Delhi District Court
State vs Abdul Kadir @ Raja on 14 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0149092014
SC No. : 141/2014
FIR No. : 320/2014
U/s. : 376/323 IPC
PS : Sunlight Colony, New Delhi.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
........................ Complainant.
Versus
Abdul Kadir @ Raja
S/o Shri Mohd Zabir
R/o Jhuggi No. 615,
Sarai Kale Khan,
New Delhi
.........................Accused person.
Date of Institution : 08-07-2014
Judgment reserved for orders on : 14-8-2014
Date of pronouncement : 14-8-2014.
JUDGMENT
1. This case was initiated on the statement of the prosecutrix given to police of P.S Sunlight Colony, New Delhi, stating, inter alia, that :
"I have studied upto 5th class and was married to one Shri Ali Mohd S/o Mohd Asrafi in the year 2010. In the year SC No. : 141/2014 State v. Abdul Kadir @ Raja Page No. 1 FIR No. : 320/2014 PS : Sun Light Colony, New Delhi.
2013 I used to visit a shop to learn stitching work where I met Abdul Kadir @ Raja S/o Mohd Zabir, aged 22 years. He used to teach me stitching and used to say ill of my husband. I was enticed in his sweet talks and he used to say that my husband is an impotent and that he can give me a child. He made sexual relations with me in February, 2013 and subsequently I gave birth to a child in March, 2014. However, now he has started beating me, demanding Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle from my mother to marry me. On 23-5-2013 he came to our house in the night and gave me a blow on my eyes and I fell unconscious. Someone rang on number 100 to the police and hence, this complaint."
2. On the basis of the above statement, FIR bearing no. 320/2014, under sections 376/323 IPC was registered at P.S Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. During investigation accused was arrested. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed.
SC No. : 141/2014 State v. Abdul Kadir @ Raja Page No. 2 FIR No. : 320/2014 PS : Sun Light Colony, New Delhi.
3. Since it is a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. On 6-8-2014, a charge under 376/323 IPC was framed against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecutrix has examined two witnesses.
PW1 ASI Hari Mohan, on 24-5-2014, had recorded the FIR Ex.PW1/A and made his endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the Rukka.
PW2, the prosecutrix, had deposed that in the year 2010 she married with Shri Mohammad Ali and got divorce from him in the year 2011. In January, 2013 she met accused in a learning centre and started learning stitching from him. Gradually they became friends and started talking to each other. Thereafter, accused promised to marry her and they had physical relations. She admitted that such physical relations she had with accused were with her consent as she too wanted to marry accused. PW2 continued her relations with accused till the filing of her complaint Ex.PW2/A. She further deposed that since SC No. : 141/2014 State v. Abdul Kadir @ Raja Page No. 3 FIR No. : 320/2014 PS : Sun Light Colony, New Delhi.
accused was delaying the marriage so she filed this complaint but now since the accused had married her so she has no grievance against him. She further deposed that during her relations with the accused, she was blessed with a son, born on 17-3-2014.
She was declared hostile by the Ld. Prosecutor and during her cross examination she deposed that accused never demanded any cash or bike or any dowry articles to marry her. She further denied that on 23-5-2014 accused came to her house or ever gave her beatings or she fell unconscious. She agreed that the physical relations she had with accused were because of the assurance to marry her but she denied that she had any grievance now or that accused ever raped her or ever demanded any cash of Rs.50,000/- or a bike etc. She admitted giving a statement Ex.PW2/D under section 164 Cr.P.C, which rather favours the accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the prosecutrix had turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution and rather had denied the contents of her complaint and had admitted that she had made the complaint only because the accused delayed the SC No. : 141/2014 State v. Abdul Kadir @ Raja Page No. 4 FIR No. : 320/2014 PS : Sun Light Colony, New Delhi.
marriage and that whatever happened with her was purely with her own consent ; the accused becomes entitle to benefit of doubt.
Hence, in view of the fact that the prosecutrix had turned hostile, I do not find it proper to examine the remaining formal witnesses to complete a dead formality and thus vide my separate order I had closed the prosecution evidence. Since nothing incriminating had turned up against the accused, so his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the accused becomes entitle to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. The accused is thus acquitted of the charge under sections 376/323 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled ; surety discharged. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room, of course, after compliance of provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C. Announced in the open court today i.e. 14-8-2014 ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.
SC No. : 141/2014 State v. Abdul Kadir @ Raja Page No. 5 FIR No. : 320/2014 PS : Sun Light Colony, New Delhi.