Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Etc. on 24 May, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 360/07)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0183802007
State Vs. Ravinder etc.
FIR No. : 152/07
U/s : 363/365/376 IPC
P.S. : S.P. Badli
State Vs. 1. Ravinder
S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh,
R/o House No.Y35,
Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
2. Subhash
S/o Sh. Mool Chand,
R/o Khasra No.779, Hari Enclave,
Balbir Vihar, Sector20,
Rohini, Delhi.
3. Raj Kumar @ Raju
S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh
r/o Y33, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
4. Sanjay
S/o Raghubir Singh
r/o B117, Gali No.2, Raja Vihar,
Samaypur, Delhi.
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 1 / 20
2
Date of institution of case 24.04.2007
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 23.05.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment 24.05.2012
JUDGMENT:
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2007 complainant Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Nafe Singh came to Police Station and got recorded his complaint, wherein he stated that he was permanent resident of Sonepat and that his sister Rekha, aged about 15 years, had been residing with their Tau Sh. Sube Singh, since last about 10 years at Gali No.2, Raja Vihar, S.P. Badli, Delhi. On 17.02.2007 about 4:00 PM his sister had gone out of the house for some work but did not return back to home thereafter and that they had made efforts to search for her but there was no clue about Rekha. Complainant gave the brief description of his sister and clothes, she was wearing when she left the house and further stated that they had come to know on inquiry that their neighbour Ravinder s/o Ranjit had enticed away Rekha and had kidnapped her. He prayed that his sister be searched out and action be taken against said Ravinder s/o Ranjit. The FIR, Ex.PW2/A, u/s. 363/365/376 IPC was recorded directly on complaint of complainant Sanjay Kumar and investigations of the case were commenced. It appears that during the course of investigations, message was flashed at all India Police level to trace the missing girl.
2 Accused Ravinder s/o Ranjit Singh was arrested on 24.02.2007 upon identification by the complainant. It appears from charge sheet that a disclosure statement of accused Ravinder was also recorded by the IO, which the accused refused S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 2 / 20 3 to sign. IO has recorded that he could not get any clue about prosecutrix, from accused Ravinder. During investigations, IO found one witness Sanjay Kumar s/o Raghubir Singh, who had stated that he had seen prosecutrix and accused Ravinder holding their hands and talking to each other on 17.02.2007 at about 4:30 PM at S.P. Badli Bus Stand and when they saw witness Sanjay s/o Raghubir Singh, they turned their faces away from each other. The IO ultimately filed charge against accused Ravinder Singh in the Court without having traced out the prosecutrix.
3 On 24.04.2007 prosecutrix was recovered from Ludhiana. She was got medically examined and was produced before learned MM on 11.05.2007 for her statement u/s.164 CrPC. On the basis of her statement u/s.164 CrPC, search for accused Sanjay, Lalit, Ranjeet, Raju, Rohtash, Subhash and Charan Dass was commenced and Sections 376/511/506/34 IPC were also added. On 22.05.2007 accused Lalit Kumar, Raj Kumar and Subhash were arrested upon identification by the prosecutrix and subsequently their supplementary charge sheet was filed in the Court. It appears that subsequently accused Lalit was found to be a juvenile and he was thus produced before concerned JJB for inquiry in respect of allegations made against him. 4 On 21.01.2008 accused Sanjay s/o Raghubir and his mother Kamla Devi were also arrested in the case upon information given by the prosecutrix. Remaining co accused, named by the prosecutrix, were never arrested and a separate supplementary charge sheet in respect of accused Sanjay s/o Raghubir and his mother Kamla Devi was also filed in the Court.
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 3 / 20 4 5 Accused Kamla Devi was discharged vide order dated 28.02.2008. Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charge for the offence under Section 365/342/34 IPC was framed against accused Ravinder, Subhash, Sanjay and Raj Kumar and u/s. 376/511IPC against accused Ravinder and Sanjay and u/s. 323 against accused Sanjay and u/s.344/34 IPC against accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Subhash, on 25.02.2008. However, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. 6 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses : PW1 Ms. Rekha is the prosecutrix and the prosecution is mainly relying upon her testimony to prove its case on record.
PW2 HC Om Parkash was working as Duty Officer and proved carbon copy of FIR Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Ct. Krishan Kumar joined investigations with IO ASI Rawal Singh during proceedings of arrest of accused Ravinder. He proved his signatures as witness to arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and personal search memo Ex.PW3/B of accused Ravinder. He also proved disclosure statement of accused Ravinder Ex.PW3/C. PW4 HC Gian Chand had also joined the investigation in the case and he proved arrest memo of accused Subhash Ex.PW4/A, arrest memo of accused Raj Kumar @ Raj Ex.PW4/B and arrest memo of accused Lalit Ex.PW4/C. S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 4 / 20 5 PW5 W/Ct. Surinder Kaur too joined the investigations and got conducted the bone xray of prosecutrix at BJRM Hospital for her age and deposed regarding the same.
PW6 Dr. Shipra Rampal, Radiologist, made endorsement Ex.PW6/A on the MLC No.23141 of prosecutrix and gave her report Ex.PW6/B that the estimated bone age of prosecutrix is between 19 - 20 years.
PW7 Ms. Barkha Gupta, Ld. ASJ, had recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW1/A. She proved her endorsement Ex.PW7/A on the application for recording of statement of prosecutrix and certificate regarding the correctness of the statement of prosecutrix Ex.PW7/B. She also deposed that a copy of statement of the prosecutrix was supplied to IO vide her endorsement Ex.PW7/C. PW8 Dr. Anjali Vaish, SR Gynae and OBS, had been deputed by MS BJRM Hospital on behalf of Dr. Anjali Gupta, SR Gynae, who had left the services of hospital. She proved observation on the MLC Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Ct. Sanjita also joined investigations at the time of arrest of accused Kamla (since discharged). She proved her signatures as witness to arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and personal search memo Ex.PW1/E of accused Kamla.
PW10 ASI (Retd.) Rawal Singh is the IO of the case and deposed S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 5 / 20 6 regarding the investigations carried out by him and documents prepared by him during the course of investigations. He deposed about arrest of accused Ravinder Kumar on 24.02.2007, at the instance of complainant, vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A, his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/B, recording of his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW3/C and filing of charge sheet against said accused.
He further deposed that on 24.04.2007 complainant Sanjay Kumar, brother of prosecutrix, came to PS along with one lady and told him that he had received telephonic call from his sister, who told him to take her away from the colony situated behind Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, and that PW10 along with brother of prosecutrix and said lady went to Ludhiana by bus and reached there at 11:30 PM and that they found several persons gathered there and that prosecutrix was also amongst those persons and on seeing the complainant, she rushed towards him and started weeping after hugging her brother and told that she would have been taken away by someone, if she had not escaped and that she was kept at the quarter of one Kirpali. PW10 stated that when he asked prosecutrix to show him the quarter of Kirpali, she insisted that she be taken away from there immediately, otherwise she would be kidnapped again. None of the persons gathered there disclosed anything to him and that on 25.04.2007 at about 5:00 AM, prosecutrix was brought to Delhi and that on the way physical condition of prosecutrix deteriorated and on request of complainant, prosecutrix was allowed to go with him after recording her statement u/s.161 CrPC. PW10 proved the recovery cum handing over memo as Ex.PW10/A. He then deposed about the proceedings whereby statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC were got recorded.
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 6 / 20 7 The PW10 also deposed about serving notice Ex.PW10/B, u/s.160 CrPC to Sube Singh for providing the photograph of Rekha (prosecutrix) and filing of charge sheet of accused Ravinder in the Court. PW10 further deposed about arrest of accused Subhash, Raj @ Raj Kumar and Lalit on 22.05.2007 upon identification of prosecutrix.
PW11 Ct. Subhash Chander also joined the investigations with the IO at the time of arrest of accused Subhash, Raj @ Raj Kumar and Lalit. He proved his signatures on the arrest memos and personal search memos of said accused persons. 7 Statement of the accused Ravinder, Subhash, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Sanjay were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the entire prosecution case and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They do not wish to lead evidence in their defence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8 Arguments have been put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons.
9 Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecutrix is a trustworthy and reliable witness, who has described the specific role played by each of the accused and that the guilt of accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 7 / 20
8
10 Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand has contended that
there are several discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix and that she has given a different version in her statement u/s.161 CrPC made to the Police, her statement u/s.164 CrPC made before learned MM and her deposition in the Court and that her testimony cannot be believed at all. It is further contended that material prosecution witnesses namely Sanjay s/o Sh. Nafe Singh and Sanjay s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh have not been examined, rather there is no explanation given by the prosecution why witness Sanjay s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh was subsequently impleaded as one of the accused in the case. It is further contended that prosecutrix and her family members had ample opportunity to raise alarm and to apprehend the accused persons and that subsequently also prosecutrix had ample opportunities to attract public attention or to bid her escape from alleged confinement by the accused persons and that the fact that prosecutrix failed to do so shows that she had willingly remained away from her house and later got a false case registered against the accused persons at the instance of her brother Sanjay. It is accordingly, prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the charged offences.
11 Arguments have been heard. File perused. In the present case, the investigations of present case commenced on registration of FIR No.152/07 registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Sanjay s/o Sh. Nafe Singh, who stated that his sister Rekha, who had been staying with his uncle and aunt (Tau and Tai), had gone out of house for some work on 17.02.2007 but failed to return and having failed in efforts to search out for her, he had come to file a complaint with the Police and that he had come to know during inquiry for his sister that she had been enticed away and S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 8 / 20 9 abducted by one Ravinder residing in their neighbourhood.
12 The prosecutrix was recovered some time on 24.04.2007 and her statement u/s.161 CrPC was recorded on 25.04.2007, wherein she stated that she was residing with her uncle and aunt (Tau and Tai) as her aunt had adopted her and that one boy named Ravinder, who was related to their family, used to come to their house and often teased her and they started loving each other. About one year prior to the incident, he took prosecutrix to his friend's room and forced himself upon her and later threatened that in case she told about it to anyone then he would kill her and her brother. Prosecutrix did not tell about the incident to anyone. She, however, did not meet Ravinder thereafter and even though family of Ravinder wanted to make her their daughterinlaw, prosecutrix was not inclined for the same. 13 On 17.02.2007 her brother Sanjay had come to meet her at her aunt's house and at that time, Ravinder, Sanjay, Lalit, Ranjit, Raju, Rohtash, Charan Dass and Subhash came to their house and tried to take her away forcibly. When brother of prosecutrix tried to save her, Ranjit, father of Ravinder kept some object on his head and said "Jyada Hoshiari Karoge To Jaan Se Hath Dhokar Bheth Jayega". They pushed her brother and thereafter took prosecutrix in a while colour car to an unknown place where Ravinder, Sanjay and Lalit tried to force themselves upon prosecutrix. When they came to know that accused Ravinder was behind bars, Ranjit, Raju, Jitender, Rohtash, Subhash took prosecutrix to Ludhiana, rest of them came to Delhi. After 10 days, Sanjay, Lalit and Smt. Kamla, mother of Sanjay came to Ludhiana. When prosecutrix refused to listen to them, she was given beatings. They left in the evening. Prosecutrix S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 9 / 20 10 then planned to escape from the said house and took help of landlady Karpali, who helped the prosecutrix in talking to her brother on mobile phone. Later prosecutrix brother, Bua and niece came along with Police.
14 In her statement u/s.164 CrPC recorded on 11.05.2007, prosecutrix made further improvements in her statement u/s.161 CrPC Ex.PW1/A. She stated that her brother had come to meet her as her uncle was unwell. She named accused Ravinder, Sanjay, Lalit, Ranjit, Raju, Rohtash, Subhash and Charan Dass as persons, who had come to her house on 17.02.2007 to take her away forcibly then she improved her statement u/s.161 CrPC (now marked as Mark "X" for identification) stating that when her brother came for her help, Ranjit, father of Ravinder, kept a small pistol on his head and threatened "Jyada Hoshiari Karega To Tujhe Jaan Se Maar Dalenge" and thereafter her brother was pushed and locked inside. Accused Ravinder tied a strip of cloth on eyes of the prosecutrix while accused Sanjay threatened prosecutrix that if she raised alarm, he would kill her and her brother. The prosecutrix was put in a while van and taken to a village where accused Ravinder tore her clothes. She then added that accused Ravinder, Sanjay and Lalit had torn her clothes and tried to force themselves upon her and that Ranjit told all three of them to go to Raja Vihar. Accused Ranjit kept prosecutrix in the Village for about 10 days after which he came to know that family members of prosecutrix had got Ravinder locked up at PS. Thereafter Raju, Jitender, Rohtash, Subhash and Ranjit took her to Ludhiana where they had already got a room booked. Prosecutrix was kept there for about one month after which Ranjit remained there while remaining persons returned to Delhi. After about 10 days, Sanjay, Lalit and Sanjay's mother came to meet her and gave her beatings. They returned back in the S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 10 / 20 11 evening. Prosecutrix took help of Smt. Karpali, landlady, who helped her to talk to her brother on the mobile phone on 23.04.2007. Prosecutrix's brother, her Bua and Jija reached there along with Police and brought her back to Delhi on 25.04.2007. Thereafter prosecutrix went to Sonepat to meet her mother, who was ill. 15 When the prosecutrix was examined before the Court as PW1, she deposed on the lines of her statement u/s.161 CrPC with further improvements. She stated that accused Sanjay, Ravinder, Ranjit, Raju, Subhash, Rohtash, all of whom resided near their house and were known to her prior to the incident had come to her house to take her away forcibly and threatened to kill her and her brother. Thereafter the accused pushed her brother inside the room of her house and locked the door from the outside. Accused Sanjay covered her eyes with a help of cloth strip while accused Ravinder threatened to kill her if she raised alarm. All the accused pushed her inside a maruti van of while colour, which she could identified as she had seen the car, parked in front of their house when accused had entered her house. Accused Ravinder, Sanjay, Ranjit, Raju, Rohtash took her to unknown village and kept her in a room and removed cloth strip tied on her eyes and thereafter accused Ravinder, Sanjay and Lalit tore off her clothes. Thereafter accused Ranjit came and asked all the three accused persons to go to Raja Vihar. Accordingly, the said accused left the room leaving prosecutrix and accused Ranjit. Accused Ranjit did not do anything with her. Prosecutrix stated that none of these accused persons did not do any "galatkam" except the incident of tear of her clothes. One person came and told that accused Ravinder, Lalit and Sanjay had been arrested on complaint made by brother of prosecutrix. After 10 days Raj Kumar, Jitender and Subhash reached the said village and she was kept confined for about S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 11 / 20 12 1015 days after which accused Raj Kumar, Jitender, Ranjit and Subhash took her to Ludhiana in a maruti van of white colour where she was kept in a room in a lonely place. Prosecutrix was kept confined there for about one month and two days after which all the accused except Ranjit returned back to Delhi. The prosecutrix again clarified that Ranjit did not do any "galatkam" with her and that none of the accused did "galatkam" with her during her stay at room at Ludhiana for about one month. She again stated that on 23.04.2007, she made phone call to her brother from a nearby STD phone and told him about her presence at Ludhiana and that her brother Sanjay and Bua Bimla and brotherinlaw Jitender came on 24.04.2007 along with Police and brought her back to Delhi. In the first instance prosecutrix stated that accused Ranjit was also brought to Delhi and then she stated that accused Ranjit managed to escape from the room at Ludhina after seeing her brother and the Police. A leading question was put to prosecutrix regarding her statement u/s.164 CrPC wherein she had stated that while she was kept in a village in a room, accused Sanjay, Lalit and Ravinder tried to tear off her clothes and tried to do "Jabardasti" with her. The witness stated that she had stated so in her statement u/s.164 CrPC and that she could not state so in the Court out of her nervousness. The proceedings wherein accused Sanjay and Kamla Devi were stated to have been arrested in prosecutrix were put to her, however, she denied having signed the arrest and personal search memos of accused Sanjay and Kamla Devi. She specifically denied that accused Sanjay and Kamla Devi were arrested in her presence. 16 During her crossexamination, prosecutrix stated that her date of birth was 04.12.1989. It is also brought out that at the time of incident not only the brother but Tauji and Taiji were also present in the house. The maruti van was stated to S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 12 / 20 13 have been parked at a distance of 10 minutes walk from the house of prosecutrix. During her further crossexamination, prosecutrix stated that she was kept in a village for about 10 days but could not state how far it was from Delhi. She could not state the date when she left the village for Ludhiana. The prosecutrix stated that she had stayed at Ludhiana for one and a half months. The prosecutrix could not state the name of the landlady of the house at Ludhiana or her exact relation with accused Ranjit. She also stated that landlady had taken her to STD Booth and that after talking to her brother, she returned back to the same very house where she was confined. From further crossexamination, it is brought out that accused had not taken any cloth for her and she was remained in the same cloth, she was wearing at Delhi. 17 PW1 could not give the name of the shop where she had made call or the number of the mobile phone of her brother. She gave an evasive reply saying that, she did not remember the number but she had stated that she had knowledge of the number and told the same to the landlady. It is also brought out from the crossexamination of prosecutrix that the room at Ludhiana had only one room attached with toilet and bathroom and toilet and bathroom were separate. The latrine was fixed on the ground floor which she used to clean. Though prosecutrix earlier stated that she remained in the same clothes in which she had been abducted from Delhi, she later stated that accused had brought clothes to her before taking to Ludhiana and she was asked to wear the same and that her old clothes were left at village where she was kept for 10 days. When asked about the vehicles in which Delhi Police had come, prosecutrix stated that though Police had come in vehicle, she could not state whether it was car, tempo or jeep. During her further crossexamination, prosecutrix S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 13 / 20 14 stated that she was firstly brought to hospital in Delhi by her brother. She then stated that she was taken to hospital at Sonepat. She again stated that her statement was recorded by Police at PS at Delhi after which her brother had taken her to hospital in Sonepat and thereafter she went to Ganur to her brother's house and that when she was brought to Delhi from Ludhiana, she did not visit her Tauji's house and that she had wanted to meet her Tau and Taiji when she was in Ganur but her brother did not allow her to meet them nor did he tell her in details about contents of his complaint. She denied that she was tutored by her brother before giving her statement u/s.161 CrPC, though she admitted that she had come with her brother for the same. Prosecutrix denied that she was never kept forcibly anywhere by the accused persons. 18 In the present case there is a major discrepancy in the complaint made by Sanjay, brother of prosecutrix, and the statement given by the prosecutrix which itself creates doubt regarding the prosecution case. According to the prosecutrix, her brother was not only present on 17.02.2007, when she was abducted from house of her adopted parents (Tau and Tai) but was also threatened by the accused persons. It is also brought out from the statement of prosecutrix made before this Court that her Tau and Tai were also present. If this was so then it is difficult to comprehend why and under what circumstances brother of prosecutrix went to Police Station on 23.02.2007 claiming that his sister had gone out of the house for work on 17.02.2007 and had failed to return back and that he apprehended that accused Ravinder had enticed her away and abducted her. It appears that IO recorded statement of Sube Singh, Tau of prosecutrix , u/s.161 CrPC on 24.02.2007 (now marked as 'Mark Y') wherein he reiterated the version of complainant that prosecutrix had gone missing from home on 17.02.2007 and that he S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 14 / 20 15 was told about it when he returned home at 4:00 PM. If Sanjay, brother of prosecutrix and his Tau and Tai were at home, then their conduct is totally against the normal human conduct for if a girl, be it of any age, is abducted from her house in presence of her family members then the family members would certainly raise hue and cry and also put up resistance to the assailants not to mention about reporting the matter to the Police immediately so that the accused can be apprehended. Had the incident occurred in the manner put forth by the prosecutrix then the brother of prosecutrix would not have waited for six days before reporting the matter to the Police thereby allowing accused sufficient time to deal with the prosecutrix as per their desires.
19 This contradiction could have been explained by complainant Sanjay himself or Sh. Sube Singh, Tau of prosecutrix, however, they have not been produced for examination before the Court. The Tai of the prosecutrix has not been joined as witness to explain the circumstances in which prosecutrix was abducted or went missing from their house and Tau of prosecutrix though examined u/s.161 CrPC by IO, has not been named in the list of witnesses and further was not examined as witness before this Court.
20 Further prosecutrix has continuously changed her version in her statements as reproduced in details hereinabove. In a statement u/s.161 CrPC, she has given a brief background as to why she was abducted from her house and states that at that time her brother was pushed. She does not state anything about her eyes being tied with a cloth strip. Further in a statement u/s.164 CrPC, prosecutrix states that her eyes were tied by accused Ravinder while accused Sanjay threatened to kill her. In her S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 15 / 20 16 deposition before the Court, prosecutrix stated that accused Sanjay covered her eyes while accused Ravinder threatened to kill her.
21 She then states in her statement u/s.161 CrPC that her brother was pushed while she was taken away forcibly and Ranjit, father of accused Ravinder, had kept some object on her brother's head. In her statement u/s.164 CrPC prosecutrix states that Ranjit, father of Ravinder had kept a pistol on her brother's head and that he was locked inside. In her statement made in the Court, prosecutrix does not mention anything about any object or pistol being kept on the head of her brother and merely states that her brother was pushed inside room of their house and the door was locked from outside.
22 There is also improvement in the vehicle in which the prosecutrix was taken. In her statement u/s.161 CrPC, prosecutrix states that she was taken in a while car whereas in her statement u/s.164 CrPC, she states that she was taken in a while van and in her statement before the Court, she states that it was a white maruti van which she had seen as it was parked outside to the house when accused entered. However, during her crossexamination, prosecutrix stated that car was parked at a distance of 10 minutes walk from their house. In these circumstances, there is a doubt if the prosecutrix could have seen the said van or noticed its colour specially when her eyes are claimed to have been tied with a strip of cloth.
23 It is all the more surprising that prosecutrix was carried through the locality to a car parked at a distance of 10 minutes walk yet none from the neighbourhood, let S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 16 / 20 17 alone her brother Sanjay, Tau and Tai raised any alarm.
24 The number of days for which the prosecutrix was kept confined in a village at Delhi also varies. Though she states that accused Sanjay, Ravinder and Lalit (juvenile) tore her clothes and tried to force themselves upon her, she does not clarify the manner in which they did so. This part of her statement becomes doubtful since prosecutrix claims that she kept wearing the same clothes during her stay at village and was given fresh clothes before being taken to Ludhiana. The said clothes have not been produced before the Court and considering the discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecutrix, a shadow of doubt is cast upon this part of her testimony also. 25 Coming to her confinement at Ludhiana, there is again discrepancy as to the persons, who had confined her there. In her statement u/s.161 CrPC she states that accused Ranjit, Raju, Jitender, Rohtash and Subhash took her to Ludhiana and in her statement u/s.164 CrPC she states that accused Raju, Jitender, Rohtash, Subhash and Ranjit took her to Ludhiana. In her deposition before Court, prosecutrix adds name of accused Raj Kumar and states that Raj Kumar, Jitender, Subhash and Ranjit took her to Ludhiana. She does not name accused Raju and Rohtash. Prosecutrix also does not state anything about visit of accused Sanjay and his mother Kamla Devi to Ludhiana, on one of the occasions or they having given beatings to her as she stated in her statement u/s.161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.
26 The manner in which the prosecutrix informed her brother also creates a doubt as to credibility of prosecutrix as witness as in her statement u/s.161 CrPC, she S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 17 / 20 18 states that she had planned her escape by taking into confidence Smt. Karpali, landlady of the house, and Smt. Kirpali helped her to contact to her brother on her mobile phone, and in her statement u/s.161 CrPC, prosecutrix states that Smt. Karpali had taken her brother's mobile phone from prosecutrix and informed her brother on 23.04.2007. In her statement made in the Court, prosecutrix states that she had gone to a STD Booth to give call to her brother and that the land lady, whose name she did not remember, had given call to her brother on his mobile phone. She could not state the number of mobile phone of her brother or the name of the STD Booth from where she had called and rather it appears that after making said call, she returned back to the same very house where she was allegedly confined without making any effort to inform the Police or to run away. It is noteworthy that Karpali, the said landlady has also not been put forth as a witness in the case. Similarly, prosecutrix's Bua, who had gone to fetch her from Ludhiana along with her brother and Police or niece, as stated in the statement u/s.161 CrPC or her jija as stated in her statement in the Court and statement u/s.164 CrPC, have not been joined as witness to the case. There is nothing on record to show that local Police was informed about the arrival of the Delhi Police or joined in investigations. Further while IO PW10 states that he had gone with brother of prosecutrix and one more lady to Ludhiana by bus, prosecutrix states that Police came in a vehicle though she could not give description of the same. None of the local persons present at the spot were joined in investigations by the IO to verify the claim of prosecutrix that she had been confined in a room, in house of Kirpali, at Ludhiana, for more than one month. The details of alleged call, made to the brother of prosecutrix, which could have corroborated the version of prosecutrix, have also not been produced. Thus a doubt is created whether prosecutrix was ever confined at Ludhiana or was recovered from Ludhiana at S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 18 / 20 19 all. Moreover, the delay in recording of her statement u/s.164 CrPC also does not stand explained by the prosecution just as the delay in lodging of the FIR has not been satisfactory explained.
27 It has been held in Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696
(700) , that,
" . . . . . . . The discrepancies which do not shake the basic
version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The
discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court must evaluate the entire materials on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by a witness.
When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witnesses the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story."
28 In the present case not only the material witnesses namely Tai, Bua, Jija of the prosecutrix, Smt. Karpali, have not been joined in the investigations but even otherwise complainant Sanjay and prosecutrix's Tau Sh. Sube Singh have not been produced for examination to explain the gaping disparity in the version given by them and that given by the prosecutrix regarding the manner in which she went missing from house of adopted parents on 17.02.2007. This coupled with the fact that testimony of S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 19 / 20 20 the prosecutrix is also full of discrepancies, modifications and improvements make the case put forth by prosecution doubtful and entitles accused to benefit of doubt. 29 Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges u/s 365/342/34 IPC against accused Ravinder, Subhash, Sanjay and Raj Kumar and also failed to prove the charges u/s. 376/511 IPC against accused Ravinder and Sanjay and u/s.323 IPC against accused Sanjay and u/s.344/34 IPC against accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Subhash on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit all the four accused persons - Ravinder, Subhash, Sanjay and Raj Kumar @ Raju of the charged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 24.05.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 20 / 20
21
FIR No. 152/07
P.S.S.P. Badli
23.05.2012
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All accused present on bail with their counsels.
Arguments heard.
Be listed for judgment on 24.05.2012.
(Illa Rawat)
Addl. Sessions Judge (NW)01
Rohini/Delhi
24.05.2012
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
All accused present on bail.
Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, all the accused persons - Ravinder, Subhash, Raj Kumar and Sanjay have been acquitted of the charged offence.
Accused - Ravinder, Subhash, Raj Kumar and Sanjay request that their previously furnished bail bonds may be accepted in compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC. Request allowed. Accordingly, previous bail bonds of all the four accused persons are extended for a period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat)
Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 360/07 State vs. Ravinder etc Page Nos. 21 / 20