Delhi District Court
Sc No: 776/17 State vs . Gopal Satija on 5 January, 2018
SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 776/17
FIR No. 281/17
Police Station Janak Puri
Under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC
State
Versus
Gopal Satija
S/o Sh. Sunder Dass
R/o C-3A/88B, Janak Puri
New Delhi. .....Accused
Date of institution 19.12.2017
Judgment reserved on 05.01.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 05.01.2018
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 6
SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in present case on allegations of committing rape on prosecutrix "R" aged about 22 years.
2. FIR in question was registered on 05.07.2017 on the complaint of prosecutrix alleging therein that about 3 months prior to the incident she came to Delhi and was got employed in the house of accused as a house maid at a monthly salary of Rs. 6,500/-. Prosecutrix stated that she used to reside in the house of accused. Wife of accused used to go to office at about 9 a.m and come back by 10 p.m whereas accused Gopal used to stay in the house. After about 20 days accused started misbehaving with her and used to ask prosecutrix to hug him and then used to embrace her. After few days, accused stated to her that his girl- friend was having a similar name and as such he loves her. Accused established forcible physical relations with her and threatened prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anybody otherwise she would be killed. Prosecutrix alleged that on Judgment 2 of 6 SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija 02.07.2017 accused raped her and after two days she ran away from there and came to police station but due to fear she could not report the matter.
3. After registration of case, prosecutrix was medically examined and on 06.07.2017 her statement was also got recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Again on 10.08.2017 prosecutrix got recorded her another statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Accused was charge-sheeted. Charge for offence punishable U/s 376 (2) (n)/506(II) IPC was framed against accused.
4. Prosecution examined prosecutrix as PW1. She deposed that about 4 months prior to registration of case, she came to Delhi for work. With reference of her sister she got employed in house of accused as a housemaid. She stayed in their house and worked there for about 3 months. Prosecutrix deposed that she is in tendency of thinking happening of adverse circumstances with her. While her stay in house of accused, she Judgment 3 of 6 SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija got delusion that accused didn't pay her salary and he is harassing her. In her hallucination, prosecutrix saw that accused committed rape upon her and treated her badly. In this delusion, she went to police station and reported against accused. But later on when prosecutrix came out of her delusion, she realized that she has committed a mistake. Prosecutrix testified that she doesn't want any action against accused as he never treated her badly nor threatened her. She proved her complaint Ex. PW1/A against him. She was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW1/B. After registration of FIR, her statement U/s.164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW1/C was recorded by Ld. M.M. Prosecutrix proved her statement dated 10.08.2017 recorded by Ld MM as Ex. PW1/D.
4. Since prosecutrix did not support prosecution case, she was declared hostile. In cross-examination of prosecutrix, nothing incriminating came out in evidence against accused. Prosecutrix maintained that accused did not commit rape upon her and she made allegation against accused under hallucinations.
Judgment 4 of 6
SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija
5. As the prosecutrix did not support case of prosecution, examination of other witnesses was dispensed with. Statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.PC was not recorded as there is no incriminating evidence against him.
6. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused entire material on record.
7. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that accused did not commit rape upon her and she made the complaint against accused in delusion. It is matter of record that during investigations, a statement of prosecutrix Ex. PW1/D was recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C wherein prosecutrix categorically stated that in her dreams she was feeling that accused was doing something but infact it was not so.
Judgment 5 of 6
SC No: 776/17 State Vs. Gopal Satija
8. Prosecutrix was medically examined and samples of prosecutrix and accused were sent for forensic examination but the FSL result is negative as no semen could be detected on exhibits of prosecutrix. Thus, after going through testimony of prosecutrix it becomes evident that true genesis of complaint in question was hallucinations suffered by prosecutrix and it is not the case where accused committed rape upon prosecutrix or threatened her.
9. In light of the aforesaid discussions, accused stands acquitted. His personal bond is canceled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to surety. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount for a period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 5th day of January, 2018.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST
DWARKA COURTS:DELHI
Judgment 6 of 6