Delhi District Court
State vs . Jahiruddin S/O Usman Ansari on 12 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.47/15.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0059342015.
State Vs. Jahiruddin s/o Usman Ansari
R/o D-3/14, Jeewan Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Institution :21.05.2015.
FIR No.112/15 dated 25.1.2015.
U/s. 376/366/342 IPC
P.S. Dabri.
Date of reserving judgment : 12.8.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 12.8.2015.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been facing trial for having committed the offences u/s 376/366/342 IPC & 4 POCSO Act.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.1.2015 on receipt of DD No.23B, SI Anil Kumar reached the spot of incidence i.e. at D-3/14, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi where complainant/prosecutrix 'A' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) met him. The matter being related to sexual assault upon a woman, SI Chander Kanta was summoned, who made inquiries from the prosecutrix and recorded her statement SC No.47/15 Page 1 of 6 wherein prosecutrix stated that she has been residing at Delhi for last three years. During her stay at Delhi, she came into contact with accused Jahiruddin Ansari, a driver. Accused allured her and took her to Jeewan Park. When prosecutrix refused to live with him, he cut his finger and applied his blood on the parting of her hair and told her that now they are husband and wife. Despite her resistance, he established forcible physical relations with her. Thereafter, prosecutrix used to ask accused to solemnize marriage with her but accused used to commit sexual intercourse with her without solemnizing marriage with her and he also used to give beatings and threats to prosecutrix. Accused also did not permit her to visit her parents. On 25.1.2015 a quarrel took place between her and the accused on a minor issue of putting calender in the house and somebody made call at telephone No.100.
3. On the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, FIR u/s. 366/342/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act was registered. Prosecutrix was got counselled through an NGO. Site plan of the spot at the instance of prosecutrix was prepared by SI Chander Kanta. Accused was arrested on 25.1.2015 from house No.D3/14, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and his disclosure statement was recorded. Accused was medically examined in DDU Hospital. On 27.1.2015 prosecutrix was produced before Ms. Ruchika Singla, ld. MM, Dwarka Courts who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation, prosecutrix produced photocopy of her conversion certificate and marriage certificate before SI Chander Kanta on 26.2.2015. SI Chander Kala recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
SC No.47/15 Page 2 of 64. After the completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was laid before the ld. Sessions Judge dealing in cases under POCSO Act. However, he found from the record that the prosecutrix was major and hence the provisions of POCSO Act do not apply. Accordingly, the case was then committed to this Court.
5. The charge for having committed the offences u/s.366 IPC & u/s.376 IPC was framed against accused on 10.08.2015. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and therefore, trial was commenced.
6. Prosecutrix was the star witness for the prosecution. She has been examined today as PW1. The relevant portion of her deposition is reproduced herein below :-
"I have got married to the accused Jahiruddin (present in court today and correctly identified) on 26.2.2015 according to Muslim rites. I was earlier Christian by religion. As I was in deep love with the accused and wanted to marry him, I converted to Islam on 26.2.2015 and then our 'Nikah' was performed in a 'Masjid' in Fatehpuri, Delhi. I had handed over a copy of my religion conversion certificate and marriage certificate to the IO during the course of investigation. The copy of religion conversion certificate is Ex.PW1/A bearing my photograph at point A and my signature at point B. After conversion to Islam, I have changed my name from Anita to Salma Khatoon. I changed my religion voluntary and of my own will as I wanted to SC No.47/15 Page 3 of 6 marry the accused. The copy of the marriage certificate (Nikah Nama) is Ex.PW1/B bearing my photograph at point A and my signature at point B. It also bears the photograph of the accused at point C. I solemnized the marriage with the accused voluntary and of my own free will.
In the month of January, 2015, also, we were staying together as we were in love with each other. We were having consensual physical relations with each other. A quarrel had taken place between us on 25.1.2015 and upon hearing our verbal outbursts, a neighbour had made a call at telephone no.100, pursuant to which police came to our residence. I was taken to the police station. As I was in a state of anger, I made statement to the police saying that the accused is beating me and is refusing to marry me despite having forcible sexual relations with me.
I state that the accused has never committed forcible sexual relations with me. The physical relations between us were always with my consent as I loved him and wanted to marry him. The accused had never refused to marry me and he always intended to marry me. We have ultimately got married on 26.2.2015.
After the FIR was registered against the accused on my statement, I realized my mistake and told the truth to the Ld. M.M. before whom I was produced by the police official on 27.2.2015. The statement given by me to the Ld. M.M. is Ex.PW1/C bearing my signature at point A1.SC No.47/15 Page 4 of 6
I reiterate that the contents of the FIR are totally false and whatever I have deposed today is true and correct.
7. The prosecutrix was declared hostile by Ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, she denied all the suggestions put to her. She denied the suggestion that the contents of her statement to the police are true and correct and that she had given a false statement to the Ld. M.M. and has deposed falsely today also in order to shield the accused as she has got married to him. She specifically denied that the accused had been committing forcible sexual relations with her and had brought her to his residence in Jeevan Park by allurement and had confined her in his house. She deposed that she had been staying with the accused voluntary as she was in love with him.
8. Hence it is seen that the prosecutrix has deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case. As per her version she and accused were having a love affair and they were staying together and were having consensual physical relations with each other in the month of January, 2015 also. She further deposed that a quarrel took place between her and the accused on 25.1.2015 and upon hearing their verbal outbursts, a neighbour had made a call at telephone no.100, pursuant to which police came to her residence and took her to the police station and as she was in a state of anger, she made statement to the police saying that the accused is beating her and is refusing to marry her despite having forcible sexual relations with her. She further deposed that accused never committed forcible sexual relations with her and SC No.47/15 Page 5 of 6 the physical relations between them were always with her consent as she loved him and wanted to marry him. She also deposed that accused had never refused to marry her and he always intended to marry her and they ultimately got married on 26.2.2015.
9. It is thus manifest that the accused had neither allured the prosecutrix to accompany him on 25.1.2015 nor took her to his house forcibly. The prosecutrix had accompanied the accused voluntarily on her own will, being in love with him and also solemnized marriage with him willingly after converting her religion from Christianity to Islam. It is further evident that the sexual relations between the two, before marriage also, had taken place with her consent and hence do not tentamount to rape.
10. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, It was found futile to carry on trial of the case any further. For the same reason, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. The Ld. APP also has fairly conceded that nothing inculpatory has come in evidence against the accused.
11. Resultantly, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 12.8.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.47/15 Page 6 of 6