her husband and her in laws and because of this, after three days of her marriage, her husband left the prosecutrix in matrimonial home and thereafter, did not take away and also did not allow her to live in the house of her husband. It has also been stated that while doing sexual intercourse without consent with the prosecutrix, some obscene videos and Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 16/21 photographs has been made by the accused and she had been threatened by the accused that he will made the said obscene videos and photographs of the prosecutrix public and because of the physical relation with the accused, she become pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated by the accused in June'2015 and 23.04.2016 by giving some tablets but when she appeared in the witness box she has stated that in the year 2013, the date and month not remember to the prosecutrix and accused came to her jhuggi and caught hold her and took her to adjoining jhuggi forcibly and committed sexual intercourse with her and also made the obscene video and taken photographs.
43. That, the allegations are that when she became pregnant two times, the pregnancy was terminated by accused by giving some tablets to the prosecutrix but there is no evidence in this regard. It is worth mentioning that there is no medical record nor the prosecution has been able to place on record or to prove the same that the pregnancy of prosecutrix was got terminated by the accused by giving some tablets to the prosecutrix.
44. That, the prosecutrix has reiterated the statement made to the police in complaint in her examination in chief and she has also improved her statement and deposed that accused had also hit her with the bottle of beer on her head and stitches applied on her head due to that injury and she made call at 100 number and her MLC was prepared and case was registered on the complaint of the complainant against the accused but the complainant/prosecutrix has not been able to place on record any documentary proof for registration of case FIR in respect of the assault allegedly caused by the accused upon the prosecutrix nor any evidence has been led by the prosecution in this regard. That in the complaint the prosecutrix has mentioned that in the year 2014 the accused had Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 17/21 committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent but when she appeared in court in witness box and has deposed that she was raped by the accused in year 2013 and this is the material improvement as well as material contradictions in the statement made by the prosecutrix before the police as well as examination in chief recorded in the court.
45. It has also been deposed by the prosecutrix that accused had committed rape with her once in the park and in the car of his friend but the description of the car and the name of the friend of accused is not known to the prosecutrix and prosecutrix even not able to tell the date and time of having sex by the accused without her consent in the car of friend of the accused. Nor the fact of the having sexual relation by the accused with the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the complaint made by the complainant before the police.
46. That the prosecutrix has also alleged that during sexual intercourse, accused had made obscene video and under the threat of those obscene videos made public, time and again accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent but in the cross examination, she has admitted that she had never seen those videos. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer has not seized the mobile of the accused nor any videos has been placed on record, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix itself is unbelievable and inspire no confidence and are not trustworthy.
47. It is worth mentioning that the prosecution has dropped the four witnesses whose statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation but those witnesses have been examined by the accused in his Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 18/21 defence and DW1 Smt. Bimla has deposed that she is Pradhan of Ram Nagar area, Jhandewalan, Delhi and four four and a half years back prosecutrix used to obstruct the way of accused and used to misbehave with him and she had called mother of the prosecutrix and some social persons and discussed as to why prosecutrix had been obstructed the way of accused. The parents of the prosecutrix stated to prosecutrix that if she would not improve her conduct they would marry her with some other person in the society and they performed her marriage and after her marriage prosecutrix stayed in her matrimonial house for couple of days and left to her parental house and on one day she asked her if everything was good, she told her that her husband was not of her choice and her statement was recorded by the police.
48. That, DW2 Raju whose statement was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, has also deposed that prosecutrix used to stop accused on his way many times and prosecutrix was in one side love with the accused whereas accused was already a married person and he has called the parents of the prosecutrix to let them understand but prosecutrix threaten that she would implicate the accused in false case if she would not marry with the accused.
49. DW3 Sh. Phoolia and DW4 Sh. Sandeep were also examined by accused in his defence. These four defence witnesses were of prosecution witnesses but the prosecution has dropped all these witnesses as none of them supported the prosecution and accused produced all these witnesses in his defence and all these witnesses has proved that the prosecutrix was of the habit to obstruct the way of the accused time and again and when her parents were called she threatened to implicate the accused in a false case. It is pertinent to mention that the prosecutrix also refused for medical examination and it is mentioned on Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 19/21 the MLC that "Pt. is uncooperative and refused for examination."
50. It is worth mentioning that the prosecutrix had alleged that the sexual intercourse was committed by the accused lastly on 06.07.2016 but the complaint was made on 09.07.2016 and there is delay to lodge the FIR of three days and there is no explanation with the prosecutrix to delay to lodge the FIR against the accused and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, if there is unexplained delay in lodging FIR then the benefit is to be given to the accused.
51. That, in criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why, if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. In Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 606) the position was explained that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 20/21 must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution. Reliance is placed upon Dilawar Singh v/s State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2002 decided on 05.09.2007 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
52. That, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused in any manner. Hence, accused is hereby acquitted from the charges punishable u/s 376 (2)
(n)/506/313/323 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
53. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C. accused is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
54. As prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no order to compensation to the victim/complainant.
55. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.10.2018.
(SATISH KUMAR) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No.268/2017 State Vs. Vijay Singh 21/21