Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev S/O Om Prakash, R/O Village ... on 2 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGECUM
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : INCHARGENE DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 96/10
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0296372010
State Vs. Sanjeev S/o Om Prakash, R/o Village Lamkan, PS Harpal Pur,
Distt. Hardoi UP.
Present Address : Shyam Ka Makan, Gali No.10, Vill. Gokalpuri,
Delhi.
FIR No. 259/10
PS Gokalpuri
U/s 376 IPC.
Date of Institution : 09.11.2010
Date of Reserving the Judgement : 07.07.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2011
J U D G E M E N T : Present case depicts a glaring example of illeffects of alcohol where a wife and daughter implicated their father/husband in a false case of rape in order to get him rid of his habit of alcohol. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 28.07.2010 at about 1pm Sheela (name changed) returned home from her school. At that time her father Sanjeev was at home. He was under
influence of liquor. Her father started talking with her in filthiest language. When she objected her father for his behaviour, then he started beating her. He tried to S.C. No. 96/10 Page 1/22 2 unclothe her. In that process, her clothes were torn. He tried to have illicit act with her. But in the meanwhile, at about 3.30pm, her mother Savita returned home from her job. Her mother saved her from clutches of her father. A quarrel arose between her father and mother. At about 9pm, Sheela went out of her house on the pretext of bringing chowmein. She had also taken her father's phone with her. She called at 100 number. She reported the matter to police. Her statement was recorded, which became bedrock of the case. Investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested. Investigation culminated into a charge sheet against the accused.
2. Charge for offence punishable under section 376 IPC is framed against the accused, to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined Dr. Vinay Tomar (PW1), Sh. Rakesh Kumar, ACJ/ARC (PW2), Shashi Prabha (PW3), Constable Dharampal (PW4), HC Ashok Pal (PW5), Constable Roop Singh (PW6), Dr. Divya (PW7), Ms. Shalu (PW8), Anita SI (PW9), Constable Anil Kumar (PW10), HC Naresh Kumar (PW10), Smt. Savita (PW11), Divyansh (PW12) and Ms. Manisha Upadhyay (PW13) in the case.
4. PW1 Dr. Vinay Tomar medically examined accused on 30.07.2010 and prepared his MLC Ex.PW1/A. He opined that there is nothing to S.C. No. 96/10 Page 2/22 3 suggest that accused is unable to do sexual intercourse.
PW2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, ACJcumARC, was working as Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.07.2010. On that day an application for recording statement of prosecutrix Sheela was moved before Ms. Shivali Sharma, ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, which was assigned to him. Thereafter, he adjourned the application for 30.07.2010 and recorded statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/2.
PW3 Shashi Prabha, Primary Teacher, MC Primary School, brought the record pertaining to admission of Sheela and as per record her date of birth is 01.01.1998.
PW4 Constable Dharampal joined investigation of the case with SI Divyansh. He is the witness to the recording of statement of prosecutrix by the investigating officer. He also took prosecutrix with lady Constable Anita to GTB Hospital for her medical examination, where doctor handed over MlC of prosecutrix and sealed exhibits with sample seal, which were handed over to the investigating officer of the case. Site plan was prepared by the investigating officer in his presence.
PW5 HC Ashok Pal recorded DD No. 34A, which is Ex.PW34/A, on receipt of information from wireless operator that one girl aged about 13 years had informed that her father tried to commit rape upon her.
PW6 Constable Roop Singh took exhibits of the case to FSL and S.C. No. 96/10 Page 3/22 4 deposited the same over there.
PW7 Dr. Divya examined the prosecutrix on 28.07.2010 and has deposed that she was brought by lady Constable Anita with alleged history of sexual assault multiple time by her father for last three months. She was last assaulted about 15 days back. She prepared her MLC Ex.PW7/A and took various samples and handed over the same to lady Constable Anita.
PW8 Ms. Sheela is the prosecutrix herself.
PW9 SI Anita has deposed that on the intervening night of 28/29072010 on calling of SI Divyansh, she went to house of Shyam, Gali No.10, Village Gokalpuri, where SI Divyansh recorded statement of prosecutrix, and thereafter she took prosecutrix for medical examination. Her mother accompanied her. Victim was medically examined at GTB Hospital. Doctor handed over MLC, sealed exhibits, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Constable Anil Kumar is the witness to the arrest of accused and has deposed that on 30.07.2010, he along with SI Divyansh and Savita were present at Ganda Nala, Gokalpuri in search of the accused. On the pointing out of Savita, accused was apprehended and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C. He S.C. No. 96/10 Page 4/22 5 took him to GTB Hospital for his medical examination. After medical examination, doctor handed over exhibits, which he handed over to the investigating officer who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/D. PW10 HC Naresh Kumar was working as MHC(M) with whom exhibits were deposited.
PW11 Smt. Savita is the mother of prosecutrix and wife of the accused.
PW12 SI Divyansh conducted investigation of the case. On the night intervening 28/29.07.10, on receipt of DD No.34A Ex.PW5/A, he along with Constable Dharam Pal went to the spot, that is, house of Shyam, Gali No.10, Gokalpuri, where prosecutrix Sheela met him. He recorded statement of Sheela Ex.PW8/A. He sent Sheela with her mother and lady Constable Anita and Constable Dharam Pal to GTB Hospital for her medical examination. He made endorsement Ex.PW12/A on the statement of prosecutrix and prepared rukka. He went to PS and got the FIR Ex.PW12/B registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW12/C at the instance of Sheela. He searched for accused. He recorded statement of witnesses. He along with lady Constable Urmila, Sheela and her mother Savita reached Karkardooma Courts for getting the statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 30.07.2010, he got obtained S.C. No. 96/10 Page 5/22 6 age/birth certificate Ex.PW12/D from Principal, MC Primary School, Gokalpuri, Shahdara for proving her date of birth as 01.01.98. He took prosecutrix to KKD courts from Nirmal Chhaya along with her mother and statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. He obtained copy of said statement. He also recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, accused was apprehended near Gokalpuri Ganda Nala at the instance of Savita. Accused was arrested, his personal search was prepared and was also got medically examined. He took exhibits of the case into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. On 27.08.2010 exhibits were sent to FSL through Constable Roop Singh vide RC No. 70/21. After depositing the same Constable Roop Singh handed over the receipt to MHC(M). He recorded statement of HC Ramesh and Constable Roop Singh. He completed investigation, prepared the challan and filed the same before the Court.
PW13 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, Sr. Scientific Officer, examined exhibits of the case and proved biological report in this regard as Ex.PW13/A.
5. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused, he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Except the fact that in the year, 2010 Sheela along with him and her mother, brother and sister were residing at Gali No.10, Gokalpuri, in S.C. No. 96/10 Page 6/22 7 the house of Shyam, he had denied all the allegations levelled against him. His case has been of denial simpliciter. He pleads that it is a false case. He has been falsely implicated in the case by his wife and daughter to get rid of his bad habit of taking liquor. Due to this reason his wife tutored his daughter and with connivance of police, this case is falsely planted upon him. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard Sh. Ravinder Khandelwal, ld. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Abdul Sattar, Advocate, for the accused and have perused the record.
7. It was submitted by ld. counsel for the accused that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, both prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have clearly deposed that they got accused implicated in this false case in order to get him rid of habit of alcohol. As such accused is entitled to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by ld. Prosecutor that testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. In the instant case, right from the beginning, the prosecutrix made allegations against accused regarding commission of rape upon her for last three months. In fact the police machinery was set in motion on complaint made by her and she narrated the same history before the doctor as well as before the ld. S.C. No. 96/10 Page 7/22
8 Metropolitan Magistrate. Since the accused is real father of prosecutrix, it seems that in order to save him, now she has taken the somersault by deposing that allegations levelled by her against him were false and the same were levelled in order to send him to jail or that he may be able to get rid of his habit of consumption of alcohol. There is no reason to discredit her earlier statement. As such, accused is liable to be convicted of the offence alleged against him.
9. I have given my considerable thoughts to respective submissions of the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
10. As regards the legal proposition that conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of prosecutrix, there is no dispute about this proposition of law and there are catena of decisions to this effect, viz, State of Maharashtra Vs. Chander Prakash Keval Chand Jain (1990 (1) SCC
550); State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2) SCC 384); and Omprakash Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 787.
11. Crucial question for consideration, however, is whether the testimony of prosecutrix in the instant case is of such a nature that finding of the guilt may be based upon her uncorroborated evidence. Although there is no dispute that police machinery in the instant case was set in motion on telephonic information given by the prosecutrix S.C. No. 96/10 Page 8/22 9 to the police regarding attempt to commit rape by her father, on which DD No. 34A Ex.PW5/A was recorded, on which SI Devyansh along with Constable Dharampal went to house of Shyam, Gali No. 10, Gokalpuri, Delhi, where he met prosecutrix, who gave her statement Ex.PW8/A inter alia to the effect that on 28.07.2010 at about 1pm she returned home from her school and changed her clothes; her father was present at her house and was under
influence of liquor; he started talking her in filthy language; she tried to make him understand, then he started beating her; her father attempted to remove her clothes, which got torn; he attempted to commit rape upon her. When her mother returned back to house from her work and rescued her. Her father came in anger and a quarrel ensured between her parents. At about 10pm, she went out of the house on the pretext of eating chowmein and at that time she took mobile phone of her father with her and then informed police at 100 number. She prayed action against her father. On the basis of this statement FIR Ex.PW12/B was got registered. The prosecutrix was taken to hospital for her medical examination. At that time also history given to the doctor was regarding sexual assault on multiple time on the subject by her father for last three months. Last assault S.C. No. 96/10 Page 9/22 10 took place 15 days back. History of physical assault in the afternoon of 28.07.2010. Thereafter, an application under section 164 Cr.P.C was moved by SI Devyansh and statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/2 was recorded by Sh. Rakesh KumarIII, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein also the prosecutrix had levelled allegations against her father and that prior to the incident which took place on 28.07.2010 he had also committed rape upon her thrice and prior to that he used to indulge in unnatural act with her. However, when the witness appeared in the witness box, she unfolded that in the year, 2010 she was residing along with her mother, father, brother and sister. Accused is her father. On 28th of 2010 she returned back from her school. Her father had consumed liquor and asked her to sit on a takhat. He inquired from her whether she will obey him or not. She replied in negative. Her father told her that "Hamare Sath Karogi Ya Nahi, Tumhari Mummy Bekar Ho Gayi Hai." she became very annoyed on this and sent him to jail. Her father did not do anything with her. Since the witness did not support the case of prosecution, she was crossexamined by the ld. Prosecutor and in crossexamination she admitted that she made call to police at 100 number and police had come to her house on receipt of call. Police recorded her statement Ex.PW8/A, which bears her signatures at point 'A'. S.C. No. 96/10 Page 10/22
11 Whatever she stated before police, the same was recorded by them. She admitted that on 28.07.2010, she returned back from her school at about 1pm and changed her clothes. Her father was present in the house and was under influence of alcohol. He started talking to her by using wrong words "gandi baatein". He was under influence of liquor. She admitted having stated to police that when she asked her father not to talk to her in this manner, he started beating her. However, she went on stating that she told a lie before the police. She further admitted having stated to police that her father tried to remove her clothes, as a result of which same were torn. She volunteered that she torn her clothes herself. She admitted having stated to police that her father attempted to commit rape upon her, but at about 3.30pm her mother Savita came back from the job and rescued her. However, she went on stating that this was wrong statement made by her. She admitted having stated to police that when her mother rescued her, a quarrel ensued between her mother and father. She went on stating that dispute had arisen between them on other issues. She admitted having stated to police that on the pretext of eating chowmein, she came out of her house, brought the mobile phone of her father and informed police at 100 number that her father attempted to commit rape upon her and her clothes were stained with blood. She was taken to hospital for medical examination, where she was medically S.C. No. 96/10 Page 11/22 12 examined. Her mother consented for her medical examination and her clothes were taken into possession by police. After two days, she was brought before the Court and her statement Ex.PW2/2 was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate. She admitted contents of the statement made before the Metropolitan Magistrate, but went on stating that this statement was made by her in anger. She went on stating that she had given statement before the Metropolita Magistrate as she was angry with her father because her father always used to quarrel and her father used to consume alcohol. According to her, implicating her father was appropriate method in order to show her anger. According to her, she had informed her uncle and aunt and other relatives that her father consumes liquor and thereafter he quarrels with her mother. However, she did not inform the police at 100 number that after consuming alcohol, her father quarreled with her mother. In pursuance to the questions as to why she did not inform the police at 100 number when her father used to quarrel with her mother after consuming alcohol, she went on stating that she did not take it seriously. She admitted that when she was taken for medical examination, she told the doctor that her father sexually assaulted her several times for last thee months. The last assault had taken place 15 days back. However, she went on stating that this was a false statement made by her. She denied the suggestion that she has been made to S.C. No. 96/10 Page 12/22 13 understand by family members of accused not to disclose true facts before the Court or that because of this reason she is taking a plea of anger. She further denied the suggestion that her statement before the police, doctor and Metropolitan magistrate was correct or that she was suppressing material facts. It has further come in her crossexamination that her father consumes liquor daily. By the words "Mere Saath Kam Karogi", the witness stated that by these words her father meant household work. She admitted that history was given to the doctor herself, but went on stating that history was given at the instance of her mother. When witness was recalled for further crossexamination after lunch, at that time she deposed that brief history was given to the doctor by her and not by her mother. But history was given by her at the instance of her mother. She admitted that her mother does not do household work, therefore quarrel took place between her mother and father. Her father used to ask her to do household work, but she used to decline, on this he used to give her beatings. When she was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, her mother had accompanied her and she made statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate at the instance of her mother. She admitted that neither her father committed rape upon her nor attempted to do so and she and her mother made complaint and got the accused implicated in this case, so that he may get rid of alcohol.
S.C. No. 96/10 Page 13/22
14
12. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that although she did not disown the statement made by her before the police which became bedrock of the investigation or the history given before the doctor or statement made before the Metropolitan Magistrate. But she gave explanation that all these statements were false and the same were made with a view to send the father to jail so that he may be able to get rid of his habit of consuming liquor.
13. Even her mother Smt. Savita has deposed that it was monsoon season of the year, 2010. At about 3.30pm, she returned back to her house from her work. Gate of the house was open. She saw accused giving beatings to her daughter. She sent her on the pretext of taking chowmein and asked her to make a telephone call at 100 number as accused was not doing any work. He used to consume liquor and used to beat them, and therefore they were very much perturbed due to his activities. Many a times, she had also reported to police, but no action was taken on the ground that it was a dispute between husband and wife. Therefore, since no action was being taken by police, therefore in order to get accused confined in jail, she asked her daughter to level allegations of rape upon her by the accused. When her daughter made complaint, then police came and arrested the accused, vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/A and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW10/B. Since this witness S.C. No. 96/10 Page 14/22 15 did not support he case of prosecution, she was also crossexamined by the ld. prosecutor and in crossexamination she admitted having stated to police that on 28.07.2010 at about 3.15pm, when she returned back to her house after finishing her job, she saw gate of her house closed and when she opened the same, she saw clothes of her daughter torn. She could not remember if she had stated to the police that torn clothes of her daughter were not on her person and her husband had laid down her daughter on the cot. She admitted having stated to police that accused was trying to commit "Galat Kaam" with her daughter. She denied having stated to police that her daughter was trying to release herself from clutches of hands of her husband and she became nervous or that she pushed her husband due to which her husband came in anger. She was confronted with material portions of her statement Ex.PW11/A, where these facts were mentioned. She admitted having stated to police that accused had committed rape upon her daughter three or four times and due to shame she did not tell these facts to anyone. She went on stating that she had told lie to police. She admitted having stated to police that she had told these facts to Baijnath, brother of accused, to make him understand. When she reached the spot she saw that blood was oozing out from nose of her daughter. She admitted that she had stated to police that shirt of her daughter was torn. A dispute had taken place between her S.C. No. 96/10 Page 15/22 16 and her husband. She admitted that prior to reaching of police, her husband had fled away from her house. She also admitted that her daughter was medically examined in GTB Hospital and she had consented to her medical examination. She also admitted that statement of her daughter was recorded in the Court. In pursuance to the question as to what she had told to her daughter to report the police at number 100. She deposed that she had only asked her daughter to inform the police at number 100 to get accused arrested. She did not ask her to level allegations of rape against him. She denied the suggestion that accused had assured her to mend his ways and therefore she is not deposing against him. She also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely knowing it fully well that in case accused remains in jail, then they will face financial hardships or that she was deliberately suppressing material facts in order to save the accused, who is her husband. In crossexamination, she denied the suggestion that police officials recorded statement of their own and did not read over the same and at the time of medical examination her daughter herself narrated the history and gave correct version.
14. One cannot lost sight of the fact that parties belongs to a low strata of society, inasmuch as, the accused is a rickshaw puller. His wife is working as maid servant. There used to be frequent quarrels on the issue S.C. No. 96/10 Page 16/22 17 of consuming liquor by the accused. As per testimony of this witness several efforts were made to get the accused mend his ways, but no avail. Matter was even reported to the brother of accused, but that did not yield any result. When mother of the prosecutrix tried to report the matter to police, even police did not take any action on the ground that it was a family dispute and matter be sorted out within the family. Ultimately, finding no option available to them, mother and prosecutrix chose wrong path of getting her husband implicated in a false case of committing rape upon his own daughter and the girl was made instrumental in lodging such false report. In Radhu (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Court should bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon as there has been rare instances of implicating on false charges of rape either to take revenge or to extort money or to get the rid of financial liability. In the instant case, as per testimony of prosecutrix and her mother, they levelled false charge of rape in order to get the accused mend his ways.
15. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that it is the deposition of the witness before the Court which has to be considered. The initial statement made by the prosecutrix on which police was set in motion and on the basis of which FIR was registered are not substantive piece of evidence. Similarly, the history given by the prosecutrix to the doctor at the best can be said to be previous statement. Similarly, the statement recorded u/s S.C. No. 96/10 Page 17/22 18 164 Cr.P.C by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate are previous statement and these are not substantive piece of evidence on which conviction can be based. The FIR or the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C can be ultilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness visavis statement made in the Court. It can only be utilised as a previous statement and nothing more. In Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmeet Kaur and another, 1972 (3) SCC 280, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C is not substantive piece of evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness visavis statement in the Court. It can be only utilized as previous statement or nothing more. This authority was cited with approval by Hon'ble Apex Court in subsequent decisions reported in 2010 V AD (SC) 432, Baijnath Shah vs. State of Bihar. Similarly, in 2010 V AD SC 422 Utpal Dev and another vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that FIR and statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence. It can be only utilized as a previous statement for the purpose of either contradicting its maker or contradicting him or any such situation. The previous statement cannot be used unless attention of the witness first being drawn to those parts by which it is proposed to contradict the witness. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, the statement made by the prosecutrix before the police officials which was made basis S.C. No. 96/10 Page 18/22 19 of FIR and the subsequent statement made by her before the doctor or statement under section 164 Cr.p.C recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate are not substantive piece of evidence and therefore the same cannot be made basis for conviction. When prosecutrix appeared in the Court, she did not deny having levelled allegations against her father before the police, doctor and Metropolitan Magistrate, but she gave the explanation that allegations were false and since there used to be frequent quarrels between her parents after accused used to consume alcohol and since police was not taking any action on the complaint made by her mother regarding their marital dispute, therefore she deemed it proper to level allegations of rape so that he will be arrested and he may be able to get rid of his habit of alcohol in jail.
16. Result of the aforesaid discussion is that neither prosecutrix nor her mother has supported the case of prosecution. Even the expert evidence does not support the case of prosecution, inasmuch as, when prosecutrix was examined samples were taken. Similarly, when accused was medically examined various samples were taken and same were sent to FSL and reports Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B were given by Ms. Manisha Upadhya and perusal of these reports goes to show that although the blood was detected on some of the exhibits, but it could not be detected on some other exhibits. Semen could not be detected on any of the S.C. No. 96/10 Page 19/22 20 exhibits. Even regarding detection of blood on certain exhibits, which were salwar, shirt, dupatta, sameej, under wear, it may be mentioned that even as per initial statement made by the prosecutrix, it was only attempt to commit rape and no actual act had been committed, inasmuch as, in the complaint made by her before the police she had only stated that her father had tried to remove her clothes, which were torn and when he was attempting to commit rape, at that juncture her mother came and rescued her. That being so, if there was no actual commission of rape, there was no question of coming blood on the clothes of prosecutrix. Therefore it is not explained as to how blood came on the clothes of prosecutrix.
17. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that onus squarely lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is established beyond doubt. However, it is also settled principle of criminal law that suspicion howsoever grave cannot take place of proof. Initial complaint made to the police or history given to the doctor or statement made before the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate raise suspicious finger against the accused, but the same has not been proved beyond shadow of doubt. It was held by Hon'ble High Court in 2011 IV AD (Delhi) 3, CRL.A. No. 863/2001, Shakuntala vs. State that the circumstances as propounded by the prosecution no doubt creates suspicion against accused/appellant, S.C. No. 96/10 Page 20/22 21 but suspicion by itself, howsoever strong it may be is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrants a finding of guilt of the accused. Reliance for these can be placed on State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh, (1975) 4 SCC 472; Mousam Singh Roy vs. State of West Bengal, 2003 VI AD (SC) 478 = (2003) 12 SCC 377, relying on Sarvan Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 where it was held that there may be element of truth in the version of the prosecution against the accused and considering as whole the prosecution story may be true; but between "may be true" and "must be true" there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliance and unimpeachable evidence before the accused can be convicted. The Supreme Court had also held that a degree of agony and frustration may be caused to the families of the victim by the fact that a heinous crime may go unpunished, but then the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the acceptable evidence.
18. Result of the aforesaid discussion is that since the prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the case of prosecution, the Court has no option but to give the accused benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he is granted S.C. No. 96/10 Page 21/22 22 benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Sunita Gupta) On this 2nd day of August, 2011. District JudgecumASJ, InchargeNE, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
S.C. No. 96/10 Page 22/22