Delhi District Court
State vs . Khyala on 15 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. : 27/16
Case No.56029/2016
STATE
versus
1.Safik Ali S/o. Rafik Ali R/o. WZ 142, Khyala Village, Delhi.
FIR No. : 702/2015 Offence U/S : 376 IPC Police Station : Khyala DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE AFTER COMMITTAL:10.03.2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT:15/10/2016 JUDGMENT
1. Accused Safik Ali has been charge sheeted on the allegation of the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) that between 15.10.2015 and December, 2015 at WZ142, Khayala Vilage, N. Delhi, he had committed rape upon the prosecutrix.
2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 20.07.2016, charge for offence under section 376 IPC was framed against the accused Safik Ali to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
-:: Page 1 of 5 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with Alma, resident of Village Hadab Chowki, Mohalla Chaupala Khan, Shahjan Pur. She further stated that before two years, her husband had expired and thereafter she came to reside with her mother at WZ152, Khayala, Delhi and was working in a factory in village Khyala. She further deposed that one person namely Shafiq used to reside in their locality and proposed her to marry in the month of July, 2013 and she accepted his proposal. Thereafter they both started communicating with each other on mobile. Further, in the month of December, 2014 Safiq called her at his residence and then prosecutrix established physical relations with accused with her own consent and thereafter they established physical relations many a times.
5. She further deposed that she had married the accused after registration of FIR and they have been blessed with a son, and they are living happily as husband and wife. She further stated that she does not want any legal action against the accused. She has no grudge against her husband Safik Ali and does not want to take any action against him.
6. Other remaining public witnesses to be examined in this case are Nayab Bano and Munni , who are mother and sister of prosecutrix but they are neither the eye witnesses of the
-:: Page 2 of 5 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
incident nor they have alleged anything against the accused in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. 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 and has been blessed with a male child. 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. She has also stated that she has no grudge against the accused and submits that she does not want any legal action against him.
7. 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.
8. 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 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
-:: Page 3 of 5 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
fruitful purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.
9. 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 Safik Ali , out of their mutual consent and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
10. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused Safik Ali , beyond reasonable doubt that accused Safik Ali had committed rape on the prosecutrix. Hence, accused Safik Ali is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under section 376 IPC. As per provision of section 437A, Cr.P.C, bail bonds of accused are extended for further six months on same terms and conditions.
11. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 15th October, 2016. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 4 of 5 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
FIR No : 702/15 State Vs. Khyala PS: Safik Ali 15.10.2016 Present: Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P. for State.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for accused. Accused present on bail.
PW1 examined and discharged.
Ms. Neha Jain, counsel from DCW.
The other remaining public witnesses to be examined in this case are Nayab Bano and Munni , who are the mother and sister of prosecutrix, but they are not the eye witnesses of the incident nor they have alleged anything against the accused and the 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 376 IPC. As per provisions of order 437 AIPC, bail bond of accused is extended for further six months.
File be consigned to record room.
(Shail Jain) (Shail Jain ASJ(Special Fast Track Court)01 West, THC, Delhi 15/10/2016
-:: Page 5 of 5 ::-