Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 1 on 19 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI
DELHI
Sessions Case No : 57811/16 (OLD S.C. NO.37/14)
Unique ID No. : 02404R0184632014
State
Versus
Rajesh Aggarwal
S/o. Shri Manohar Lal Aggarwal,
R/o. C2/12, Rajasthali Apartment,
Pitampura, Delhi.
Present Address:
E1056, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi110034.
FIR No :253/13
Police Station :Alipur.
Under Sections :376/506/354 IPC.
Date of Committal to Sessions Court:21.02.2014
Date on which Judgment reserved :04.07.2016
Date on which Judgment announced :19.07.2016
State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 1
J U D G M E N T
1.In the present case, charge was framed on 16.05.2015 by ld. Predecessor against the accused in respect of offences U/S.506/354B/343/376 IPC. The allegations against the accused are that on 24.03.2013 at unknown time, at a godown situated at Khasra No.66/07, Village - Alipur, Main G.T.K. Road, Delhi accused criminal intimidated the complainant/prosecutrix to fulfill his sexual desire otherwise he would ruin her life.
2. It was also alleged that either on 26.03.2013 or 02.04.2013 at the abovesaid place he used criminal force or assault upon the complainant/prosecutrix, by attempting to tear her clothes, in order to outrage her modesty.
3. It was further alleged that during the period from 26.03.2013 to 03.04.2013 accused wrongfully confined the complainant/prosecutrix in the godown, mentioned above and on 03.04.2013 at about 7:30 a.m. at the said godown, he forcibly committed rape upon the complainant /prosecutrix against her will and without her consent.
4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined nine (9) witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
6. PW1 HC Yag Dutt was duty officer at PS Alipur. On 29.05.2013, at about 6.35 PM, SHO handed over a Tehrir to him and on the basis of which he got recorded FIR No. 253/13, U/s 376 IPC Ex.PW1/through the computer operator. He handed over the copy of FIR to State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 2 W/SI Sonia for investigation.
7. In crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused he has denied that the FIR was manipulated at the instance of the IO.
8. PW2 HC Baljeet Singh was duty officer in the PS on 19.03.2013. On that day, at about 12.15 AM, IO HC Rajiv handed over a Tehrir to him and on the basis of which he got recorded FIR No. 133/13, U/s 380 IPC through the computer operator. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW2/A. He handed over the copy of FIR to HC Rajiv through Ct. Jagdish.
9. In crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused he has denied that the FIR has been manipulated, at the instance of the IO.
10. PW3 Ct. Manish has joined the investigation with the IO/ W/SI Sonia on 13.06.2013. Accused Rajesh Aggarwal came to PS. He was interrogated and formally arrested in this case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B. Accused made a confessional statement, Ex.PW3/C. Thereafter, accused was released on bail, as he was on anticipatory bail. His statement was recorded by the IO.
11. In crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused he has denied that he did not join the investigation, in the manner, he deposed.
12. PW4 Dr. Rupali, Senior Resident, Gynae has examined the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW4/A. During examination, the prosecutrix refused for her internal medical examination.
13. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity.
State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 314. PW5 Shri Sandeep Gupta, ld. MM has recorded the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix. The same is Ex.PW5/A.
15. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was also given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity.
16. PW6 is the Prosecutrix. She has deposed that she alongwith her husband used to reside at godown, at Alipur. On 23.03.2013 her husband was apprehended by the police. Her husband used to work as a Caretaker. Thereafter, she went to the house of her brotherinlaw (Dewar). She also went to godown of Rajesh Aggarwal to take the remaining amount of salary, as her husband was not paid the salary, by the Manager of Rajesh Aggarwal. But, the servants of Rajesh Aggarwal did not allow her to enter the godown. PCR also reached there.
17. PW6 has further deposed that on 16.04.2013, her husband was released on bail. She alongwith her husband requested the servants of Rajesh Aggarwal to give the remaining amount of salary but they did not give the salary of her husband. The servants of Rajesh Aggarwal did not allow them to meet Rajesh Aggarwal. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to the PS Alipur. She made a complaint to the police officials in respect of the remaining salary of her husband, from Rajesh Aggarwal. She and her husband wanted to give a written complaint to the police officials but police officials did not accept her complaint. When they came outside, one lady Anita, claiming herself as NGO, met them. She (the NGO) asked her that she could get the remaining salary from Rajesh Aggarwal. The said NGO obtained her signatures on the blank and printed paper. She was taken to the Hospital for her medical State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 4 examination where her medical examination, was conducted by Doctor. At that time, the NGO lady was present. She refused for her internal medical examination, as nothing had happened with her.
18. PW6 has further deposed that on 04.06.2013, Anita NGO, came to her home and asked her that she had to go to the court. She gave directions for getting her statement recorded in the court. On her asking and under the threat of false implication and pressure she gave the statement before Judge Sahib. Accused Rajesh Aggarwal, present in court, did not do any wrong with her. She does not know anything else about this case.
19. In crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, PW6 has admitted that complaint Ex.PW6/A, bears her signature at point A, but she has volunteered that NGO Anita obtained her signature on the paper and the complaint was not read over and explained to her. PW6 has denied of having made statement Ex.PW6/A to the police. PW6 has further deposed that statement Ex.PW5/A was given by her to ld MM on the asking, threating and tutoring of NGO Anita. PW6 has further admitted that she had stated in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. that on 23.03.2013 accused Rajesh Aggarwal implicated her husband in a false case of theft or that Rajesh Aggarwal used to ask her again and again to establish physical relations with him, otherwise, he would kill her and her family but she has volunteered that she stated so on the asking, threatening and tutoring of NGO Anita and accused Rajesh Aggarwal had not done any wrong act with her. She had also stated in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., that on 03.04.2013 at about 7.30 AM accused Rajesh Aggarwal came to her room, State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 5 pushed her and starting touching her private parts after removing her sari and in the meanwhile her devar came there and Rajesh Aggarwal ran away from there, but she has volunteered that she had stated so on the asking, threatening and tutoring of NGO Ms. Anita and accused Rajesh Aggarwal had not done any wrong act with her. She has also admitted that at that time, she had not stated to Ld MM that she was giving the statement under pressure, threat and tutoring of Ms. Anita NGO. She has denied that accused Rajesh Aggarwal had committed rape upon her. She has further denied that she has deposed falsely, as she has been won over by the accused.
20. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity.
21. PW7, Sonia is the daughter of the prosecutrix. She has deposed that in the year 2013, she alongwith her parents and brother used to reside at godown of Rajesh Aggarwal (employer of her father). On 23.03.13, her father was arrested by the police. She alongwith her mother and her brother went to house of her uncle and started living there. She does not know anything else about this case.
22. In cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, she has deposed that her statement was not recorded by the police. PW7 has denied of having made the statement Mark PW7/A to police. She has denied that she has stated in her statement Mark PW7/A that after arrest of her father, she alongwith her mother was residing at the godown of accused Rajesh Aggarwal and he used to visit the godown and or that he used to threat her mother or that he used to threat her that she alongwith her brother would not go to school and State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 6 would not continue her study and her father would not be released from the jail. She has further denied that she had stated in her statement that accused used to threaten her mother and used to send her and her brother in the room of watchman and used to bolt the room from inside. She has further denied that accused committed rape upon her mother or that she is deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused.
23. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity.
24. PW8 Gopal has deposed that he used to do the work of labour in Khasra No.66/7, Alipur, Delhi . Beer Singh also used to work as Muneem in the godown and used to live in the said godown alongwith his wife and children. Beer Singh was arrested by the police. His wife alongwith her children left the godown on the very same day. His statement was recorded by the police.
25. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity.
26. PW9 Dhiraj Singh is the brotherinlaw (devar) of prosecutrix. He has deposed that he alongwith his children are residing at H.No.512, near Chhota Shiv Mandir, Alipur, Delhi. His brother, namely, Beer Singh alongwith wife and children used to reside at the godown of Rajesh Aggarwal. His brother used to work at the godown of Rajesh Aggarwal. On 23.03.2013, his brother Beer Singh was arrested by the police in a theft case. Thereafter, he took his sisterinlaw (Bhabhi) Smt. Chitra Devi and her children to his home on the very same day. Since then his bhabhi and her children have been residing at his home. He does not know anything else State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 7 about this case.
27. In crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, PW9 has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police on 02.06.2013. He has denied of having made the statement Mark PW9/A to police. He has denied that he had stated in his statement that on 03.06.2013, when he reached at the godown, he found that the main gate of the godown was open or that the car of the owner of the godown was parked there or that there was no guard at the godown and he directly entered the room or that he noticed that his Bhabhi was lying on the bed or that accused Rajesh Aggarwal was attempting to commit rape upon her or that on seeing him, Rajesh Aggarwal stood at the side of the room and thereafter accused Rajesh Aggarwal ran away from there or that his Bhabhi made a call to 100 number. He has further denied that he is deposing falsely to save the accused, as he has been won over by the accused.
28. An opportunity to crossexamine the witness was given to the ld. Counsel for the accused, but he did not avail of that opportunity..
29. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded separately, wherein accused has denied the allegations of the prosecution. He has submitted that false chargesheet has been filed against him. It is a false case and was registered against him due to some misunderstanding of the complainant/ prosecutrix. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
30. Accused preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
31. I have heard arguments from ld. counsel for accused, who has prayed for acquittal of accused by submitting that the prosecutrix did not State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 8 support the prosecution case. The other material witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case.
32. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the testimony of witnesses are cogent. The prosecutrix initially supported the prosecution case but, later on, she has been won over by accused.
33. I have perused the material on record.
34. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171, relied upon by Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 848/2014 titled as Amit Kumar Vs. State decided on 25.05.2016, it has been held that:
28. "The courts, while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, which are not of a substantial character.
29. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. The prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However, great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt, on the State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 9 basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide Tukaram v.
State of Maharashtra {(1979) 2 SCC 143 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 381 : AIR 1979 SC 185} and Uday v. State of Karnataka {(2003) 4 SCC 46 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775 :
AIR 2003 SC 1639}. )
30. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record the conviction of the accused. The conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix, on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case, the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix's case becomes liable to be rejected."
35. In the present case, out of nine witnesses, PW6 is the star witness of case, being the prosecutrix. She has not supported prosecution story either in her examinationinchief or crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP. She has categorically deposed that her husband was working at the godown of accused. He was arrested by police on 23.03.2013. She went to the godown of accused to take salary of her husband, but she was not allowed to enter the godown by the servants of accused. On 16.04.2013 her husband was released on bail. Thereafter, she again went to the godown of the accused alongwith her husband to take the salary of her husband, but at State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 10 that time also, she was not allowed to meet the accused. She went to P.S. alongwith her husband to give a complaint, but police did not accept her complaint. She has further deposed that when she came out from the PS, one NGO met them and told them that she could get recovered the salary of her husband. That NGO lady obtained her signature on the blank and printed paper. She was taken to hospital, but she refused for her internal medical examination, as no incident had happened. She has further deposed that on 16.03.2013, he gave the statement of ld. MM, on the direction of NGO lady, who had given the threat to implicate her in false case and under pressure, she gave the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. It is significant to note that PW6 has categorically deposed that accused Rajesh Aggarwal did not do any wrong with her. In cross - examination by ld. Addl. PP also, PW6 has deposed that NGO Anita had obtained her signature on statement Ex.PW6/A and the statement was not read over and explained to her PW6 has categorically denied of having made the statement Ex.PW6/A to police. PW6 has further deposed that she gave the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW6/A on the asking, tutoring and threatening of NGO, Anita. She has categorically denied that accused Rajesh Aggarwal had committed rape upon her or that she has been won over by accused and therefore, deposed falsely.
37. Similarly, PW7 and PW9, who are the daughter and devear of prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution story and deposed that after the arrest Beer Pal, the prosecutrix started living with PW9 alongwith her children. It is noteworthy that PW7 has denied of having made statement Mark PW7/A to police and also denied all suggestions of ld.
State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 11Addl. PP. Similarly PW9 has also denied of having made the statement Mark PW9/A to police.
38. Further PW8 Gopal has also deposed that Beer Singh was arrested by the police and his wife and children left the godown on the very same day.
39. Moreover, as per the statement of PW4, the prosecutrix has refused for her internal medical examination.
40. Further the FIR Ex.PW2/A has been got registered by accused Rajesh Aggarwal on 19.03.2013 and husband of the prosecutrix Beer Singh was arrested in that FIR on 16.04.2013 by the police.
41. Since, the prosecutrix and other material witnesses have not supported the prosecution story, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused. There is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence.
42. Thus, after going through the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 24.03.2013 at unknown time, at godown situated at Khasra No.66/07, Village - Alipur, Main GTK Road, Delhi accused Rajesh Aggarwal criminally intimidated the prosecutrix to fulfill his sexual desire, otherwise he would ruin her life and on 26.03.2013/02.04.2013 at the abovesaid place accused used criminal force upon the complainant/prosecutrix by attempting to tear her clothes with intent to outrage her modesty and during the period from 26.03.2013 to 03.04.2013 accused wrongfully confined the complainant/ State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 12 prosecutrix in the godown and on 03.04.2013 at about 7:30 a.m., he forcibly committed rape upon the complainant/prosecutrix against her will and without her consent.
43. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offences, he was charged with. His personal bond and surety bond are hereby cancelled. His surety is discharged.
43. However, in term of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC, accused has furnished fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted for a period of six months with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against this judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Bimla Kumari)
on this 19th July, 2016 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
State Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal Page No. 13