Delhi District Court
State vs Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & Ors. -:: Page 1 Of ... on 29 October, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 83/2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
State
versus
1. Mr. Manpreet Singh @ Chinu
Son of Mr.Surender Singh
Resident of BL-127, L-Block, Anand Vihar,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi........................................................(Facing trial)
2. Mr. Ratan Deep Singh
Sonof Mr. Amarjeet Singh
Resident of B-66A, Asha Park Jail Road,
Hari Nagar, Delhi..............................................................(Not Arrested)
3. Mr. Gagan Deep Singh
Son of Mr. Sardar Amarjit Singh,
Resident of B-66A, Asha Park Jail Road,
Hari Nagar, Delhi..............................................................(Not Arrested)
4. Mr. Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny
Son of Mr. Jugal Kishore,
Resident of H. No. UB-9, Asha Park, L-Block , Jail Road,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi......................................................(Not Arrested)
First Information Report Number : 572/14
Police Station Hari Nagar
Under sections 376 D/380/384/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 25.07.2014.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this : 02.08.2014.
Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar,
Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 1 of 11 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 29.10.2014.
Date of judgment : 29.10.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has been produced from
judicial custody.
Other accused persons have not been arrested and not sent for
trial.
Prosecutrix is present with her counsel Mr.Pradeep Bhardwaj.
Ms.Shubra Mehndiratta, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
**************************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Ranhola, Delhi for the offence under sections 376D /380/384/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that about one year prior to 03.06.2014 date, time and place not known, accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu committed rape upon prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity) several times for about four months. During the above said period date and time not known at house of the prosecutrix (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix), accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu committed theft of tops belonging to mother in law of the prosecutrix and cash of Rs. 2 lacs of the husband of the prosecutrix from the almirah of mother in law of the prosecutrix and threatened the prosecutrix to kill her children, if she disclosed the incident to anybody.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 2 of 11 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.07.2014 and after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 02.08.2014.
4. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 376, 380 and 506 of the IPC was framed against the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu vide order dated 05.08.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
6. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
7. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that earlier she was residing at another address (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix) with her husband and two daughters. On 21.05.2014, theft have been committed in her house and Rs. 1,20,000/- of her Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 3 of 11 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
husband and gold tops of her mother in law were stolen. She had friendship with accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu. Her husband came to know about her friendship with accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu and he told her that as the accused was coming into their house, he must have committed the theft. Proecutrix told her husband that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu could not have committed theft on which her husband told prosecutrix that if accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has not committed theft, then she must have committed theft. Prosecutrix told her husband that even she has not committed theft. Then, the husband of the prosecutrix said that since theft has been committed in his house, he would lodge an FIR. Then she went to Police Station Hari Nagar and made a complaint of theft stating that she had doubt that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu had committed theft. She gave her statement to the police (Ex. PW1/A). Later on, she came to know that 376 has been put on the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu. She only know 376 means a rape case. Accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has not committed any offence against her. He has not raped her. He has not threatened her. She had a doubt that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has committed theft in her house but she is not certain as she has not seen him committing theft. She had told the Madam from NGO and SHO Sir that she wanted to take back the case but she was told since FIR had already been lodged the case would be put into the Court for trial. She has prayed that the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu may be released from jail and he may be acquitted. Accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has not committed any offence against her.
8. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 4 of 11 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
9. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, the prosecutrix has admitted after reading the complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that she has not told the police whatever is mentioned in the contents of the complaint. She voluntarily stated that she had made a statement before the police in the same manner which she had narrated in the Court. She had signed the complaint without reading the contents of the same and even the complaint was not read over to her by the police before she made her signatures on the same. The complaint (Ex.PW1/A) is in her handwriting.
She had gone to the PS Hari Nagar along with her husband and relatives and narrated everything to the police which had happened with her. She told the police that she had physical relations with accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu with her free consent. Accused Chinu had not done anything wrong with her. When she was writing her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), she was surrounded and pressurized by her few relatives and well wishers and at their instance the complaint was written. She do not remember the names of her those relatives and well wishers. She denied the suggestion that the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) was written by her voluntarily and not at the instance of her relatives and well wishers and deposing falsely to this effect. She admitted that she was medically examined in DDU Hospital, New Delhi. She admitted that she was produced before the learned. Metropolitan Magistrate where her statement (Ex.PW1/B) was recorded. She voluntarily stated that she had given her statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the instance of her well wishers and few relatives. She denied the suggestion that she had voluntarily stated before learned Metropolitan Magistrate and not at Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 5 of 11 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
the instance of well wishers and few relatives. She admitted that she has mentioned the names of three others persons namely Mr. Sunny, Mr. Gagan and Mr. Ratan (all absconding and not arrested) who had physical relations with her and blackmailed her. She admitted that she had stated so before learned Metropolitan Magistrate in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW1/B). She voluntarily stated that she had mentioned their names at the instance of her well wishers but in fact these persons had not blackmailed her and nor had any physical relations with her. The said three persons had only harassed her. She denied the suggestion that about one year prior to
03.06.2014, accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu committed rape upon her several times for about 4 months. She further denied the suggestion that during the said period, accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu committed theft of gold tops belonging to her mother in law and cash of Rs. 2 lacs from the almirah of her mother in law from her house and he also threatened her to kill her children, if she disclosed the incident to any one. She denied the suggestion that she is not supporting the prosecution case and deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused.
10. She has also been cross examined on behalf of accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu and admitted that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu is innocent and has not committed any offence. She has again prayed that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu may be released from jail and he may be acquitted.
11. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu or that he had committed Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 6 of 11 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
theft in her house and threatened to kill her and her children if she disclosed about the incident to anyone. She has not even mentioned the word "rape" in her evidence nor has deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu. She has in fact absolved him saying that he is innocent and has prayed for his acquittal.
12. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to both the accused, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
13. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
14. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
15. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 7 of 11 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the prosecution case and the complaint cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
16. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
17. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu that he committed rape upon prosecutrix one year prior to 03.06.2014 date, time and place not known several times for about four months. No inference can be drawn that during the above said period, date and time not known, at the house of the prosecutrix, accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu committed theft of tops belonging to mother in law of the prosecutrix and cash of Rs. 2 lacs of the husband of the prosecutrix from the almirah of mother in law of the prosecutrix and threatened the prosecutrix to kill her children, if she disclosed the incident to anybody. There is no material on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was ever raped by the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu or that he committed theft in her house or that he threatened to kill her and her children if she disclosed the incident to anyone. No case is made out against the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu as there is no incriminating evidence Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 8 of 11 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
against him. The prosecutrix has even prayed for his acquittal stating that he is innocent.
18. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
19. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr.Man- preet Singh @ Chinu is guilty of the charged offence under sections 376, 380 and 506 of the IPC. There is no incriminating material on the record to show that Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has committed any offence.
20. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prose- cution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prose- cution has failed to establish the offences of rape, theft and threat against ac- cused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.
21. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu for the offence under sections 376, 380 and 506 of the IPC.
Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 9 of 11 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
22. Consequently, accused Mr.Manpreet Singh @ Chinu is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under sections 376, 380 and 506 IPC.
24. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
25. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
26. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
27. Here, I would also like to mention that in recent times a new expression is being used for a rape victim i.e. a rape survivor. The prosecutrix, a woman or a girl who is alive, who has levelled allegations of rape by a man is now called a rape survivor. In the present case, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape as the prosecutrix retracted and turned hostile. In the circumstances, such a person, an acquitted accused, who has been acquitted honourably, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor? This leaves us with much to ponder about the present day Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 10 of 11 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
situation of the veracity of the rape cases.
28. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
29. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room. The file be taken up again as and when other accused Mr.Ratan Deep Singh, Mr. Gagan Deep Singh and Mr.Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny are apprehended.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 29th day of October, 2014. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 83 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R352112014.
FIR No. 572/2014, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376 D/380/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Manpreet Singh @ Chinu & ors. -:: Page 11 of 11 ::-