Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Amir on 18 October, 2016
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. : 86/16
STATE
versus
Mohd Amir
S/o. Mohd Arfin
R/o. H. No. 1236, Gali Mahal Saria Haveli
Hsamuddin Haider Punjabi Phatak
Ballimaran, Delhi.
FIR No. : 258/16
Offence U/S : 328/376/506 IPC
Police Station : Nihal Vihar
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE AFTER
COMMITTAL:02/07/16
DATE OF JUDGMENT:18/10/2016
JUDGMENT
1.Accused Mohd Amir has been charge sheeted on the allegation of the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) that on 14/02/2016 at House No. A19, Gali No. 6, Himgiri Enclave, Chandra Vihar, accused had administered some intoxicating substance in cold drink (Mazza) in order to commit the offence of rape. It is also the case of prosecution that during June 2014 at Mansoori, March 2015 at Agra and 14/02/2016 and
-:: Page 1 of 6 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
01/03/2016 accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity). It is also the case of the prosecution that on 01/03/2016 accused had threatened the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) to kill her and her daughter.
2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 17/10/2016, charge for offence under section 328/376/506 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that on 12/03/2016 she had lodged a complaint against accused which is Ex.PW1/A. In the year 2012 she had met with accused for the first time at Tuglakabad and thereafter they both exchanged their mobile numbers. After the death of her husband, they both started meeting with each other. Accused had proposed her for marriage, which was accepted by her. She along with accused had gone to Agra, Mussorrie and Nanital with her own consent and they both had established physical relations voluntarily. Later on accused had refused to marry her and due to this reason, she had lodged a complaint against the accused. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW11/B) was recorded by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate.
-:: Page 2 of 6 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
She has further stated that on 27/09/2016, she got married with accused according to Muslim rites and ceremonies, after converting herself from Hindu religion to Muslim religion. She has changed her name from Rekha to Reshma. Photocopy of the Nikahanama and certification of conversion are Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D.
5. Other remaining witnesses to be examined in this case are police officials, who have taken part in the investigation of present case or the doctors who have medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused. No fruitful purpose will be served by examining the public witnesses, as the main witness ie prosecutrix, of the case has categorically stated that she had married with the accused. Prosecutrix had also stated that physical relations were established between her and accused out of their mutual consent and it was not forced by accused.
6. The prosecutrix, has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that accused had not committed any offence against her and thus has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused, as she had established the physical relations with accused with her own will and consent.
7. In the circumstances, that PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the material witness has not supported the prosecution case and no incriminating evidence has come on record against the
-:: Page 3 of 6 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
accused, all other witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been part of investigation and are not the direct witnesses of the offence. Hence, in my opinion, there is no requirement of examining those witnesses. Once the incident in question has been denied by the prosecutrix, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.
8. Requirement of recording statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as nothing incriminating against him has come on record when the prosecutrix had not supported the case of prosecution & has stated that physical relations were established between her and accused, out of their mutual consent and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
9. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohd Amir had had administered some intoxicating substance in cold drink and had committed rape on the prosecutrix or had threatened the prosecutrix. Hence, accused Mohd Amir is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under section 328/376/506 IPC. However, considering the acquittal of the accused, he be released from jail only after furnishing bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. after furnishing
-:: Page 4 of 6 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of the like amount or till six months from today, whichever is earlier.
earlier.
10. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 18th October, 2016. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 5 of 6 ::-
6FIR No : 258/16 State Vs Mohd Amir PS: Nihal Vihar 18.10.2016 Present: Sh Subhash Chuhan, Ld Additional P.P. for State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Ms Afshan.
An application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused. The application be kept for consideration.
PW1 is present, examined and discharged. PW1 is the material witness being the prosecutrix. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. Other witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been part of investigation. Once the incident in question has been denied by the prosecutrix, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.
Requirement of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused.
Vide my separate judgment, the accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 328/376/506 IPC.
Since the accused has been acquitted in the present case, there is no need to pass any order on the bail application moved by the accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C. However, considering the acquittal of the accused, he be released from jail only after furnishing bail bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. after furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of the like amount or till six months from today, whichever is earlier.
File be consigned to record room.
(Shail Jain) (Shail Jain ASJ(Special Fast Track Court)01 West, THC, Delhi 18/10/2016