Delhi District Court
State vs . Satul @ Satlu on 5 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 32/12)
Unique ID Case No. 02404R0361882011
State Vs. Satul @ Satlu
FIR No. : 275/11
U/s : 376 IPC
P.S. : Shahbad Dairy
State Vs. Satul @ Satlu
S/o Sh. Nitiya Nand,
R/o C504, Metro Vihar,
Holambikalan, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 24.12.2011
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 05.09.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment 05.09.2012
JUDGMENT:
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as is made out from the charge sheet is that on 06.08.2011 PW3 Smt. Rita went to PS Shahbad Dairy and gave information that a wrong act had been committed with her sister (prosecutrix), who was residing with her at House No.C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 1 of 12 2 Delhi, on the night of 05 / 06.08.2011 and prayed that action be taken against the wrong doer. The said information was reduced to writing by PW1 ASI Zile Singh vide DD No.14 A dated 06.08.2011 i.e. Ex.PW1/A. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to MB Hospital, Poothkalan with W/Ct. Manju and Ct. Baljeet. When the prosecutrix returned back from the hospital, she gave her complaint Ex.PW2/A wherein she stated that she was residing with her brotherinlaw Rakhai Pandey (Jija) and sister Rita Devi and that her Jija used to reside in his other house bearing No. C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, whereas prosecutrix resided at house No.C504, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi. On the night of 05.08.2011 prosecutrix went to sleep in a room on the first floor of house No. C504, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi. The door of the house was open as usual and Smt. Sudhra, mother of her Jija, was also sleeping with her. In another room on the first floor accused Satul @ Satlu and his brother Atul, both sons of elder brother of her Jija, were sleeping. Around midnight accused Satul @ Satlu came to the room where prosecutrix was sleeping and lay down besides her and started removing her clothes. Prosecutrix woke up and resisted whereupon accused closed her mouth with his hand, opened her salwar and committed a wrong act with her. At that time Smt. Sudhra woke up from her sleep and accused ran away from there. Prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her sister, who took her to Police Station from where she was sent for medical examination. Prosecutrix prayed that appropriate action be taken against accused Satul @ Satlu.
SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 2 of 12
3
2 On basis of complaint Ex.PW2/A as well as MLC of the prosecutrix, a
case u/s.376 IPC was registered against the accused and investigations of the case were handed over to PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav. During the course of investigations, PW4 inspected the place of incident and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C at the instance of the prosecutrix. He arrested accused Satul @ Satlu, upon identification by the prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/D and conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW4/E. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW4/F. The accused pointed out the place of occurrence and one bed sheet is stated to have been seized from the place of incident at the instance of accused vide memo Ex.PW4/G. The accused was got medically examined and the exhibits collected by the concerned doctor were seized by PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav vide memo Ex.PW4/H. 3 During the course of investigations, IO tried to obtain proof of age of prosecutrix and since no such document was made available to him, he got prosecutrix examined at BSA Hospital for determination of her age medically. The prosecutrix was examined by Medical Board at BSA Hospital and as per the opinion given by the Board of Medical experts, Ex.PW4/I, the age of prosecutrix was opined to between 17 to 19 years as on the date of examination i.e. 12.09.2011. The IO also recorded statements of witnesses u/s.161 CrPC. Upon transfer of PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav, further investigations of the case were handed over to SI Ajay SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 3 of 12 4 Singh Yadav, who prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the Court before the court of concerned Ld. M.M. 4 After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, the charge for committing the offence punishable u/s376 IPC was framed against the accused by this Court. Accused Satul @ Satlu pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 5 In order to prove its case prosecution filed a list of 20 witnesses, out of which prosecutrix, her sister Rita and her sister's motherinlaw Sudhra are the only material witnesses. Remaining witnesses include Police witnesses and the doctors, who came into picture after the matter was reported to the Police and case FIR was registered. The prosecution has examined 4 witnesses in the present case which include PW1 Retd. ASI Zile Singh, PW2 prosecutrix, PW3 Smt. Rita and PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav.
6 PW1 Retd. ASI Zile Singh had recorded the initial information regarding rape of prosecutrix given by her sister Rita vide DD No.14A dated 06.08.2011. He proved the attested copy of the said DD as Ex.PW1/A. 7 PW2 prosecutrix is a material witness being the victim of the offence. However, she completely failed to support the prosecution case and exonerated SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 4 of 12 5 accused of the charges of rape in the present case. Contrary to her complaint Ex.PW2/A, she stated that she was residing at House No. C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi. She also deposed that she had filed the complaint Ex.PW2/A at the instance of her Jija, who was having some disputes over property / shop left behind by deceased father of accused and that she had filed the said complaint as her Jija had threatened to turn her sister out from the matrimonial home. She further deposed that she had gone to Police Station with her Jija and had put her thumb impression on some blank and some written documents without knowing contents thereof, as she is illiterate. She then deposed that her Jija had later resolved his disputes with the accused Satul @ Satlu and married PW2 (prosecutrix) to him on 09.10.2011 and that she was residing happily in her matrimonial home and that she and accused had been blessed with a son about a month ago. She categorically stated that accused had not committed any wrong act with her. This witness was crossexamined by learned Additional at length wherein contents of her complaint Ex.PW2/A and her statement u/s.161 CrPC, Mark "X" were put to the witness, however, PW2 continued to deny that any wrong act / rape was committed upon her by the accused Satul @ Satlu. Nothing which could be of any aid to the prosecution could be brought out from crossexamination of PW2 conducted by learned Additional PP.
8 PW3 Smt. Rita is the real elder sister of prosecutrix. She deposed that prosecutrix had been residing with her and her family since her childhood and that SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 5 of 12 6 her husband Rakhai Pandey had some misunderstanding with accused Satul @ Satlu, who is son of elder brother of her husband, and that the misunderstanding had arisen soon after death of her Jeth Nityanand. She further deposed that on the day of incident accused had come to their house to sort out differences between their families, however, due to lack of communication between the family of PW3 and family of accused, they thought that accused had come to harm them and thus a complaint was filed against him at PS Shahbad Dairy through her sister i.e. the prosecutrix. PW3 then deposed that she and her husband are illiterate and hence prosecutrix as well as PW3 had put their thumb impression on various documents as directed by the Police and that later they came to know that a case of rape had been registered against the accused on the basis of said documents. She also deposed that on the day of the alleged incident, it was she who was sleeping with the prosecutrix and not Smt. Sudhra, her motherinlaw. As regards Smt. Sudhra, PW3 stated that her motherinlaw was presently residing at her native village at Gorakhpur and was seriously ill and in last stages of her life and hence not in a position to appear to depose in the Court. This witness also reiterated that no wrong act had been committed by the accused with prosecutrix and that the complaint was a result of misunderstanding between their families and that after the said misunderstanding had been resolved, prosecutrix was married to the accused and was living happily with him and that they now have a son aged about one month born to them from their wedlock. This witness was also crossexamined at length by learned Additional PP, however, she continued to deny that prosecutrix had been SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 6 of 12 7 raped by the accused. She also denied those portions of her statement u/s.161 CrPC i.e. Mark "Y" wherein she is stated to have joined investigations with the IO. 9 PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav is one of the Investigating Officers of the case and he deposed about the investigations carried out by him and documents prepared by him during the course of investigations.
10 After recording of statement of abovenamed witnesses including material witnesses PW2 prosecutrix, and PW3 Smt. Rita, it became amply clear that even if statement of remaining witnesses were to be recorded by the Court, no fruitful purpose would have been served and prosecution would not have been able to prove that accused had committed rape upon prosecutrix on alleged date and place as specified in complaint Ex.PW2/A. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.
11 Since there is no sufficient incriminating evidence was brought on record by the prosecution against the accused his statement u/s.313 CrPC was dispensed with.
12 Arguments have been addressed by learned Additional PP as well as Sh. M.R. Sharan, learned counsel for accused Satul @ Satlu.
SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 7 of 12
8
13 Learned Additional PP has submitted that the complaint Ex.PW2/A
stands duly proved by the prosecution by examining the prosecutrix and that even though prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution case, considering that she was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and being minor is prone to tutoring, the contents of complaint Ex.PW2/A are to be taken into consideration and when complaint Ex.PW2/A is considered, the guilt of accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and he accordingly prays that the accused be convicted for offence u/s.376 IPC.
14 On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that prosecution has failed to prove its allegations against the accused since the prosecutrix as well as her sister have failed to support the case of the prosecution and that there is nothing incriminating on record to prove the guilt of the accused and has accordingly prayed that the accused be acquitted of offence u/s.376 IPC. 15 I have heard arguments and also perused record carefully. 16 In the present case the accused is alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the night of 05 / 06.08.2011. The first information regarding the incident was given by PW3 Smt. Rita, sister of the prosecutrix and was reduced to writing vide DD No.14A dated 06.08.2011 at PS Shahbad Dairy at about 12:05 noon i.e. Ex.PW1/A. It is noteworthy that PW3 does not mentioned the name of SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 8 of 12 9 the offender, who had committed wrong act with her sister, in the said Ex.PW1/A. As per the case of prosecution accused is closely related to PW3, being son of deceased elder brother of husband of PW3. In these circumstances the fact that name of the offender has not been mentioned in Ex.PW1/A creates a doubt regarding the case put forth by the prosecution. Further as per record and evidence led by the prosecution, the alleged incident had taken place at midnight of 05 / 06.08.2011. As already observed hereinabove DD No.14A i.e. Ex.PW1/A was recorded at 12:05 noon on 06.08.2011 and thereafter the FIR wherein specific allegations of rape were made against the accused, was registered only at 8:00 PM on 06.08.2011 after more than 20 hours of the incident. The fact that accused has not been named in Ex.PW1/A, the very first information of the incident, after the incident, makes this delay of 20 hours in recording of the incident very material. The prosecution was required to explain this delay but has failed to do so and this also taints the case put forth by the prosecution.
17 Further as per complaint the incident is stated to have taken place at House No. C504, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, which is stated to be the other house belonging to Jija (brotherinlaw) of the prosecutrix. The PW2 prosecutrix as well as PW3 Smt. Rita have categorically stated that prosecutrix was residing with PW3 and her husband since childhood at House No. C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi. Nothing has been stated by PW2 and PW3 as to how and why prosecutrix went to sleep at House No. C504, Metro Vihar, SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 9 of 12 10 PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi on the day of incident when she was otherwise residing at House No. C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, with her sister. Thus a doubt is created regarding the place of incident itself. This doubt gets magnified by the fact that PW3 has deposed that on the day of incident it was she and not her motherinlaw Smt. Sudhra, who was sleeping with the prosecutrix in the room where the incident is alleged to have taken place. Specific questions were asked from the IO as to whether he had obtained any document to ascertain if House No. C504, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, where the incident of rape is alleged to have taken place, belonged to Jija of prosecutrix and whether he had recorded statement of any neighbour of the prosecutrix to ascertain that the prosecutrix used to go to said house to sleep at night which were replied in negative by the IO. Rather the IO admitted that prosecutrix used to reside at House No. C824, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, with her elder sister and Jija since her childhood. It was imperative for the prosecution to explain presence of the prosecutrix at House No. C504, Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambikalan, Delhi, on the date and time of the incident, however, the prosecution has failed to do so. 18 Learned Additional PP has contended that MLC of prosecutrix clearly establishes the fact that she was raped and that being minor the fact that prosecutrix failed to support prosecution case cannot be taken adversely to the case of prosecution and her complaint Ex.PW2/A ought to be relied upon to arrive at conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. The submissions made by learned SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 10 of 12 11 Additional PP cannot be accepted for two reasons, firstly, the age of prosecutrix, as is borne out from report of medical board dated 12.09.2011, is between 17 to 19 years. Thus even if lower margin of age of prosecutrix, as opined by medical board is considered, the prosecutrix was apparently at the verge of maturity and thus of possibility of her consent, cannot be ruled out specially considering the fact that there was another person sleeping next to her in the room where the alleged incident had taken place. Even assuming that accused had closed the mouth of the prosecutrix, she could have drawn attention of the other person sleeping in the room by some other means like movement of her body parts. Secondly, if the argument of learned Additional PP is accepted, then the possibility of tutoring of prosecutrix at the time of filing of complaint Ex.PW2/A, as prosecutrix has herself admitted in her deposition before the Court, cannot be ruled out. Considering the totality of circumstances absence of injuries on the person of prosecutrix, as is reflected from her MLC, also becomes material.
19 Another noteworthy fact which has come on record from deposition of PW2 prosecutrix, PW3 Smt. Rita, sister of prosecutrix and PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav, one of the Investigating Officers of the case, is that the prosecutrix has already married accused Satul @ Satlu sometime in October, 2011, about two months after the incident. Under a normal circumstances enimical relations would have persisted between the family of the prosecutrix and family of the accused had any such incident of rape had taken place. This is all the more probable considering SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 11 of 12 12 the fact that both PW2 and PW3 have stated that there were disputes between the Jija of PW2 on one hand and the accused, who is son of deceased elder brother of Jija of prosecutrix, on the other and thus possibility of arranging a marriage between the prosecutrix and accused would not have been there at all in these circumstances. 20 The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that as the prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused, thus the accused Satul @ Satlu is acquitted of the charged offence punishable u/s.376 IPC by giving the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 05.09.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 12 of 12
13
FIR No. 275/11
PS Shahbad Dairy
State Vs. Satul @ Satlu
05.09.2012
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. M.R. Sharan.
PW1 Retd. ASI Zile Singh, PW2 prosecutrix, PW3 Smt. Rita and PW4 SI Gulshan Yadav are present. They are examined, crossexamined and discharged.
No other PW is present.
After recording of statement of abovenamed witnesses including material witnesses PW2 prosecutrix, and PW3 Smt. Rita, it became amply clear that even if statement of remaining witnesses were to be recorded by the Court, no fruitful purpose would have been served and prosecution would not have been able to prove that accused had committed rape upon prosecutrix on alleged date and place as specified in complaint Ex.PW2/A. Hence prosecution evidence closed.
Since there is no sufficient incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the accused his statement u/s.313 CrPC is dispensed with.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Satul @ Satlu has been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused request that his previously furnished bail bonds may be accepted in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Request allowed. Accordingly, SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 13 of 12 14 previous bail bond of the accused is extended for a period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 05.09.2012 SC No.32/12 State Vs. Satul @ Satlu Page Nos. 14 of 12