Delhi District Court
State vs . Ibran @ Imran on 26 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 16/12)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0338232011
State Vs. Ibran @ Imran
FIR No. : 307/11
U/s : 328/366/376/506 IPC
P.S. : Alipur
State Vs. Ibran @ Imran
S/o Raheel,
R/o C4/78, Swaran Jayanti Vihar,
Tikri Khurd, Delhi
Date of institution of case 02.12.2011
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 26.11.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.11.2012
JUDGMENT:
1 The case of the prosecution as briefly stated in the charge sheet is that on 03.09.2011 DD No. 61B was registered at PS Alipur, regarding quarrel at B5/80, Swaran Jayanti Vihar, Tikri Khurd. Accordingly, SI Mukesh Kumar was deputed to inquire into the matter. At the spot, SI Mukesh Kumar was informed that Smt. Sugra S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 1 of 12 Begum, informant and her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix had gone to Police Station. When SI Mukesh Kumar returned to PS, he met Sugra Begum and her daughter and they informed him that accused Ibran @ Imran s/o Raheel had committed rape upon prosecutrix and when she opposed the same, he had given beatings to her. The prosecutrix gave her statement Ex.PW7/A wherein she stated that she was studying in 11th class in Rajkiya Sarvodaya Sahsiksha Vidalaya, Tikri Khurd, and knew accused Imran s/o Raheel since last about 1 ½ - 2 years. She further stated that about 1 ½ - 2 years ago, when she had gone to a Mobile Phone Shop to purchase recharge coupon for the mobile, accused Ibran @ Imran followed her and they started talking to each other. In February, 2011, one day, on return from house of her sister Yasmin, prosecutrix got down at Bus Stand of Tikri Khurd at G.T. K. Road. Accused Ibran @ Imran was already sitting there. As prosecutrix proceeded towards Swaran Jayanti Vihar, accused followed her and told her to accompany him and he would get something for her to eat. He took prosecutrix to a godown at Village Tikri and gave prosecutrix chaat to eat and after eating the same, prosecutrix became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself without clothes. Accused Ibran @ Imran was present near her in the godown. When prosecutrix asked Imran as to what he had done with her, he admitted having raped her. Prosecutrix told accused that she would file a complaint against him with the Police on which accused promised to marry her and while so assuring her, he left her at her house. Thereafter accused raped prosecutrix several times, at the same godown, on pretext that he would marry her. 2 - 3 times he even threatened to disclose about the prosecutrix to everyone. On 31.08.2011, on the day of Eid, accused again took prosecutrix to godown and raped her and thereafter he took her S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 2 of 12 to a park at Swaran Jayanti Vihar where they met his friend Bali @ Rajan. The said friend of accused took mobile phone of prosecutrix and read SMS messages in it. At that time, accused Ibran @ Imran gave beatings to prosecutrix questioning why there were SMS messages from so many people in her mobile phone. On 03.09.2011 at about 4:00 PM, when prosecutrix was going to meet her elder sister at Irwin Hospital and was at some distance from her house, accused Imran came on his bike and obstructed her way and started misbehaving with her and abusing her. He also asked prosecutrix to sit on his motorcycle and to accompany him to the godown. When prosecutrix resisted, accused started giving her beatings in gali itself. Prosecutrix called her mother and gave a call at 100 number from her mother's mobile phone. Prosecutrix prayed that necessary action be taken against the accused. After recording statement of prosecutrix, she was sent to Satyawadi Raja Harishchand Hospital for her medical examination. Thereafter on the basis of her complaint, a case u/s.376 IPC was registered against the accused at PS Alipur. Accused was arrested in the case. After completing investigations, charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
2 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 363/328/366/376/506 IPC were framed against the accused Ibran @ Imran. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3 The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in support of its case. S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 3 of 12 4 Sh. Khem Chand, TGT (Hindi) from Government Sarvodya Coed, Senior Secondary School, Tikri Khurd, Delhi was examined as PW1. He produced the entries in school record regarding date of birth of prosecutrix. He proved the photocopy of the CBSE certificate and original admission form filled in by the father of the prosecutrix as EX.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. He also proved the original school leaving certificate issued to the prosecutrix as Ex.PW1/C and the photocopy of the relevant entry in the admission register as Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that as per school record, the date of birth of prosecutrix was '14.08.1995'.
5 During his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he was not aware on what basis the date of birth of child was recorded by CBSE and that the school did not verify the particulars given by the child or his / her parents once CBSE certificate was produced.
6 PW2 is the prosecutrix. She, however, failed to support the prosecution case and stated that she had filed the complaint at the instance of her mother and that nothing had happened with her. The prosecutrix was crossexamined at length by learned Additional PP, wherein she was put contents of her complaint Ex.PW2/A. Though prosecutrix admitted her acquaintance and then friendship with the accused, she denied those portions of her statement wherein she had made allegations of being administered some intoxicant / stupefying substance in chaat and then being raped by accused in an incapacitated state. She also denied that portion of her complaint Ex.PW2/A wherein she had narrated instances of being repeatedly raped by the accused S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 4 of 12 or accused having promised to marry her or accused having threatened her of disclosing about prosecutrix to everyone. As regards the incident of 03.09.2011, prosecutrix stated that on that day at about 4:00 PM, she was going to meet her sister at hospital and when she was at some distance, accused stopped to ask her where she was going and that at that time mother of prosecutrix was also sitting there and on seeing accused, she questioned him as to what was the matter and why he was talking to prosecutrix and that a small altercation ensued between mother of prosecutrix and the accused. Prosecutrix denied that on 03.09.2011 accused was forcing her to accompany him as he wanted to take her to godown to rape her or that on her resistance, accused had given her beatings or that she had so stated in her complaint Ex.PW2/A. The prosecutrix also denied having made statements u/s.161 CrPC dated 04.09.2011 and 25.11.2011 to the Police. When the statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/B, u/s.164 CrPC, was put to her, she stated that she had made the said statement out of fear of her mother and whatever she had stated therein was as had been told to her by her mother. The prosecutrix also disputed her date of birth in school record wherein the same was mentioned as '14.08.1995' and stated that the same had been mentioned about two years less than her actual age by her parents for the purposes of her admission in the school. The prosecutrix also stated that she had not filed any complaint with any Court or authority that she had been forced to file a false complaint against accused as she did not want any proceedings against her mother and other family members. She even stated that though she had been married about seven months ago, she still feared her mother and that she had deposed correctly before the Court on that day as her mother was not present inside the Court room. S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 5 of 12 7 During her crossexamination by learned defence counsel, prosecutrix termed it correct that accused had never raped her nor had he ever misbehaved with her. 8 PW3 Yasmin is the elder sister of the prosecutrix. She is a formal witness, who deposed that in the year 2011, one day her sister i.e. the prosecutrix and her mother came to meet her as PW3 was pregnant and that in the evening, PW3 and her husband boarded prosecutrix in a bus from Old Delhi Railway Station for her parental house at Tikri Khurd and that in the night mother of PW3 called her to find out about prosecutrix and she told her mother that prosecutrix had been boarded in a bus at about 6:00 PM.
9 PW4 Sugra Begum is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that prosecutrix is her youngest daughter and that at the time of incident, she was aged about 15 years. She further stated that last year on third day of a month, which she did not remember, prosecutrix had gone to school at about 7:00 AM and returned back at about 4:00 PM and when she reached near the house, PW4 noticed that accused Ibran @ Imran had caught hold of her hand and was trying to make her sit on his motorcycle and that the prosecutrix was crying. PW4 tried to separate prosecutrix from the accused but accused started abusing her and beating her. Crowd collected at the spot and PW4 made a call at 100 number. The PW4 further stated that prosecutrix had told her that accused had raped her several times and had also threatened her that if she disclosed about the incident to anyone, he would kill her family members. She also stated that sister of accused also came there and slapped prosecutrix. After some time, PCR and S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 6 of 12 local Police also came and statement of prosecutrix was recorded. The prosecutrix was examined at Raja Harishchand Hospital. On the next day, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW4/B. During her crossexamination, PW4 denied that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age as on the date of incident or that she had understated her age for the purpose of admission in the school.
10 PW7 Anuradha is member of NGO Nav Sristi and she deposed about counseling the prosecutrix when PW7 was called to P.S. after registration of the FIR in the present case. She also deposed about accompanying prosecutrix to hospital for her medical examination.
11 PW5 Dr. Rajesh Kumar had examined accused Ibran @ Imran regarding his sexual capability and deposed regarding the same. He proved the MLC of accused as Ex.PW5/A and identified his signatures at point "A" and the endorsement made by him regarding sexual capability of accused given thereupon, by him, at point "B". 12 PW11 Dr. Hema Mahawal was deputed to depose in place of Dr. Sapna, who had examined the prosecutrix on 03.09.2011. She proved the MLC of prosecutrix as Ex.PW11/A by identifying handwriting and signatures of Dr. Sapna thereupon. A specific Court question was put to PW11 if there were findings of sexual assault on the MLC of the prosecutrix or in the observations recorded in the sexual assault kit which was replied to in negative by PW11.
S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 7 of 12 13 PW8 HC Devender Singh is the MHC(M) with whom IO had deposited the exhibits in the case. He produced register No.19 containing the relevant entries therein and the said entries were proved as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/D and deposed regarding the same.
14 PW6 Ct. Satender had deposited the exhibits in the case at FSL Rohini on instructions of IO and obtained receipt and acknowledgment slip from FSL and handed over the same to the MHCM and deposed regarding the same.
15 PW9 SI Mukesh is the first investigating officer of the case. He deposed that on 03.09.2011, he was posted at PS Alipur and was marked DD No.61B for inquiry and that when he reached the reported place at BBlock, Swaran Jayanti Vihar he came to know that informant and her daughter had gone to Police Station. He further deposed that he went on to investigate other PCR calls and when he returned to PS at about 7:00 PM, he found Smt. Sugra Begum and the prosecutrix at the gate of PS and that on further inquiry, Smt. Sugra Begum informed her that rape had been committed with her daughter and accordingly, he recorded statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that thereafter he along with W/Ct. Vinita, prosecutrix and her mother went to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where the prosecutrix was got medically examined and the exhibits / samples handed over to him by the doctor, were seized vide Ex.PW9/A and that thereafter they all returned to PS where PW9 prepared rukka Ex.PW9/B on complaint made by prosecutrix and handed over the same to the Duty S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 8 of 12 Officer, who got the FIR registered. PW9 proved computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW9/C. He further deposed that after registration of the case, further investigations were marked to W/SI Santosh and when W/SI Santosh came to PS on 04.09.2011, he handed over prosecutrix as well as pullandas of the case to her. He then deposed that on 11.11.2011, he had got exhibits of the case sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Satender and that he had also prepared the draft charge sheet and supplementary statements of prosecutrix, her mother Sugra Begum and sister Yasmin. During his crossexamination, PW9 denied that no statement had been given by the prosecutrix or that a false case had been registered against the accused at the instance of mother of the prosecutrix. 16 PW10 Ct. Mohd. Yameen had joined the investigations of the case with W/SI Santosh. He deposed that on 04.09.2011, he along with W/SI Santosh Kumari went in search of accused to Swaran Jayanti and that they met prosecutrix and her mother and that IO prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of prosecutrix. He further deposed that at about 11:00 AM accused Ibran @ Imran was apprehended upon identification by the prosecutrix and her mother from house No.C4/84, Swaran Jayanti Vihar and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW4/B and that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.PW10/A and that pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused led them to godown where he had committed rape upon the prosecutrix and a site plan in this regard was prepared by the IO. The witness was asked to point out second site plan from the judicial file and after going through the file, he stated that no such site plan was there and that as per statement u/s.161 CrPC, IO had prepared one pointing out memo at the instance of S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 9 of 12 accused, however, the same was not found on record.
17 The PW10 further deposed that he had taken accused to SRHC Hospital for medical examination and after his examination, the concerned doctor handed over blood sample and undergarments of accused to PW10, who brought them back to the Police Station and handed them over to the IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/B. 18 In the present case, total 16 witnesses were cited by the prosecution, out of which, eleven witnesses were examined and considering the testimonies of PW2 prosecutrix, PW3 Smt. Yasmin and PW4 Smt. Sugra Begum, nothing incriminating remains against the accused. Further, since there is no other witness cited or examined by the IO, who can link the accused with the commission of offence, no useful purpose would have been served by recording further evidence. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was also dispensed with for want of incriminating evidence.
19 In the present case, the FIR was registered on 04.09.2011, however, the allegations of rape have been made since 1 ½ - 2 years prior to registration of the FIR. As per school record, the date of birth of prosecutrix is '14.08.1995', however, the same has been disputed by the prosecutrix herself, who stated that her age was understated by two years by her parents for purposes of admission in the school. Even otherwise, prosecutrix is the only witness, who could have deposed about the alleged incident(s) of S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 10 of 12 rape committed upon her by the accused. This star witness of prosecution has completely failed to support the prosecution case stating that she was forced to file a false complaint by her mother and that she could not make any complaint with any authority or Court that she was forced to file a false complaint as she did not want any action against her mother and other family members. She has categorically stated that accused never raped her nor did he misbehave with her. PW3 Smt. Yasmin, elder sister of prosecutrix, is only a formal witness while PW4 Sugra Begum, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed on basis of what had been told to her by the prosecutrix, who as already observed hereinabove, did not support the prosecution case. 20 Ld. Addl. PP has contended that as per the school record i.e. certificate issued by the Government Sarvodya Coed Senior Secondary School, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 14.08.1995 and since the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age as on the date of commission of offence, accused is liable to be convicted u/s 363/328/376/506 IPC. However, the submissions made by learned Additional PP cannot be sustained as prosecutrix herself has denied that accused had kidnapped her from the lawful custody of her parents without the consent of her guardians or that he had caused her to consume some stupefying or intoxicant substance mixed with chaat to facilitate commission of offence i.e. kidnapping and rape upon her or that accused had forced her or seduced her to have illicit intercourse with him or compelled her to marry him or that accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix or threatened to disclose the fact of rape to the public, if she disclosed about it to anyone. Even the medical evidence on record does not support the allegations of rape as has been affirmed by S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 11 of 12 PW11 Dr. Hema Mehawan, Incharge (Gynae), who was deputed in place of Dr. Sapna, to prove the MLC of the prosecutrix.
21 The nutshell of foregoing discussions is that since the prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused, the accused is acquitted of the charges u/s 363/328/366/376/506 IPC in the present case.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 26.11.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 12 of 12
FIR No. 307/11
P.S. Alipur
State Vs. Ibran @ Imran
26.11.2012
Present : Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Ms. Shagufta Afroz.
PW5 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, PW6 Ct. Satender, PW7 Anuradha, PW8 HC Devender Singh, PW9 SI Mukesh Kumar, PW10 Ct. Mohd. Yameen and PW11 Dr. Hema Mahawan are present. They are examined, crossexamined and discharged.
Vide separate statement made by learned Additional PP recorded today in the Court, he closed prosecution evidence.
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 Ibran @ Imran has been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused request that his previously furnished bail bond may be accepted in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Request allowed. Accordingly, 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 26.11.2012 S.C. No. 16/12 : State vs. Ibran @ Imran : Page 13 of 12