Delhi District Court
State vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) on 28 March, 2018
State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment)
PS : Begumpur
FIR no. 69/16
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SHAILENDER MALIK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)
NORTHWEST: ROHINI: DELHI
Registration/ID No. : 53052/16
FIR No : 69/16
Police Station : Begumpur
Under Section : 376/328/506 IPC
State Vs. : Mohit Sharma S/o Shyam Prakash
R/o H. no. 326A, Jain Nagar, Karala
Delhi.
Date of committal : 23.03.2016
Charge framed on : 27.04.2016
Arguments advanced on : 14.03.2018
Judgment Pronounced on : 28.03.2018
Decision : Acquitted.
Appearance:
Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. J.P. Prasad, Counsel for the accused.
J U D G M E N T
1.Accused Mohit Sharma S/o Sh.Shyam Prakash Sharma is facing prosecution for the offences u/s 366/328/376/506 IPC as well as u/s 342 IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the matter is that on 18.01.2016 an information was received in PS Begumpur from PCR vide DD no. 35A dated 18.01.2016 at about 10.30pm that one boy had kidnapped sister of informant. Upon receipt of such Page no............... 1 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 information SI Rajesh was deputed to take necessary legal steps. On the same day i.e 18.01.2016 information was received that girl by nameN (name withheld) whom a boy had taken along while she was going to her school and she was allegedly raped by that boy. Upon receipt of such information SI Raj Devi went to SGM hospital where victimN was with her mother and she was medically examined in the hospital. After receipt of MLC, prosecutrix was counseled from the NGO representative and thereafter statement of the victim was recorded on 19.01.2016.
3. In her complaint given by the victimN, she has stated that she resides with her parents and is studying in 12 th standard in government school of Begumpur. Victim says that she was known to Mohit Sharma (accused herein) for the last three years as he is friend of boyfriend of her friend namely Akansha and her friend had introduced Mohit with her. Since than she was in friendship with Mohit. Prosecutrix further says that she and Mohit used to meet out of their house after telling lie to their family members and used to go also for watching movies and roaming around in Metro walk. She further states that however during this period there has never been any physical relations between them and her family members were also not known about the friendship with Mohit. Prosecutrix says that later her family members came to know about Mohit in Page no............... 2 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 December 2015. She was given instructions not to meet accused Mohit in future, thereafter she did not meet Mohit for about one month whereas Mohit used to make repeated calls to her.
4. Victim further says in her complaint that upon repeated calls made by accused Mohit for meeting him, on 16.01.2016 when she left her house for going to school, on asking of Mohit, she kept her one pair of clothes in her school bag. She says that on that day, she met with Mohit in a street at some distance from school. Thereafter she went with Mohit and Mohit stated to have taken her in a flat at sector21, Begumpur for changing her clothes. After reaching to that flat, he told her to change her clothes and at about 9.30am when she was changing her clothes accused Mohit did not let her to wear other clothes. She further says that accused thereafter started teasing her and she objected to the same, as such upon which she stated to have some scuffle with accused Mohit. She alleges that thereafter accused Mohit kept her detained in that flat without putting on clothes.
5. Prosecutrix has further alleged in her complaint that in the night accused Mohit gave her some white colour liquid by saying it to be limca, after having the same she felt intoxicated and when she regained some conscious Mohit told her that he has taken her photographs in her condition of being without Page no............... 3 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 clothes and he will send those photographs to her brother. Prosecutrix says that thereafter she could not know as to what had happened. In the morning when she woke up, she came to know that accused Mohit has established physical relations with her. Next day on 17.01.2016, prosecutrix stated to have remained in that flat for a whole day, at about 10pm in the night when she came to home, before that accused Mohit had provided her new clothes which she wore and those clothes which she has brought from the house were also kept by her in her bag. Prosecutrix says that she disclosed the entire facts to her family members on 18.01.2016, then her brother made a call to the police at 100 number. Prosecutrix alleges that accused had administered some intoxicating substance to her and thereafter established physical relations with her against her consent.
6. On the above said complaint of prosecutrixN present case was registered. After registration of the FIR prosecutrix was taken before Ld MM where her statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded. During investigation accused was arrested. IO prepared the site plan of the place of incidence, collected CDR report of the mobile phone of accused and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
7. Taking into consideration the material collected during investigation Ld Predecessor of this court vide his order dated Page no............... 4 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 27.04.2016 found sufficient evidence on record for framing the charge against the accused for the offences u/s 366, 328, 376, 506 and 342 IPC to that charge accused did not plead guilty and claim trial.
8. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. Besides these witnesses since registration of FIR, medical examination of the accused by the doctor vide MLC 1104 was not disputed on behalf of defence, therefore duty officer who registered the FIR and doctor who has prepared the MLC of accused has not been examined. The details of witnesses examined by the prosecutrix is as under:
PWs Name of the Witness Nature Documents proved of the witness PW1 Dr. Sheetal Doctor She had medically examined prosecutrixN, aged about 19 years and proved her MLC Ex.PW1/1.
PW2 Prosecutrix Public Prosecutrix being victim of the alleged witness sexual assault has testified about the incident and has testified about her complaint given to the police which is Ex.PW2/A as well as giving of her statement u/s 164 CrPC before Ld MM Ex.PW2/B. Prosecutrix has deposed about the incidence happened with her and deposed against the accused. PW3 Smt PK Public This witness has deposed regarding seeing (mother of prosecutrix) witness her daughter in the company of the accused. This witness further deposed that her daughter gone to the school on 16.01.2016 but did not return home and she searched for her and thereafter complaint was given in PS Begumpur. She further deposed regarding return of her daughter on 17.01.2016 in the night Page no............... 5 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 having some injury on her face and thereafter she was taken to the hospital.
PW4 ASI Narender Singh Police He was working as duty officer in the PS witness Begumpur and stated to have been received PCR information regarding kidnapping of a girl vide DD no. 35A and thereafter information regarding girl being raped vide DD no. 36A.
PW5 WCt Sarita Police She had testified regarding accompanying witness with SI Rajesh upon receipt of information regarding kidnapping of a girl and thereafter going to SGM hospital where victim was got medically examined and after her medical examination her sealed exhibits were handed over by the doctor which were taken into police possession in her presence.
PW6 S Public He is brother of prosecutrix who has also (brother of prosecutrix) witness deposed regarding going of prosecutrix to her school on 16.01.2016 but not returning back and return of the prosecutrix on the next day I.e 17.01.2016 at late night time. PW7 WSI Raj Devi Police She has investigated the matter and has (investing officer) witness testified about the steps taken by her during investigation . She has also proved preparing of rukka Ex.PW7/A and site plan on the pointing out of prosecutrix Ex.PW7/B and arresting of the accused vide Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D and getting the statement u/s 164 CrPC of the prosecutrix recorded by moving application Ex.PW7/F.
9. Upon completion of prosecution evidence all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused in statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, wherein accused has simply denied the entire evidence and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and prosecutrix has lodged the FIR against him under the influence of her mother and brother for extorting money from him.
Page no............... 6 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16
10. No evidence was led in defence by the accused though despite giving an opportunity.
11. I have heard Sh. J.P. Prasad Ld counsel for the accused and Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld Addl. PP for the State.
Discussion of Evidence.
12. Since the most material evidence in this case is the evidence of prosecutrixN, therefore let us appreciate the evidence of prosecutrix when she appeared in the witness box as PW2. PW2 has testified that she was studying in 12 th class and met with accused Mohit through one Suraj. Prosecutrix says that she developed friendship with accused and used to go for roaming together in Delhi in parks, Metrowalk as well as watching movies in theater together. Prosecutrix says that her family members were not aware about her friendship as well as roaming together. Prosecutrix further says that in December, 2015, her family members came to know about her friendship and roaming together and asked not to interact with the accused any further as it was not proper. Prosecutrix says that thereafter she stopped interacting and meeting with the accused and they did not meet or interact for one month.
13. Prosecutrix further says that accused used to call her on her mobile phone asking her to meet once only for last time. She says that accused asked her to come in school uniform on Page no............... 7 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 the pretext of going to school by taking cloths in her school bag and then both would go for roaming. Prosecutrix says that on 16.01.2016 she took her clothes in her school bag and left the home in school uniform. Accused met her on the way in a street and she went with accused on his bike. Accused then took her to a flat at sector21, Rohini and asked her to change her clothes. PW2 says that accused did not let her to change the clothes, she had already taken off her school uniform to put on her clothes brought by her in her school bag, but accused did not allow her to put on those clothes. Prosecutrix says that accused then started misbehaving with her forcibly and then they had a scuffle. Prosecutrix says that she raised alarm and accused closed her mouth and hit her on her stomach. Witness says that in the process of scuffle accused also suffered her nail scratches. PW2 says that she was kept naked (without clothes) and accused clicked her photographs while being without clothes by his mobile phone. Prosecutrix further says that she was having her mobile phone in her school bag and accused had broken her SIM card of her mobile phone. She says that accused threatened her that in case she raised alarm he will send her photographs to her brother on Whastapp.
14. Prosecutrix further testifies that in the evening accused forcibly made her to drink white liquid like limca when she asked the accused to let her go back to her home. She further Page no............... 8 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 says that after consuming limca like liquid she got unconscious. In the next morning when she regained her conscious she realised that accused had established physical relations with her. PW2 says that accused thereafter threatened her to distribute her photographs in case she disclosed about the incidence to anyone.
15. PW2 says that accused thereafter took her clothes which she had brought in her school bag to Avantika market where he purchased new clothes for her and thereafter brought her back in the same flat in Sector21, Rohini. On asking of accused prosecutrix stated to have put on her new clothes and kept her earlier clothes with her . Thereafter accused dropped her in his motorcycle in the evening of 17.01.2016, near her house. Prosecutrix says that she came back to her home in those new clothes and school uniform was in her school bag. Prosecutrix says that accused had abused her and her parents during the aforementioned scuffle. She directly went to her room in her house and her mother and brother were not at home and only her younger sister was at home. She says that she did not tell anything to anyone and closed her room from inside and next day in the evening i.e. evening of 18.01.2016, when her mother forced her to disclose as to what had happened prosecutrix stated to have been narrated the entire incident to her mother and then her mother told these facts to brother of Page no............... 9 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 prosecutrix, he thereafter called the police at 100 number and police reached there and took prosecutrix to hospital for her medical examination and thereafter her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. Prosecutrix then further testifies that her statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW2/B was recorded before Ld MM. Prosecutrix however, says that she did not go with police anywhere. Prosecutrix says the she did not go to the place of occurrence and told about the flat being in Sector 21.
16. Having considered the above discussed evidence of the prosecutrix, first aspect which comes out from the evidence of prosecutrix is that admittedly prosecutrix was having friendship with the accused and admittedly she used to roam around with accused to different places and to watching movies with him. Prosecutrix in her examinationinchief has specifically stated that her family members however were not aware about her friendship and regarding her roaming around with accused to different places. Prosecutrix in her cross examination has admitted that she used to roam around and watching movies with accused without any pressure and with her own free will. She has stated in her crossexamination that she had watched about 8 to 10 movies with accused. She further stated in her crossexamination that she did not inform to her family members, whenever she used to go for watching movies. She says that she used to come back from school and Page no............... 10 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 thereafter used to go for watching movies with accused by telling to her family members that she was going to her friend's house for doing homework. Thus acquittance of the prosecutrix with accused and roaming with him and watching movies without disclosing her family members, is admitted and established on the record.
17. Now coming to the incidence of 16.01.2016, according to the prosecutrix since she was not interacting and had not met with the accused for about one month, on persistent asking of the accused she left her house for going to the school and in her school uniform and took her other clothes in her school bag. Accused met prosecutrix on her way to school in a street from where she went with him on his bike. Here again her evidence indicates that she voluntarily went with accused while keeping other clothes in her school bag. Prosecutrix in her crossexamination has stated that she did not tell to her family members about receiving of call from the accused or that on his asking to meet him and she took clothes in her school bag on the pretext of going to school. Prosecutrix rather admitted in her crossexamination that accused was already waiting for her near the street on the way of school when she reached there. Thus going with accused by telling her family members that she was going to school appears to be voluntarily and without any pressure.
Page no............... 11 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16
18. Now prosecutrix says that accused thereafter took her to a flat in sector21, Rohini where when she tried to change her clothes and took off her uniform, thereafter accused did not let her to wear those clothes which she brought in her school bag. Prosecutrix has alleged that accused did not let her put on her those clothes and started misbehaving with her forcibly and a scuffle ensued between her and the accused, she also alleged that accused kept her without clothes and clicked her photographs while being without clothes. She has also stated about her mobile phone lying in her school bag, SIM card of which broken by the accused.
19. Now if we appreciate this aspect of evidence of prosecutrix, such evidence of prosecutrix though appears to be very serious because a girl may be willing to keep friendship with a boy and may like to roam around or watch movies with him. However, may not be interested to establish physical relations with the accused. Keeping that aspect in consideration evidence of prosecutrix assumes great importance. However, if evidence of prosecutrix is appreciated , I find her evidence does not inspire confidence because if according to her, accused kept her without clothes and took her photographs while being without clothes and a scuffle had also taken place with the accused. It is very natural and probable that prosecutrix would raise alarm loudly for Page no............... 12 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 calling people from the locality for her help. No doubt prosecutrix has stated that accused had threatened her for not raising alarm otherwise he will send her photographs to her brother on whatsapp but it is important to note here that in the entire investigations, after the arrest of accused and recovery of his mobile phone, no photographs were recovered from the mobile. Although IO/PW7 SI Rajdevi has not stated in her evidence regarding recovery of the mobile phone from the accused. However, it is so stated in report u/s 173 (3) CrPC filed in the chargesheet that from the mobile phone of the accused no obscene photographs of prosecutrix were recovered. As such, the very basis of prosecutrix regarding threat of the accused has not been established.
20. Another important aspect in this regard to be noted is that prosecutrix in her crossexamination recorded on 05.12.2016 has testified that she made a call to her brother from mobile phone of the accused by telling him that she is with her friends at Iffco chowk, Gurgaon and also informed that she would not come back in her home in the night as she was in her friend's house in a party. If according to evidence of prosecutrix, she made a call to her brother from the mobile phone of accused and told lie to him for being in Gurgaon and actually in the company of the accused in a flat of Sector 21, Rohini, this fact clearly shows that there was no threat from Page no............... 13 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 the accused. In her crossexamination prosecutrix further says that her brother was not aware that said mobile phone belonged to the accused. Prosecutrix further says in cross examination that accused had forced her to make a call to her friends and asked them not to inform her brother. Such evidence of prosecutrix however to my mind, does not inspire confidence firstly because if she was under threat and was kept without clothes, and there being clear threat from the side of the accused, prosecutrix would naturally raise alarm or called someone for her help specifically when she has been detained in a flat for entire day and night,but she did not do so.
21. Such evidence of prosecutrix is also doubtful for the reason , that prosecutrix had gone to school in morning of 16.01.2016 and then called her brother from mobile of accused to inform that she has gone to Gurgaon and would not come back home because of party of her friend. How could prosecutrix go to Gurgaon from her school and how can brother would accept her such story. Notably brother of prosecutrix did not appear in witness box.
22. Prosecutrix thereafter went on to testify that in the evening of 16.01.2016 accused brought some white liquid like limca and asked her to take the same. Prosecutrix says that after consuming the limca like liquid, she felt unconscious and Page no............... 14 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 regained conscious only in the morning and then she realised that accused had established physical relations with her. In this regard also prosecutrix in her crossexamination says that she did not raise any alarm or tried to contact anyone in that house for her help, when accused had gone out of that flat to bring food and limca. Prosecutrix explained that she did not raise alarm because accused had given threat to send her photographs to her brother on Whatsapp. I have already noted about that this fact has not been proved by the prosecution as no obscene photographs of the prosecutrix recovered from the mobile phone of the accused. It is important to note that in report u/s 173 (3) CrPC, IO had mentioned that at the time of arrest of accused his mobile phone with SIM no. 7053901991 was taken into police possession by separate seizure memo (Although said seizure memo has not been proved at all on the record nor is part of the chargesheet). IO had further mentioned that on analysis of that phone SIM no obscene photograph was recovered. Therefore prosecution has not been able to prove very basis of the alleged threat given by the accused to prosecutrix. Here it is also important to note, no bottle or any substance recovered from that flat of sector21, Rohini to substantiate administering of intoxicating substance to prosecutrix.
23. Again coming to the evidence of prosecutrix, she says Page no............... 15 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 that on 17.01.2016 accused had taken her to market of Avantika and purchased new clothes for her and thereafter again came back to same flat at sector21, Rohini. On this factual aspect prosecutrix says that she did not raise any alarm on the way when accused took her and she reached to Avantika market or in the shop of Avantika market where from accused purchased new clothes. Similarly, prosecutrix further says that she did not raise any alarm on her way when accused took her from that flat to drop to her house. Prosecutrix says that she reached her house in the evening of 17.01.2016 and did not inform about the incidence to anybody and remained confined in her room and closed it from inside. It is only next day I.e 18.01.2016 prosecutrix stated to have informed about the said facts to her mother.
24. Since PW3 in her examinationinchief had not deposed as per prosecution version, she was crossexamined by Addl. PP for the State, wherein witness has admitted that she stated to the police that prosecutrix did not tell her that she had taken pair of her clothes in her school bag. PW3 admitted that her daughter had told her that when she was going for school on 16.01.2016, on her way accused met her and took her to flat at sector21 Rohini. Witness further admitted that prosecutrix told her that accused did not let her change her clothes and made her to drink cold drink, after which she had Page no............... 16 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 limited consciousness and on the next day , when she woke up , she found that accused had established physical relations with her.
25. Considering such evidence of mother of prosecutrix first aspect to be noted here is that if according to her prosecutrix had gone to her school on 16.01.2016 and did not return on the same day, whether any police complaint was filed by her or any of the family members. In this regard PW3 in her crossexamination says that prosecutrix used to go to her school at 8.00am and come back by 1.00pm. PW3 says that she had gone to the PS Begumpur and gave a complaint in writing. PW3 further says that police had given a copy of said complaint to her son. But such complaint has not been placed on record at all. Neither the son of the PW3 was examined, nor any such missing complaint is placed on record or proved. Important aspect to be noted is that PW3 in her cross examination says that she had seen her daughter in the company of the accused, while roaming with him as pillion rider of his bike, about 15 days before the date of incidence. PW3 says that still she did not make any complaint to the parents of the accused, when prosecutrix did not return from the school on 16.01.2016. these circumstance certainly create doubt on the veracity of prosecution version.
26. PW6 S (sister of the prosecutrix) appeared in the Page no............... 17 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 witness box , she says that her sister had gone to her school on 16.01.2016 at about 8am but did not return. PW6 we searched for her but she was not traced. This witness says that 17.01.2016 at late night hours prosecutrix returned to her home, when her mother inquired from her as to where she had gone, she told about the whole incidence. PW6 then says that she made a call at 100 number on 18.01.2016. This witness in her crossexamination also says that she lodged a missing report with the police, when her sister was not traced. However, she says that she is not having the copy of missing report at that time.
27. From the evidence of PW3 and PW6 it is very much clear that both these witnesses have failed to prove any missing report if any filed with the police, when prosecutrix did not return home on 16.01.2016. their evidence again is contradicted from the prosecutrix, when she says that in the evening of 16.01.2016 she called her brother from the mobile phone of the accused and informed him that she is at Iffco Chowk Gurgaon and would stay at her friend's house. If prosecutrix had made a call to her brother in the evening of 16.01.2016, there was no occasions for mother and sister of the prosecutrix to file any missing report on that day which however has not been proved otherwise. Important aspect to be noted her is that brother of the prosecutrix has also not Page no............... 18 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 been cited as a witness in this case for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
28. If I again revert back to the evidence of prosecutrix, one aspect to be noted is that entire incidence has taken place at one flat of sector21, Rohini, regarding which prosecutrix says in her examination in chief that during the investigation of the matter, police had not taken her anywhere. Prosecutrix specifically says that she did not go to the place of occurrence with the police . If such is the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is hard to understand as to how police prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/B. No evidence has been collected regarding the said flat of sector 21, Rohini. IO PW7 WSI Rajdevi though has stated that in the investigation she went alongwith the prosecutrix and her mother at the flat of sector21 and she prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/B but no details of address of that flat has been given at all either in the evidence of prosecutrix, IO or even at the site plan. PW7 in her crossexamination says that she came to know in the investigation that said flat was of friend of the accused . PW7 further says in crossexamination that one lady residing nearby to that flat told to them that she had seen accused and prosecutrix in said flat. If such is the evidence of the IO , obvious question arises as to why statement of that lady was not recorded who resides near to that flat . PW7 in her crossexamination also says that she had Page no............... 19 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 collected ownership document and rent agreement and filed those documents with the chargesheet but witness has admitted that those documents are not on the judicial record. On this aspect also the prosecution version is surrounded with suspicion and investigation in the matter was not up to the mark.
29. I have already noted above that evidence of prosecutrix was not of a sterling quality. No doubt evidence of victim of sexual assault can be accepted even without corroboration but her evidence must be cogent and worthy of reliance . Since the prosecution case must be proved beyond doubts, therefore evidence of prosecutrix must be of high quality and must be not of any ambiguity , doubt etc. Reference can be given in this regard is in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi, 191 (2012) Delhi Law Times 439 (SC), it was observed as "the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the Page no............... 20 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Page no............... 21 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
30.Conclusion: From aforesaid discussions, it is evident that prosecution has failed to prove charges against the accused. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted. His surety is discharged. Bail bond stands canceled. Accused is however directed to furnish a personal and surety bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/ each under provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for period of six months.
31. File be consigned to Record Room on compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court on 28.03.2018 (SHAILENDER MALIK) ASJ(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) NORTHWEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Page no............... 22 State Vs Mohit Sharma (Judgment) PS : Begumpur FIR no. 69/16 Page no............... 23