Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Sirajuddin Ahmed on 25 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL. FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0314192011
SC No. : 40/2013
FIR No. : 370/2011
U/s. : 376/420 IPC
PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
........................ Complainant.
Versus
Mohd. Sirajuddin Ahmed
S/o Mohd Mujtaba Ahmed
R/o House No. 17-1-18/M/201,
Sri Nagar Colony, Yadgiri Theatre,
Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad, A.P.
.........................Accused person.
Date of Institution : 7-1-2013
Judgment reserved for orders on : 7-4-2014
Date of pronouncement : 25-4-2014
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecutrix in the present case filed a written complaint to the SHO P.S Mehruali, New Delhi against the accused for committing rape, theft, cheating, misappropriation and criminal intimidation with her, stating inter alia, :
SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 1 "With due respect I would like to bring the following few facts for your kind information and necessary immediate action please :-
The above said Mr.
Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed
came into my contact through
Shaadi.com. His e-mail address is [email protected] and profile ID at Shaadi.com is marriageforu, however, his actual name and religion was not mentioned in his above ID.
After being contacted through above e-mail address, Mr. Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed allured me to marry with me and showed his willingness to meet me in Delhi. Accordingly after discussions he came over to Delhi in the month of December, 2010 and informed me that he is staying at Hotel near Nizamuddin Railway Station and called me there to meet him, where I visited him and during discussion he informed me that he is running an education SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 2 society by the name of Prince Educational Society and showed his willingness to marry with me and further allured me that after marriage he will make me Chairman of the said educational society. I fell into his prey, believing his version to be true and as such by alluring me and showing rosy picture he maintained physical relations with me against my wishes. It is pertinent to mention here that he earlier also sent me an e-mail which shows his e-mail address and name of education society with address etc. After the aforesaid incident Mr. Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed kept on assuring me that he will marry with me and he continued to visit me in Delhi till February, 2011 and all the time he maintained physical relations with me and he also informed that he is in the process of purchasing huge land for his education society. Once Mr. Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed informed that he is facing SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 3 some financial constrains for purchase of land and requested me to give him Rs.75000/-. Since I was not having cash at that time as such on his request I got my FDR encashed and deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the account of his brother from my account no.
000701064312 of ICICI Bank, Vasant Kunj Branch, New Delhi. Thereafter again on his request I gave him Rs.1,75,000/- during the period from January and February, 2011, for purchasing land as he had informed me that he is short of funds and I gave a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to him on good faith.
After February, 2011 he has not visited me and later on I found that during his visits to me at my home in the last week of February, 2011, he had committed theft of my gold ring as well as my debit card of HDFC Bank bearing A/C No. 1669153400067 and has withdrew huge money from my account without my knowledge and consent. However, he continued to SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 4 be in my touch through phone and SMS(s), which are self explanatory that he has taken money from me, his mobile No. is 09392436473. Now he is extending threats to me that in case the matter is reported to police, he will get me finished by using his muscle power.
In the above said
manner the above said Mr.
Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed has committed rape on me, cheated me for a huge amount, committed theft of my valuables which he has been misappropriating for his own use and has further extended threats to my life, as such strict action is required to be taken against him so that he may not cheat any other person in future.
I, therefore, request you
kindly look into the matter
personally and necessary legal
action be taken against the above said Mohammad Sirajuddin Ahmed by way of registering an FIR under the appropriate provision of law and justice may kindly be provided SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 5 to me."
2. On the basis of above complaint, a Rukka was prepared and FIR bearing no. 370/2011 was registered under section 376/420 IPC at P.S Mehrauli, New Delhi. During investigation, accused was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
3. Since it was a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. On 19-1-2012, a charge under 376/420 IPC was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Before proceeding further, let me state in brief the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses.
PW1 is the prosecutrix.
PW2 Dr. Rajnikanta Swain had examined the accused vide MLC Ex.PW2/A and was of the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable to perform sexual intercourse.
PW3 Shri Surender Mahajan, Manager, ICICI SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 6 Bank, proved the certified copy of the bank account no. 000701064312 of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Shri Inder Deep Singh, Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank proved the certified copy of the record of account no. 1669153000067 in the name of the prosecutrix.
PW5 Dr. Saloni had prepared the MLC Ex.PW5/A of the prosecutrix. On examination she had not find any marks of external injury on the person of the prosecutrix and that her hymen was ruptured, uterus was found to be atrophic and there were no adenexal marks.
PW6 Shri C. Bhaskar Reddy, Manager, Canara Bank, Mozzamjahi Market, Hyderabad had brought the account opening form of saving bank account no. 1076101012245 in the name of M/s Prince Educational Society, running into 14 pages, collectively proved as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 W/Ct. Rajesh had accompanied the prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination.
PW8 HC Abhey Raj had gone to Hyderabad on 5-9-2011 with SI Shiv Dev and HC Mukesh in search of SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 7 accused and that on 10-9-2011 the accused was arrested from near the Women's College of Osmaniya University, Koti, Hyderabad vide arrest documents Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. Accused was kept in P.S Nampali, Hyderabad. Transit remand was obtained and then he was brought to Delhi.
On 14-9-2011 accused had pointed out a guest house at Nizamuddin vide memo Ex.PW8/D and some papers including the copy of his passport was produced by the manager of the guest house, seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The prosecutrix in his presence had also produced a cheque of Rs. Two Lac, seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The cheque is Ex.P1.
Suggestions were given that PW8 never joined the investigation.
PW9 Shri Dhirender Kumar Singh, the Manager of S. Pal Palace guest house brought the record of the stay of accused in the guest house on 16-1-2011 and the said entries are Ex.PW9/A. The documents of accused viz. photocopy of passport is mark A and the copy of guest register is Ex.PW9/B. SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 8 PW10 SI Shiv Dev Singh, on 5-9-2011, along with HC Abhey Raj and HC Mukesh had gone to Hyderabad in search of accused ; accused was arrested there and brought to Delhi. He also seized the bank statement and customer application form from Canara Bank, Hyderabad in the name of Prince Education Society and also seized the bank statement of Mohd Waseeuddin from ICICI Bank, Hyderabad vide his application Ex.PW10/A ; the bank statement running into 6 pages are Mark PW10/B. He brought the accused to Delhi after obtaining transit remand ; got him medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW10/B, seized the documents of his stay in the guest house at Delhi and also seized the cheque of Rs. Two Lac given to him by the complainant. The cheque is Ex.P1.
During his cross examination he admitted that the cheque Ex.P1 was never presented to the bank for encashment as the complainant found that there was nothing in the bank account of the accused. However, the Investigating Officer did not submit any report from the bank as to if there was sufficient funds or not. He denied that he was ever told by the accused at the time of his SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 9 arrest and he returned the amount due to the prosecutrix which he had taken in installments on different dates. PW10 admitted that he had not investigated the case from the angle if the money transaction took place between the prosecutrix and M/s Prince Education Society of which accused was the signing authority and a Director. He voluntarily submitted that accused used to deal in money transaction on behalf of the society. He admitted that the cheque Ex.P1 dated 5-5-2011 was signed by the President and Vice President of M/s Prince Educational Society. He voluntarily stated that the prosecutrix had told him that she met the accused at 2 / 3 places i.e., at Bhopal and at Nizamuddin.
PW11 W-SI Pratibha Sharma, on 18-8-2011, took over the investigation and got the prosecutrix medically examined on her application Ex.PW10/A ; she recorded the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of the prosecutrix and obtained the statement of account of the prosecutrix from ICICI Bank, Vasant Kunj ; from HDFC Bank, Chattarpur vide her applications Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C ; statement of account of ICICI Bank running SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 10 into 6 pages was proved as Ex.PW11/D and the statement of account of HDFC Bank running into two pages was proved as Ex.PW11/E. She prepared the challan and filed it in the court for trial.
During her cross examination she deposed that she did not verify the entries made in Ex.PW11/D i.e ICICI Bank account of the prosecutrix on various dates viz., 5-9-2011, 29-8-2011, 27-8-2011, 17-8-2011, 11-8-2011, 27-7-2011, 207-2011, 15-7-2011, 4-7-2011, 30-6-2011, 27-6-2011, 24-6-2011, 21-6-2011, 23-4-2011, 20-4-2011, 15-4-2011, 7-4-2011 and 2-4-2011.
5. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused, under section 313 Cr.P.C, was recorded wherein he denied the allegations made against him and stated that he was the Director of M/s Prince Educational Society at Hyderabad and advertised a post of Director in M/s Prince Educational Society at Delhi and prosecutrix applied for it. Since she was not found suitable so she was turned out after sometime. The payment received from the prosecutrix in the account of his cousin SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 11 was also returned to her in installments.
6. On the basis of the above evidence the ld prosecutor argued that accused may be convicted and whereas the ld Amicus Curie for the accused submitted that it was a monitory dispute which was twisted by the prosecutrix to file a false rape case against the accused and that the accused has already paid the entire money to the prosecutrix and that the prosecutrix rather be punished for the frivolous litigation and hence the accused be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
7. To appreciate the facts, it would now be appropriate to examine the deposition of the prosecutrix, who has since been examined as PW1. She has deposed as under :
"I was a widow for the last 14 years when I met the accused in December, 2010 through Shaadi.com, as his profile was posted there. Accused did not SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 12 disclose his religion or his actual age to me when he came in touch with me through net / phone. I met the accused in a hotel at Nizamuddin where he was staying and that accused proposed me for marriage. He made physical relations with me against my will in the last week of December, 2010 or in the first week of January, 2011, so far as I remember. The accused disclosed that he was a Professor in some Engineering College but later I came to know that it was not true and that accused told me that he is willing to open an education society in the name of M/s Prince Education Society and he is purchasing a land at Secundrabad, Hyderabad for Rs.
22 Lac and since he is running
SC No. : 40/2013
FIR No. : 370/2011
U/s. : 376/420 IPC
PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 13
short of money the accused
requested me to support him
financially. I gave Rs.2.50 Lac to
the accused on his promise that he would make me the Chairman of the Educational Society. I arranged Rs.75,000/- from my fixed deposits and rest was paid to the accused by way of cash in different installments. Accused took my debit card of HDFC Bank without my knowledge and withdrew money and that I deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- in the account of the brother of accused in ICICI Bank at the behest of the accused. The monitory transaction occurred between us between December, 2010 and February, 2011 and that accused promised to return my money by the end of SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 14 February, 2011 but he did not.
Accused made physical relations with me many times on the pretext of marriage but later I came to know about his religion after he committed sexual intercourse.
Accused used to threat me on phone that in case I complain to police I would be killed. I gave my complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police belatedly as I was asking money from accused and he assured that he would marry me.
Accused gave me a cheque of Rs. Two Lac in the month of March, 2011 but since there was no money in his bank account I did not present the said cheque and rather I gave it to police ; seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The said cheque is Ex.P1. I had shown the hotel SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 15 where the accused had stayed at Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin and even showed the room where accused had made physical relations with me. The police had collected the record from said hotel vide memo Ex.PW1/C. During her cross examination by the ld Amicus Curie for the accused she deposed as under :
"I met the accused for the first time in a hotel at Nizamuddin as accused had informed me a day prior to his reaching Delhi. I met the accused at Nizamuddin Railway Station and he took me to a hotel. I did not make any entry in the guest register of the hotel and I stayed with the accused in the said hotel for two days. I never knew the religion of the accused as it SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 16 was accused who made the entry in the guest register and that I was not with him at that time. I talked with accused throughout my stay in the hotel and never complain to anyone about any forcible sexual assault committed by accused with me to any of the hotel employee. Vol. as it was due to allurement of accused and I trusted the accused that he would marry me. The accused made relations with me on the very first day of our stay in hotel.
Accused took my ATM card without my knowledge and I do not remember the pin number of my said ATM card. Vol. my bank account is now closed as I have no money the said account. I do not remember the number of SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 17 transactions made by accused by using my ATM and the accused probably withdrew my money with the said ATM card in the month of February / March, 2011 and it was approximately Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and I came to know about it in the month of May, 2011. I deposited the money in bank account in between December, 2010 to April, 2011 but I do not remember the number of transaction made by me during the aforesaid period.
I never made any complaint to police regarding missing of my ATM card.
The prosecutrix denied that accused ever deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in her bank account on 2-4-2011 from Nagpur. She SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 18 voluntarily stated that she had no idea about it. She further had no idea if the accused ever deposited Rs.5,000/- in her bank account no.
000701064312 from Nayapul,
Hyderabad ; or Rs.5000/- on
15-4-2011 from branch Charminar, Hyderabad ; or Rs.2000/- on 20-4-2011 from Santosh Nagar ; or Rs.2500 on 23-4-2011 ; or Rs.8000 on 21-6-2011 ; or Rs.2000/- on 24-6-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 27-6-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 30-6-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 4-7-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 15-7-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 20-7-2011 ; or Rs.2000 dated 27-7-2011 ; or Rs.3000/- on dated 11-8-2011 ; or Rs.2000/- on 17-8-2011 ; or Rs.3000/- on dated 23-8-2011 ; or Rs.2000/- on SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 19 27-8-2011 ; or Rs.2000/- on dated 29-8-2011 and Rs.2000/- on dated 5-9-2011 ; all from CAM, Nayapul, Hyderabad in her bank account no.
000701064312. She rather deposed that she has no idea about the aforesaid transactions if ever made by the accused in her account as she also used to get commissions from ICICI Prudential. She further deposed that she had no idea where she lost her ATM card or where it was lying. The prosecutrix denied that she gave the ATM card to accused or that she had disclosed the pin number to him.
The prosecutrix admitted that she went to bank and was informed orally by the Bank Manager about the insufficient funds in the SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 20 account of accused but she did not give any written complaint to bank or to police. She was, however, not aware about the date when she had visited the HDFC bank to give an information about the loss of her ATM card. She admitted that she had opened a bank account in ICICI Bank between January to September, 2011 and that she and her children also used to withdraw money through the ATM card during this period. She deposed that she deposited an amount of Rs.75000/- in the account of brother of accused somewhere between December, 2010 and January, 2011.
She admitted that accused had handed over a cheque of Rs. Two Lac to her at New Delhi SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 21 Railway Station in March, 2011 and that she filed a complaint on 21-5-2011. She admitted that she never presented the cheque Ex.P1 for encashment as when she went to Canara Bank she was told that only Rs.400 or Rs.500/- were lying in the account of accused and that the bank manager showed her the balance in the account of accused on the computer screen.
She admitted that she had met accused three times only, firstly at a Hotel at Nizamuddin, secondly at her house and thirdly at the railway station, Nizamuddin. She did not remember the date when she had met the accused.
However, she deposed that on the 2nd time she had taken the accused to her house for lunch as he had no SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 22 money to eat. Accused remained at her house for about 3 / 4 hours when her family members were not present. She left the accused at New Delhi Railway Station after arranging food for his journey and even gave cash to him. She deposed that she had not taken any SMS alert facility from the ICICI Bank. She denied that she has been regularly receiving the status of her account monthwise from her bank. She denied that she herself had transferred the money to the account of the brother of accused to help him. She denied that she had ever sent any letter or e-mail for joining the Prince Education Society as a Director in Delhi. She denied that she ever received her money back in different SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 23 installments in ICICI Bank account or she filed the case due to anger. Heard.
If one peruse the deposition of the prosecutrix, one feel pain to digest the story that the prosecutrix, a widow for the last 14 years, when met accused for the first time in a hotel at Nizamuddin, suddenly on a mere promise to marry by any person and without knowing his background, age or religion, can have sexual intercourse with him. Is it not strange to note that the prosecutrix, a widow of 14 years, her age being more than 50 years, having grown up children, simply met the accused aged 36 years, and on the very first day makes physical relations with him only on such alleged pretext. The allegations that accused made multiple sexual relations with her thereafter on the pretext of marriage, to my mind do not appear to be correct as admittedly she met the accused only for three times ; firstly at the hotel where she conveniently stayed with him for two days on her first meeting ; secondly at her house where she allowed accused the sexual favour SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 24 and thirdly at railway station where he gave her a cheque Ex.P1 of Rs. Two lacs.
During the visit of accused at her home, the family members of the prosecutrix were not in her house. Rather she met the accused at a metro station from where she brought the accused to her house when admittedly she knew that none of her family members would be present at such time and then she kept the accused with her in the said house for about 3 / 4 hours and allegedly had sex with him. The accused then left the house for New Delhi Railway Station and she also arranged food for his journey and even gave cash to him. Now if accused had raped her forcibly or without her consent, she would not have obliged accused with cash and food for his journey.
The fact that she was aged more than 50 years and accused was merely of 36 years of age ; they being of different religion and further she being a widow of 14 years, to my mind she could not have been deceived so easily by the accused, approximately 2/3rd of her age, by any alleged promise of marriage made to her. Would anyone make physical relations with another on the very SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 25 first day of meeting, on any promise, muchless a promise to marry. Would a matured lady be so impressed by a person on the very first day of her meeting him that she would allow such person to indulge in physical relations on any alleged promise. My answer to this would be a big No. The lady of her age ; a widow with grown up children, would never fall for a boy of 36 years on the very first day on any alleged promise, whatsoever. If she do so, it shall be for any other reason than a mere promise to marry.
The deposition of the prosecutrix qua rape is not convincing as to my mind it is difficult for a woman of such age with grown up children to be easily duped for sex on the very first day of meeting, by a boy 2/3rd of her age on a mere promise to marry and without even knowing his background, religion, financial status etc. Moreso, though the prosecutrix has talked about the accused's profile at Shaadi.com but the same has also not been proved on record.
Now coming to the second limb of the allegation viz cheating. Though the prosecutrix alleged SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 26 that she lost her ATM card and later she came to know that accused had misused her said card but I am a bit hesitent to accept it. No one can use the ATM of another until and unless the pin code of the ATM card is also disclosed to its user. To my mind the submissions of the accused that it was the prosecutrix herself who had given the ATM for its use, appears to be plausible.
Further, though the prosecutrix had deposed that accused did not return a single penny to her but she has no conclusive answer to the suggestions of the accused when he alleged that he had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in her bank account on 2-4-2011 from Nagpur ; Rs.5,000/- in her bank account no. 000701064312 from Nayapul, Hyderabad, or Rs.5000/- on 15-4-2011 from branch Charminar, Hyderabad ; Rs.2000/- on 20-4-2011 from Santosh Nagar ; Rs.2500 on 23-4-2011, Rs.8000 on 21-6-2011 ; Rs.2000/- on 24-6-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 27-6-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 30-6-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 4-7-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 15-7-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 20-7-2011 ; Rs.2000 dated 27-7-2011 ; Rs.3000/- on dated 11-8-2011 ; Rs.2000/- on 17-8-2011 ; Rs.3000/- on SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 27 dated 23-8-2011 ; Rs.2000/- on 27-8-2011 ; Rs.2000/- on dated 29-8-2011 and Rs.2000/- on dated 5-9-2011 ; all from ACM, Nayapul, Hyderabad in bank account no. 000701064312, which admittedly belong to her. The prosecutrix rather deposed that she hadn't checked her bank account, if the said amount was ever received by her from accused as she also used to receive commissions from bank. These facts do show that the prosecutrix is perhaps concealing the facts from the court and has not come with clean hands. Further it cannot be ascertained with certainty as to how much amount was withdrawn by accused from her account as admittedly she and her children also used to withdrew the amounts from her said account on different occasions.
Further, the accused, admittedly, handed over a cheque Ex.P1 of Rs. Two lac to her but she did not present it for encashment as she alleged that she had gone to Canara Bank where she came to know that Rs.400/- or Rs. 500/- only were lying in his account. Had the prosecutrix presented the cheque Ex.P1 it could have given a clear picture and she could have rather filed a complaint under SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 28 section 138 N.I Act, which she did not prefer for the reasons best known to her and rather now is trying to twist the facts by using these graver sections.
She has not been able to depose clearly qua deception made by accused and though she alleged that accused stole her ATM and withdrew money without her knowledge but could not tell since when the accused was in possession of such ATM or how did he came to know of the Pin number of the ATM or why did she not filed a complaint either to bank to stop the user of such ATM card or to police immediately. Further she concealed qua the payments made by the accused in her account from time to time and could not give any convincing answer to it.
Hence, it appears more of a monitory dispute between the parties wherein she ought to have taken civil action, if any, against the accused. Hence, as the factum of rape and deception could not be proved against the accused, the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt.
Regarding stolen ring, no proof of its ownership, make etc is proved and even no SMS is proved on record.
Thus, while giving benefit of doubt, I acquit the SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 29 accused of the charges framed against him under section 376/420 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety discharged. Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to record room, of course, after compliance of provisions of section 437-A Cr.P.C Announced in the open court today i.e. 25-4-2014 ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi SC No. : 40/2013 FIR No. : 370/2011 U/s. : 376/420 IPC PS : Mehrauli, New Delhi. Page No. 30