Delhi District Court
State vs Akram on 30 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO ACT)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTHEAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 44386/15
FIR No. 182/12
PS Sonia Vihar
U/s 363/366A/376/506 IPC
State
Versus
Akram,
S/o Md. Tasir,
R/o H. No. 663, E3, Gali No. 15,
E Block, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi. ....Accused.
Date of Committal : 02.04.2013
Date of Arguments : 23.05.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2017
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on 07.12.2012, on receipt of DD No. 16A, SI Manu Dev Kumar with Ct. Vijay reached at the spot i.e. Gali no. 15, 41/2 Pushta, Sonia Vihar where they came to know that the complainant had gone to PS Sonia Vihar. On FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 1 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 reaching PS Sonia Vihar, complainant met them and disclosed that he alongwith his family was residing at the above mentioned address. He further stated that on 07.12.2012 at about 07.30 a.m., his daughter/ victim, aged about 15 years, had left for her school. At about 10.30 a.m., when his wife Julekha went to the school of his daughter to inquire about the scholarship, she came to know that the victim had not reached the school. Thereafter, his wife searched for the victim but victim could not be traced. His wife then called him and they searched for their daughter. He further alleged that they had suspected accused Akram. His brother Ibrahim called the accused on his phone. Initially, accused avoided to answer the questions raised by Ibrahim. However, on repeatedly being asked, accused disclosed that he was near Majnu ka Tila. Thereafter, his brother Ibrahim reached Majnu ka Tila and brought the accused and the victim to his house from where he and his brother brought them to the police station. Hence, the present FIR had been registered for abduction the victim by the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 363/366A/376/506 IPC was filed against the accused.
2. On 07.05.2013, charge u/s 363/366A/376/506 IPC was framed against accused Akram to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to prove its case.
4. PW1 is J. Begum, mother of the victim. Her testimony shall FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 2 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 be discussed at a later stage.
5. PW2 is the victim. Her testimony shall be considered at a later stage as and when required.
6. PW3 is Mohd. H, father of the victim. His testimony shall be discussed at a later stage.
7. PW4 is Ct Vijay. He deposed that on 07.12.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., duty officer handed over to SI Manu Dev a DD No. 16A. It was regarding kidnapping of a girl. He was asked to accompany SI Manu Dev. On the receipt of information, they reached at Gali No. 15, 41/2 Pushta, Sonia Vihar where they came to know that the complainant had gone to PS Sonia Vihar. They returned to the police station. In the police station, they met the complainant who lodged a complaint regarding kidnapping of his daughter. Thereafter, FIR was registered and investigation was assigned to SI Manu Dev. The complainant produced the victim and accused Akram. Thereafter, under custody of WCt. Geeta, victim was sent for medical examination and he also accompanied them. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and personal search of accused was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/B.
8. PW5 is HC Dharam Vir Singh. He deposed that on 07.12.2012, he was working as duty officer from 4.00 p.m. to 12 mid night. At about 06.10 p.m., on the basis of rukka handed over to him by SI Manu Dev, he registered case FIR no. 182/12 u/s 363 IPC. The FIR was exhibited as Ex.PW5/B. He also made endorsement (Ex.PW5/A) on the rukka and original rukka and the copy of FIR was handed over to SI Manu Dev. He FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 3 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 also proved the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act in support of the FIR as Ex.PW5/C.
9. PW6 is Mohd. Ibrahim. He deposed that on 07.12.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., his brother Md. Hadish and wife of his brother told him that his niece (victim), who had gone to school, had not reached in the school. His bhabhi told him that the victim was talking to one Akram, who was residing in the neighbourhood. Thereafter, he made a call to Akram. On being asked strictly, Akram told him that he (Akram) was present near Pulia, Majnu ka tila. On reaching there, he met accused Akram and his niece. Thereafter, he brought the accused and his niece to the house of his brother. From there they both were taken to PS Sonia Vihar.
10. PW7 is HC Jai Prakash. He deposed that on 13.12.2012, he was posted as MHC (M) at PS Sonia Vihar. On that day, vide entry Ex.PW7/A, SI Monika had deposited in malkhana, one sealed parcel alongwith one sample seal and one mobile phone recovered from the personal search of accused. He further deposed that on 14.12.2012, vide entry Ex.PW7/B, SI Monika had deposited in malkhana, three parcels with the seal of MLC of GTB Hospital. On 20.12.2012, vide RC no. 62/21/12 (Ex.PW7/D), he, through Ct. Surender, had sent two parcels and two sample seals to FSL Rohini and made entry Ex.PW7/C in register no. 19. On 20.12.2012, Ct. Surender handed him the acknowledgment receipt (Ex.PW7/E) regarding the deposition of the parcels in FSL, Rohini.
11. PW8 is Dr. Dinesh. He deposed that on 07.12.2012, he was posted as CMO at GTB Hospital. On that day, vide MLC Ex.PW8/A, Dr. FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 4 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 Anil Singh medically examined the victim. As per the MLC, the victim was referred to surgery department. He also proved the registration slip of the victim as Ex.PW8/B.
12. PW9 is Dr. Anshul Mudgal. He proved the MLC no.
5326/16 of victim as Ex.PW9/A. He deposed that as per the MLC, the victim was produced by WSI Monika. As per the MLC, there was no external injury and the patient was referred to gynae department for further medical examination.
13. PW10 is Ct. Surendra Singh. He deposed that on 20.01.2013, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar. On that day, on the instructions of IO, vide RC no. 62/21/12, he collected the exhibits of this case from MHC(M) and deposited them with FSL, Rohini. He also collected acknowledgment and deposited it with MHC(M). Till the exhibits remained in his custody, they were not tampered with and remained intact. He proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW10/A and the copy of acknowledgment as Ex.PW10/B.
14. PW11 is Ct. Virender. He deposed that on 14.12.2012, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar. On that day, he alongwith SI Manu Dev reached at PS Bhajanpura where accused was lodged in the lockup. They took the accused to H. No. 539/E1, Gali No. 19, Sonia Vihar where the accused pointed out the place of incident. IO prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW11/A.
15. PW12 is Ct Inder Pal. He deposed that on 13.12.2012, he joined the investigation with WSI Monika. They took the victim to GTB FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 5 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 Hospital for her medical examination. Parents of the victim, her uncle and her neighbours also accompanied them. After medical examination, the doctor handed to him one sealed pulinda with seal of GTB Hospital. He handed over the sealed pulinda to the IO who seized it vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that when they reached 41/2 pushta, victim identified accused and then he, alongwith father of the victim, apprehended the accused. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/B and personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/C. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.PW12/D. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Ct. Sanjeev took the accused to GTB Hospital for medical examination. After the medical examination, the doctor handed to him four sealed pulindas which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/E.
16. PW13 is Rajesh Kumar Singh, teacher from EDMC Primary School. He deposed that as per school record, on 24.07.2002, victim was admitted in their school in class I. He proved the admission form as Ex.PW13/A and the entry in admission register as Ex.PW13/B. He further deposed that as per the record, the date of birth of the victim was 10.11.1996. He proved the affidavit given by the mother of the victim at the time of admission of victim as Ex.PW13/C. He also proved the certificate issued by his school regarding the date of birth of the victim as Ex.PW13/D.
17. PW14 is SI Manu Dev. He deposed that on 07.12.2012, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar. On that day, after receiving DD No. 16A, he, alongwith Ct. Vijay reached at Gali No. 15, 4½ pushta Sonia Vihar. There FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 6 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 the public persons met him and informed that the complainant and the victim had already gone to the PS. He came back to the police station where complainant Mohd. Hadis was present and produced before him, his victim daughter and accused Akram. Complainant had made allegations against accused that the accused had kidnapped his daughter. He recorded statement of complainant Mohd. Hadis which was Ex.PW3/A. He prepared ruqqa Ex.PW14/A and handed it to Duty Officer for registration of case. After registration of FIR of this case, Duty Officer handed to him, copy of FIR and original ruqqa for further investigation. He alongwith the victim, lady Ct. Geeta and complainant went to GTB Hospital for medical examination of the victim where the victim was got medically examined. She and her father had refused for her internal examination. He recorded the statement of the victim and collected her MLC. After taking instructions from the CWC, he handed over the victim to the officials of Kilkari Girls Home, Kashmere Gate. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He conducted personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW4/B. On 10.12.2012, the victim was brought from Kilkari Girls Home and produced before the Ld. MM at Karkardooma Courts for recording of her statement U/S 164 Cr. PC. On his application, statement U/S 164 Cr. PC of the victim was recorded. After her statement had been recorded, he obtained copy of statement vide his application Ex.PW14/C. During the investigation, he recorded statement of victim, her parents, her uncle and the police officials. During investigation, on 07.12.2012, he recorded disclosure statement of the accused which was Ex.PW14/D. FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 7 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17
18. PW15 is Dr. Bhanupriya. She deposed that on 13.12.2012, victim, female aged 15 years, was brought at the casualty and thereafter, she was referred to Gynae department where at about 09.30 p.m, Dr. Tannavi medically examined the victim and gave her medical examination report Ex.PW15/A.
19. PW16 is Dr. P. Ram. He proved the MLC of Akram as Ex.PW16/A and the medical sheets prepared by Dr. Puneet as Ex.PW16/B.
20. PW17 is SI Monika. She deposed that on 13.12.2012, the investigation of this case was assigned to her. On that day, victim alongwith her father, uncle and aunt (Tai) came to the police station and gave a written request to be medically examined again. Thereafter, she took victim, her father and Ct. Inder Pal to GTB Hospital where medical examination of the victim was conducted. She seized the exhibits given by the doctor vide memo Ex.PW12/A and deposited them in malkhana. As per the MLC, hymen of the victim was torn and the victim had also made oral allegations of rape against accused. After discussion with the SHO, she added section 376 and 506 IPC in the FIR. While returning from the hospital, near 41/2 Pushta, victim pointed towards accused and accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/C and she recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW2/D. Thereafter, she summoned Ct. Sanjeev at the spot who took the accused for medical examination. Thereafter, vide pabandinama Ex.PW17/A, she handed over the custody of victim to her father. on 14.12.2012, at the instance of accused, she prepared pointing out memo FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 8 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 Ex.PW11/A. She also prepared site plan Ex.PW17/B.
21. PW18 is Dr. Priya Sinha. She proved the medical observation report prepared by Dr. Apoorva as Ex.PW18/A. As per the report, the patient was not willing for her internal examination and no samples were collected because no internal examination was conducted.
22. Thereafter, on 25.11.2016, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and accused preferred to lead evidence in his defence. However, despite opportunities being given, accused did not lead any evidence and defence evidence was closed on 20.03.2017.
23. I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused.
24. It has been contended by learned Addl. PP that the statement of the victim who appeared as PW2, itself has established that in October 2012, she was raped by accused and was threatened that if she disclosed this fact to anyone, he would kill her brother. He has further contended that her statement has also established that on 07.12.2012, she was kidnapped by the accused. He has further contended, the fact that the victim was recovered from the custody of the accused is also established by the statement of PW6 Mohd. Ibrahim.
25. On the contrary, it has been contended by learned counsel for the accused that the victim has been continuously improving her statements. The accused had never committed sexual intercourse with the victim and this story had been developed by the victim at a later stage. He has further contended that the accused had not taken the victim out of the custody of FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 9 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 her lawful guardians and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further contended that there is no independent witness who could corroborate the story of the victim. He has further contended that the victim has levelled false allegations against the accused under the influence of her parents because when she was outside the influence of her parents, her two statements were recorded, one before the police and other before the Magistrate and in none of these statements, any allegation of this sort had been levelled by the victim against the accused.
26. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record very carefully.
27. There were only three witnesses who can prove the case of the prosecution. These are the PW2the victim, PW1her mother and PW6her uncle. However, except PW1, there is no other witness who has given any direct evidence regarding the allegations of crime against the accused.
28. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused that the testimony of the victim has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses and therefore, on the basis of her testimony alone, the accused cannot be convicted.
29. I do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel for the accused as it has now been settled that the conviction can solely be based on the testimony of prosecuterix/ victim in sexual offences if that testimony is found to be credible.
30. On this point, in Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 10 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17
23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which case shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony.
31. Further, in State of Rajasthan v. Babu Meena (2013) 4 SCC 206, it has been held as under:
9. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Jain that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, of found to be worthy of credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required. It has often been said that oral testimony can be classified into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In case of wholly reliable testimony of a single witness, the conviction can be founded without corroboration. This principle applies with greater vigour in case the nature of offence is such that it is committed in seclusion. In case prosecution is based on wholly unreliable testimony of a single witness, the court has no option than to acquit the accused. (emphasis supplied.)
32. In the present case, the case of the prosecution almost entirely hinges upon the testimony of the victim and therefore, her testimony has to be discussed on the touchstone of the legal propositions cited above.
33. The first statement of the victim was recorded by the IO on 07.12.2012. In that statement, the victim had stated that on 07.12.2012, the accused had met her outside her school. He told her that he would take her for outing. He enticed her and took her to Majnu ka Tila. In the meantime, her uncle Ibrahim called Akram. Akram was avoiding to tell his whereabouts but at the insistence of the victim, Akram informed Ibrahim that they were at Majnu ka Tila. Her uncle Ibrahim reached there and FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 11 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 brought both of them to home wherefrom they were taken to the police station. She further stated that no wrong act (rape) had been committed upon her by the accused.
34. Thereafter, the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of the victim was recorded, which is Ex.PW2/A. In that statement, the victim had stated that on the day of incident, Akram came to her school and told her that he would take her for outing and further asked her to sit in a van. She had been knowing Akram for past 34 months. She sat in the van and the van was being driven by Akram. When they reached Wazirabad, her uncle Ibrahim called Akram and Akram told him that she was with him. Thereafter, her uncle came there and took her. She further stated that she had herself gone with Akram in the car/ van.
35. Thereafter, her next statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO and this statement was recorded on 13.12.2012. In that statement, she stated that in October 2012, Akram took her to the house of his bhabhi at Sonia Vihar. After making some excuses, Akram sent his bhabhi out and raped her. When she protested, Akram stated that he would kill her younger brother. Thereafter, Akram had taken her to 23 places but she had not disclosed this fact to the IO or to the court.
36. Thereafter, the victim was examined before the court and she appeared as PW2.
37. Appearing as PW2, she deposed that in October 2012, bhabhi of Akram had come to her house and she (bhabhi of accused) told her that she (bhabhi of accused) wanted her assistance in purchasing books for her FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 12 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 daughter. The victim refused to accompany bhabhi of accused but she forcibly took her. At about 03.00 p.m., she reached the house of bhabhi of accused and found Akram to be already present there. Thereafter, Akram sent his bhabhi out and bolted the room. Then, Akram had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She further deposed that Akram had also taken her photographs on his mobile phone. After some time, bhabhi of Akram came in the room and she told Akram and his bhabhi that she would disclose about the above said wrong act to her mother whereupon, Akram and his bhabhi beat her and threatened her that he would kill her brother. Due to this, she got scared and did not disclose about the abovesaid incident to anyone. Thereafter, on three occasions, Akram had taken her to the house of his bhabhi by threatening her that he would show her photographs to her parents and Akram had forcible sexual intercourse with her without her will and consent. She did not remember the dates when Akram had committed wrong act (rape) with her.
38. In response to court question, she stated that Akram had never shown any of her photographs in his mobile phone. She further deposed that on 07.12.2012, while she was going to her school, Akram and his bhabhi met her near her school. Akram insisted that she should accompany him for an outing. She refused but he repeatedly asked her to accompany him and took her to the house of his bhabhi. She was in school uniform and therefore, bhabhi of accused asked her to change the uniform and wear normal clothes. She refused to do so but bhabhi of accused forced her to wear normal clothes. Thereafter, Akram and his bhabhi took her for an FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 13 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 outing in a white colour van and said that after the outing, they would drop her at her school. Despite the presence of his bhabhi, Akram misbehaved with her in the van. She She complained to his bhabhi but his bhabhi did not do anything. Akram had taken her to a place in Delhi but she did not know the name of that place. Akram had asked one professional photographer to take their photo whereupon they were photographed. Thereafter, they were going to her school and were at Majnu ka Tila when her chacha Mohd. Ibrahim met them. In fact, Akram had arranged van for outing and when they reached Majnu ka Tila, Akram had returned the van to its owner. Thereafter, she and Akram were coming on foot from Majnu ka Tila to his bhabhi's house and on the way, her chacha, who was on his bike, met her. Before that, his chacha had called on the mobile phone of Akram and inquired about her. Initially, Akram had stated that she was not with him but on being repeatedly asked, he admitted that she was with him and also disclosed their location to her chacha. Thereafter, her chacha had taken her and Akram to her home from where they were taken to the police station. Police had inquired her about the incident but her statement was not recorded at that time. She had not disclosed about the entire incident to the police because at that time, she was scared by the threats being given by the accused. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital for her medical examination and she refused for her internal medical examination. The police had kept her at a place where other children were also present and she stayed there for about 3 days. On 10.12.2012, her statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded before Ld. MM but she had not disclosed about FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 14 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 the entire incident to the ld. MM. Later on, she had disclosed about the wrong acts (rape) committed by Akram to her mother whereafter on 13.12.2012, she had disclosed about the wrong acts (rape) committed by Akram to Monika madam (police official). Thereafter, she was taken to GTB Hospital for her medical examination and she was medically examined by the doctor.
39. In response to the court question, she deposed that it was in the month of October 2012 when Akram had committed wrong act (rape) with her.
40. During her cross examination by the Amicus Curiae, she deposed that she used to leave for her school at about 07.00 a.m. She further deposed that she used to leave school for home at about 12.30 p.m. None of her friends used to accompany her to school. She denied that Akram had not committed any wrong act (rape) on her or that he had not threatened her to kill her brother or that he had not beaten her. She denied that Irfan was her close friend or that she used to go for outing with him or that on 07.12.2012, she had gone to Majnu ka Tila with Irfan, or that she had proposed to elope with Irfan. She further denied that Irfan refused for the proposal or that when she insisted for eloping, Irfan had beaten her. She denied that Irfan had called his friend Akram, or that Akram knew her uncle, or that Akram had called her uncle, or that Akram and her uncle reached Majnu ka Tila, or that before their arrival, Irfan had already gone from there. She further denied that she had falsely implicated the accused in this case. She denied that Akram had never taken her to his bhabhi's house.
FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 15 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17
She admitted that Akram had never taken her for outing anywhere in Delhi and then volunteered, that he had taken her only to Majnu ka Tila. She denied that he had not taken her to Majnu ka Tila. She denied that on 07.12.2012, accused Akram had not come to her school or that no such incident as stated by her had ever happened.
41. During her cross examination by learned counsel for the accused, she deposed that police had recorded her statement on 10.01.2013. Police had not recorded any other statement. She admitted that on 07.12.2012, she had not disclosed to the doctor about the wrong act (rape) committed by accused Akram. After 07.12.2012, she did not stay with her parents. After about three days, she was brought to the court where her statement was recorded. During her statement, she had not stated to the Judge Sahib that Akram had committed wrong act (rape) with her.
42. From the testimony of the victim given before the court, it is very clear that there are many material improvements made by the victim in her statement. As per her statement given to the police, Akram had taken her to the house of his bhabhi in October 2012. However, before the court, she had stated that it was the bhabhi of Akram who had forcibly taken her to her (bhabhi's) house where Akram was already present and thereafter, she was raped by Akram. In her testimony before the court, she had also introduced a new version whereby she had stated that Akram who had taken her photographs and he threatened her to show those photographs to her parents, if she disclosed anything to anyone. She further improved her statement by saying that when she stated that she would disclose these facts FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 16 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 to her parents, Akram and his bhabhi had beaten her. She has further improved her statement by saying that thereafter, she was raped by Akram 23 times more whereas no such fact was stated in any of her previous statements.
43. As regards the incident dated 07.12.2012, she again improved upon her statement because in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, which was recorded on 07.12.2012, and in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C given before learned MM, she had stated that Akram alone had come to her school and taken her with him whereas, when she appeared before the court as PW2, she deposed that on 07.12.2012, Akram had come with his bhabhi and they both took her in a van. She further improved when she stated that even in the van, Akram misbehaved with her in the presence of his bhabhi. She has further stated that when they reached Majnu ka Tila, Akram had returned the van and therefore, she and Akram were returning on foot. But the question that arises is that, what happened to the bhabhi of Akram if she was with them and wither she went? I accordingly find that there are many material improvements which have been made by the victim in her statements which dent her credibility to a very large extent and her testimony alone cannot be said to be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.
44. Here, I find that a portion of the testimony of mother of the victim, who appeared as PW1, also needs to be discussed.
45. PW1 deposed that one day in the summer season, one year back, bhabhi of accused had come to her house and asked her to send the FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 17 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 victim with her for purchasing books but she refused to send the victim with her. Victim used to take tuitions at some distance from her house and bhabhi of accused had taken the victim from her tuition to her (bhabhi's) house. There, accused Akram had raped the victim. On the day of incident, victim had not stated to her about the rape but she had noticed blood on the pajami of victim and then she asked the victim about it. The victim told her that Akram had raped her inside a room at the house of his bhabhi. Victim had also told her that accused had threatened that if the victim disclosed the fact of rape to her parents, he would kill her younger brother. She had told these facts to the police but till date, the police had not taken any action against the bhabhi of accused. She did not know the name of bhabhi of accused.
46. Now as per the testimony of this witness, the incident of rape had happened in summers and she had noticed blood on the clothes of the victim and on being confronted, the victim told her that she was raped by accused whereas according to the victim, the incident had happened in October 2012, which is onset of winters. It is also emerging from this statement that immediately after the rape, the parents of the victim had come to know about this incident but there is no record of any report being made by them or by the victim of this incident to the police, though PW2 i.e. the victim had claimed that they had gone to the police.
47. Further, even if the testimony of PW2 is taken to be correct, the parents were made aware of the rape being committed upon the victim on the day of rape itself and therefore, there is no question of victim being FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 18 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 under any threats including the threat of showing her photographs to her parents. Therefore, it does not appear probable that the victim under such threats would have accompanied accused on 07.12.2012.
48. Another noticeable fact is, that after the victim was recovered, she was produced before the police and then she was sent to Children Care Home named Kilkari Girls Home. Her initial statements made to the police as well as to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate were made while she was in Children's Home and at that time, she had not levelled any allegations of rape or forcible kidnapping against accused. The first such allegation, on the basis of which section 376 IPC was added in the present case, was made by her after she was put back to the custody of her parents, which allegation she has reiterated in her testimony before the court albeit with a lot of contradictions and improvements. Therefore, the probability of later statements given by the victim under the influence and instructions of her parents, as suggested by learned counsel for the accused, cannot be outrightly denied.
49. I accordingly find that in view of the improvements in the statement of the victim before the court and the inconsistencies emerging therefrom, serious doubts are raised about the story of the prosecution and the testimony of the victim alone is not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused and, the probability that on 07.12.2012, victim herself had accompanied the accused as stated by her before the learned MM in her statement Ex.PW2/A, cannot be rejected. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The accused is accordingly acquitted FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 19 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17 of all the charges framed against him. His bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharge. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (Parveen Singh) today on 30.05.2017 Judge Special Court (POCSO Act) (This judgment has 20 pages and ASJ01, NE Distt, KKD Court. each page bears my signatures.) FIR No.182/12 (Parveen Singh) PS Sonia Vihar 20 of 20 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 30.05.17