Delhi District Court
State vs . Rehan Beg Page No. 1 Of 12 on 12 February, 2013
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT :
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02403R0254572010
SC No. : 23/2013
FIR No. : 176/2009
U/s. : 376 IPC
PS : Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
........................ Complainant.
Versus
Rehan Beg
S/o Shri Mirza Asmad Beg
R/o House No. 122,
Chandoi Mohalla,
Pili Bhit, Uttar Pradesh.
.........................Accused person.
Date of Institution : 30-04-2010
Judgment reserved for orders on : 30-11-2013
Date of pronouncement : 2-12-2013
JUDGMENT
1. The case was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix she made on 18-6-2009 to the officials of P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, stating, inter alia, "I am living alone at the given address for the last two years and am a fashion designer, running a boutique. In December, 2006 I went to my village at Pilibhit, U.P and I met Rehan Beg, a S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 1 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 2 ::-
permanent resident of Pilibhit, U.P, aged about 31 years. Thereafter, he started visiting my permanent address at Pilibhit and we kept on meeting each other. In the last week of December, 2006 we returned to Delhi in my LIG flat and started residing in separate rooms. Since I was considering Rehan as my relative so we did not make any physical relations. In December, 2007, Rehan on a false pretext of marriage made sexual relations with me and after June, 2008 we continued making physical relations. In July, 2008 my father died and I went to Pilibhit, U.P. This broke our relationship and Rehan went near to a girl, namely, Sayra. However, Rehan continued meeting me on the pretext of marriage and continued having physical relations with me. When I insisted Rehan for marriage he asked me to sell the flat and move with him to Mumbai but since I had lost my confidence in Rehan so I asked him to first marry me and then only I would sell the flat but he refused to marry me.
After 16th and 17th May, 2009, today at about 2 / 2:30 PM we again had sexual intercourse and thereafter I have been requesting Rehan to marry me but he had refused to marry me. He has made my life a hell and had forcible intercourse S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 2 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 3 ::-
with me today.
2. On the basis of the above complaint, FIR bearing no.
176/2009, under section 376 IPC was registered at P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The accused was arrested during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed.
3. Since it is a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. On 21-2-2011, a charge under 376 IPC was framed against accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution had examined as many as 9 witnesses and thereafter statement, under section 313 Cr.P.C, of accused was recorded. Before proceeding further, let me state in brief the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses.
PW1 ASI Jagdish Prasad, on 17-9-2009, received DD no. 31-A Ex.PW1/A and went to the flat of the prosecutrix, where he found the prosecutrix weeping and that accused was present and hot talks were going on between them on the issue of Nikah. The prosecutrix lodged her complaint Ex.PW1/B and since it was night so on the next day i.e 18-6-2009 she was taken to the hospital for her medical examination. Thereafter he prepared Rukka Ex.PW1/C and S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 3 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 4 ::-
got the FIR registered. Further investigation was entrusted to ASI Manju.
PW2 Shri Jamal Khan, the servant of the prosecutrix, was residing in the house of prosecutrix and used to sleep in the servant quarter / room. He deposed that prosecutrix and accused used to live together. One day i.e on 19-4-2009 there was a quarrel between accused and the prosecutrix. On hearing noise he went inside the room where accused gave beatings to him as well as to the prosecutrix and then ran away from the room. However, after 2 / 3 days accused returned to the room and sworn in the name of god by putting his hand on the Holy Quran and promised to marry the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix died and he went to Pilibhit, U.P and did not return to the house of the prosecutrix.
PW3 HC Brij Raj Singh, on 18-6-2009, had got conducted the medical examination of accused at AIIMS. The doctor had handed over the exhibits of accused with sample seal which he gave it to the Investigating Officer ; seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Dr. Hari Prasad had medically examined the accused vide MLC Ex.PW4/A and was of the opinion that S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 4 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 5 ::-
there was nothing to suggest that accused is incapable to perform sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.
PW5 Lady Ct. Anita, on 18-6-2009, had taken the prosecutrix to AIIMS for medical examination and the exhibits with sample seal given to her by the doctor was seized by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW5/A. PW6 SI Satpal, on 18-6-2009, got registered the FIR Ex.PW6/A and made endorsement Ex.PW6/B on it and also recorded the DD no. 31-A Ex.PW1/A in this regard.
PW7 Dr. V. Aruna Kumari proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 is the prosecutrix.
PW9 W/SI Manju Bala, the Investigating Officer, whom the investigation was entrusted had arrested accused vide memo Ex.PW3/B ; conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/C ; took into possession the exhibits pertaining to the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW5/A ; seized the exhibits pertaining to accused vide memo Ex.PW3/A. She also proved the FSL report Ex.PW9/A by tendering it.
5. On the basis of the above evidence, the ld prosecutor submits that accused be convicted for the offence u/s 376 IPC as the prosecutrix in her examination in chief had supported the S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 5 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 6 ::-
prosecution. However, the ld counsel for accused submits that the prosecutrix had turned hostile during her cross examination and further that this FIR was only a result of misunderstanding between the accused and the prosecutrix and now both are married and living happily.
Heard.
The deposition of the prosecutrix needs to be examined as it would only clinch the issue involved. The prosecutrix was examined as PW8. She deposed that in the year 2009 she was residing at pocket-12, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi and was running a boutique under the name and style of The Rani's Ultimate Boutique. She belong to district Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh and in the year 2006 she went to her native village to celebrate Eid. One day she went to attend some funeral where accused met her and asked her to discuss something. Accused took the land-line phone number of her house at Pilibhit and requested her to help as he needed to settle in Delhi. Since accused was her distant relative and had told her that he is a civil engineer, so they both came to Delhi. Since accused was not having any permanent arrangement so he requested the prosecutrix to accommodate him in her two room flat. Hence, one of the room was given to accused and S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 6 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 7 ::-
in another room she used to live. Her servant, Jamal Khan, also used to live in the said flat with her. Accused promised her to marry and despite telling accused that she is suffering from skin disease accused assured her that he has no problem with it and he loves her.
On this promise of marriage, accused developed physical relations with her in the year 2008. For some time they lived together in the flat. In the month of July, 2008, the father of the prosecutrix left for heavenly abode but accused did not came to her on that occasion and hence she severed her relations with accused. She went to her native place at Pilibhit, U.P and in the meanwhile accused arranged his own accommodation at Trilokpuri, Delhi. Later she came to know from the accused's brother that accused is residing with a married lady namely Sayra. However, after two months of the death of her father accused came to meet the prosecutrix and consoled her.
On 17-6-2009 accused came to her in the said flat and again assured her that he would marry her. Accused put his hand on the holy book Quran and promised her to marry and told that "aaj sai tum meri bibi ho". It all happened in the presence of Shri Jamal Khan, her servant. On that day S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 7 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 8 ::-
accused also had sexual intercourse with her. Infact, on 17-6-2009 accused had come to her house at about 2/2:30 PM and tried to commit sexual intercourse with her on the pretext that he would marry her. The prosecutrix objected but despite her objections the accused pinned her down on the bed after catching hold of her hairs and had threatened her not to raise any alarm and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She resisted and sustained scratches probably by his nails. She also sustained injuries on the elbow of her left hand. She was having periods at that time and she requested the accused to desist from this act but accused snatched her phone from her hands and threw it on the floor of the room. Since it was a noon time of summer season no one was there in her adjoining flats who could hear her shriek. After committing sexual intercourse with her, accused threatened her that "maine rape kar diya, aab jo karna chaho kar lena, mughe tum se shadi nahi karni". The prosecutrix picked her phone and informed the police. She caught hold of accused as accused was trying to flee from there. The prosecutrix requested one passerby to bolt the door from outside. In the meanwhile police came there and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/B. Her medical examination was conducted. On S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 8 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 9 ::-
18-6-2009 accused was arrested ; she identified her underwear / panty of red colour with sanitary pad as Ex.P1 and one multi-colour towel as Ex.P2.
However, during her cross examination the prosecutrix deposed that she know accused since quite sometime and was in love with him and had made physical relations with him with her consent. She had filed this complaint due to misunderstanding as the accused did not come forward to marry her due to the reasons beyond his control but she thought that he is deliberately avoiding her and is not marrying. However, ultimately he married her and she do not have any grievance. She admitted that though on 17-6-2009 the accused had sexual intercourse with her and she felt that she was being raped as there was misunderstanding creeping between their relations and she though that accused was using her and would never marry her and that only for this reason she had made this complaint.
During re-examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P she deposed that she had stated in her examination in chief that on 17-6-2009 accused had committed rape upon her and even today she is not denying the said statement but due to misunderstanding that he was using her she felt that she was S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 9 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 10 ::-
being raped but now that accused had fulfilled his promise and had married her, so the misunderstanding between them has since been removed.
6. A bare perusal of the fact would show that the prosecutrix had given her deposition in chief against the accused stating, inter alia, that though they both were friends, she submitted to the sexual desire of the accused only after he promised to marry her and that later he refused to marry her but in her cross examination she clarified since the accused was delaying the matter she got angry and filed this complaint. Though she referred to the incident of 17-6-2009 of about 2 / 2:30 PM that the accused forcibly raped her and threatened her that he would never marry her but during her cross examination she clarified that there was misunderstanding between them as the accused was not coming forward to marry due to the reasons beyond his control but she thought that accused was deliberately delaying the matter and hence she filed this complaint.
She admitted the sexual intercourse with accused on 17-6-2009 but felt of being raped due to misunderstanding creeping in between their relations.
The statement of the prosecutrix thus show that they S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 10 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 11 ::-
both entered into sexual intercourse with their consent and that though accused had promised to marry her but as there was delay on his part to marry the prosecutrix, the misunderstanding creped in her mind and she thought that the accused is befooling her but then she came to know that it was only for reasons beyond the control of accused he delayed the marriage and now that he had married the prosecutrix, the alleged misunderstanding is removed and hence there is no reason why the accused be not given its benefit.
Thus, in these circumstances where the prosecutrix had herself deposed that the complaint / FIR is a result of misunderstanding between her and that the accused had now married her, would go on to show that the real cause of lodging the complaint was the delay in their marriage and that now since both of them are married the disputes, if any, stands settled.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, where the prosecutrix herself had exonerated the accused, the benefit of doubt be given to accused. The accused is thus acquitted of the charge under section 376 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled ; surety discharged. Accused is directed to S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 11 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
-:: 12 ::-
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.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 02-12-2013. ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.
S.C. No. 23/2013 State vs. Rehan Beg Page No. 12 of 12 FIR No. 176/2009 P.S Sarita Vihar, New Delhi