Delhi District Court
Fir No. 947/14 : State vs Bhanu Chand Mandal : Ps Aman Vihar on 15 December, 2015
FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(NORTHWEST)01: ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 02/15)
Unique ID case No.02404R0001752015
State Vs. Bhanu Chand Mandal
FIR No. : 947/14
U/s : 363/366/342/376 IPC
& 4 of POCSO Act
P.S. : Aman Vihar
State Vs. Bhanu Chand Mandal
S/o Sh. Subol Chand
R/o A40, Karan ViharV,
Near Shakti Mandir,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case 03.01.2015
Date of arguments : 15.12.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.12.2015
J U D G M E N T (ORAL):
1. The facts of the case as born out from the record are that on 01.09.2014, PW3/complainant Smt. Meena Kumari went to PS Aman Vihar and got her statement recorded with PW11 SI Bhupesh Kumar to the effect that on 31.08.2014 at about 10.00 pm, her daughter R, aged about 14 years Page 1 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar (hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix) had gone missing from her house and despite search made by her, she could not be traced. She expressed her suspicion on one Ranu, a neighbour in respect of missing of prosecutrix and requested to trace her.
On the basis of aforesaid statement of the complainant, the present case was registered. Efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix. On 26.10.2014, the complainant herself produced the prosecutrix in the PS and disclosed to PW11 SI Bhupesh about commission of wrong act with her daughter/prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was got counseled and her medical examination was got conducted. Site plan was prepared at the instance of prosecutrix. Her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. Accused Bhanu was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded. Accused was also got medically examined. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Coaccused Pappu could not be arrested. After completion of the investigation, IO filed the charge sheet in the matter against accused Bhanu Chand Mandan in the matter.
2. After filing of charge sheet, copies of documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter, On 23.03.2015, charges u/s 363/366/34 IPC and u/s 3
(a) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), punishable u/s 4 of Act, alternatively u/s 376 (2) (i) IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Page 2 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case by the mother of the prosecutrix. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
4. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Ld.Addl.PP on behalf of State and Sh. Mukesh Sharma, ld. defence counsel for the accused and perused the entire material on record. Before adverting to the arguments advanced at bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter, which is as under.
5. PW1, HC Jaipal Singh, was lying posted as duty officer in PS Aman Vihar at the relevant time and he has proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A, endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/C.
6. The prosecutrix in the present case was examined as PW2, but she did not support the prosecution case and the relevant portion of her testimony is as under : "xxxxx .... I know accused Bhanu Chand Mandal, who is residing with his family in my neighbourhood, who Page 3 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar used to talk to me.
I do not remember the date but it was in the month of saavan of the last year. Accused asked me to talk to him. Further I do not know anything. I do not want to say anything now. Whatever had happened with me, had been mentioned in my statement to the police as well as to the Magistrate. I do not want to repeat the same..............
xxxxx"
As the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case at all, she was crossexamined by ld. Addl. PP at length, but nothing favourable to the prosecution case could come out on the record therefrom. The witness was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and with the alleged history of case given by her in MLC Ex. PW2/B, but she denied having made such statements.
7. PW3 Smt. Meena Kumari, mother of the prosecutrix, is the complainant in the present case and she deposed that about one year back, prosecutrix went missing and out of panic and anxiety, she lodged a missing report Ex. PW3/A with the police. She further deposed that later on, prosecutrix returned home of her own after some time as she had gone to the house of one of her friends without telling her and anyone in the family. She further deposed that accused was known to her being her Page 4 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar neighbour. She further deposed that she did not want to say anything more.
As this witness also did not support the prosecution case at all, she was crossexamined by ld. Addl. PP at length and during the said cross examination, she stated that prosecutrix used to look after her other children at home. She termed it correct that prosecutrix went missing on 31082014 and that she found prosecutrix at Karan Vihar Chowk at about 10.30 p.m. on 24102014 while returning back from her factory and at that time, she was seriously ill. She termed it correct that on inquiry, prosecutrix narrated everything about what happened to her and she had told her that accused Bhanu and Pappu had committed rape upon her. The witness further termed it correct that at that time, prosecutrix was not feeling well and as such she got her treated and when she showed some sign of improvement in her health, on 26102014, she took her to police station Aman Vihar. She termed it correct that at the time of prosecutrix's medical examination, she had narrated the fact to the doctor, which were recorded by the doctor in the column of alleged history. She also termed it correct that police had taken prosecutrix in her presence to the spot where accused Bhanu had committed rape upon her.
During crossexamination by learned defence counsel the witness termed it correct that her husband was an accused in a case u/s 308 IPC being FIR no. 344/12 PS Aman Vihar, wherein one Ranu was complainant. She denied that prosecutrix had run away with somebody else, but she falsely implicated accused Bhanu in place of that person. She further stated that she Page 5 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar had not expressed her suspicion against some Ranu to have kidnapped the prosecutrix in this case. She further stated that she had not visited police station to pursue her missing report from the date of its lodging till the recovery of prosecutrix.
8. PW4, Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, ld. M.M, in her evidence has proved statement of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW4/B, recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 27.10.2014.
9. PW5 Dr. Anubha Verma, SR (Obs. & Gynae), had examined the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW2/B and deposed that prosecutrix was not at all cooperative for examination and she took all the important samples with difficulty on the mother's request and consent.
10. PW6 W/SI Manisha is the investigating officer of the case and she deposed that 26102014, on entrustment of further investigation of the case, she made enquiry from prosecutrix and her mother and got them counseled and thereafter, got the prosecutrix medically examined at SGM Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW2/B and thereafter, seized her sealed exhibits vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. She further deposed about preparation of the site plan Ex. PW4/E at the instance of prosecutrix, about getting the statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, about arrest and personal search of the accused vide arrested memo Ex. PW2/C and personal search memo Ex. Page 6 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar PW6/B, about recording of disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C of the accused, about pointing out of the place of incident of committing rape upon the prosecutrix, vide pointing out memo Ex. PW6/D and about pointing out the place of kidnapping of the prosecutrix vide pointing out memo Ex. PW6/E. The witness further deposed about getting the accused medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW6/F and about seizure of accused's exhibit vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/G. She further deposed that on 17112014, the prosecutrix was produced before CWC, where she was counseled and her custody was restored to her mother Smt. Meena Kumari vide order Ex.PW6/J. She further deposed about collection of age proof Ex. PW6/K of prosecutrix and about getting the exhibits deposited in FSL.
During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the witness showed her lack of knowledge about the father of the prosecutrix being facing trial in a criminal case bearing case FIR No. 344/12, PS Aman Vihar u/s 308/506/34 IPC.
11. PW7 HC Raj Kumar was working as MHCM at PS Aman Vihar and he deposed about various entries made by him in register no. 19 and 21 and proved the same as Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/D.
12. PW8 Dr. Rajesh, had examined the accused vide MLC Ex. PW6/F and had given report about his potency and deposed regarding the same. Page 7 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar
13. PW9 Ct. Sanjay had prepared a sketch of the suspect on the narration of the complainant and deposed regarding the same.
14. PW10 Sh. Hemant Kumar, Assistant Public Health Inspector, MCD, has produced the birth record of the prosecutrix and deposed that birth certificate Ex. PW6/A was issued from his department and proved the copy of relevant entry in this regard as Ex. PW10/A and as per the record produced by him, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.05.2001.
15. PW11, SI Bhupesh Kumar, is the initial investigating officer of the case and he deposed that in the intervening night of 31082014/01092014, PW3 Smt. Meena Kumari, mother of the prosecutrix, had come to the police station and reported about missing of prosecutrix and he recorded the statement Ex. PW3/A of PW3 Smt. Meena Kumari, prepared rukka Ex. PW11/A and got the FIR Ex. PW1/A recorded. He further deposed that he prepared documents Ex. PW11/B (colly) for supplying the information of the missing person to various departments like Door Darshan, NCRB and ZIPNET and thereafter, on transfer of further investigation of the case, he handed over the case file to PW6 W/SI Manisha.
During crossexamination, PW11 termed it correct that PW3 Smt. Meena Kumari had expressed suspicion upon one of her neighborers namely Ranu to have enticed and kidnapped prosecutrix.
Page 8 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar
16. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and also perused the case file carefully.
17. Learned defence counsel has argued that both the material witnesses in the case, i.e PW2 prosecutrix and PW3 her mother have not supported the case of prosecution at all and thus there is nothing incriminating against the accused on record to convict him for the offences involved in this case and as such, it is prayed that accused may be acquitted.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the investigation carried out in the matter is fair and proper and thus accused is liable for conviction as during the initial investigation as well as at the time of recording the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix had made statements against the accused.
19. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar. I find substance in the argument of learned defence counsel that the material prosecution witness PW2 prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution. She was examined as PW2 and she did not utter a single word against the accused and exonerated him from all the allegations. Despite the lengthy crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, PW2 did not state anything against the accused. The mother of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW3 also did not support the prosecution case in her examinationinchief Page 9 of 10 FIR No. 947/14 : State V/s Bhanu Chand Mandal : PS Aman Vihar and only in her crossexamination conducted by learned Addl. PP, she termed each and every fact as true. PW3 is not an eye witness to the incident. She had merely lodged the missing report Ex. PW3/A of prosecutrix and had expressed her suspicion on one Ranu, a neighbour. In this regard, learned defence counsel has placed on record a copy of FIR no. 344/2012, PS Aman Vihar and argued that in this FIR, father of the prosecutrix is an accused and Ranu, real brother of the accused is complainant and because of this, there were inimical relations between the two families. This fact has already been admitted by the complainant during her crossexamination, hence false implication of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. Even medical and forensic evidence also do not support the prosecution case, as prosecutrix herself had refused for her internal gynecological examination.
20. In view of the above discussions, it is hereby held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused. Accused stands acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bond stands canceled. Surety stands discharged.
21. File be consigned to Record Room, after compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 15.12.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge01 (NorthWest):
Rohini District Courts: New Delhi
Page 10 of 10