Delhi District Court
State vs . 1). Dharam Singh @ Dharme on 30 July, 2012
1 FIR No. 870/2005
PS Sultanpuri
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 18/11
Unique ID No. : 02404R0165652011
State Vs. 1). Dharam Singh @ Dharme
S/o Sh. Jogi Ram
R/o Jhuggi Near DAV School,
Valmiki Basti, Polti Area,
Nilokhedi, Distt. Karnal (Haryana).
2). Rajender @ Jinder
S/o Sh. Jogi Ram
R/o Jhuggi Near DAV School,
Valmiki Basti, Polti Area,
Nilokhedi, Distt. Karnal (Haryana).
3). Inderpal
S/o Sh. Daya Ram
R/o Jhuggi No. 25,
Near Jhandewala Park
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
4). Hawa Singh
S/o Sh. Ratti Ram
R/o Y175, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
1 of 24
2 FIR No. 870/2005
PS Sultanpuri
5). Jagminder @ Joginder
S/o Sh. Tek Chand
R/o P1, Jhuggi P1/115,
Jhanda Park, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
FIR No. : 870/2005
Police Station : Sultanpuri
Under Sections : U/S 376 (2)(g)/365/366/34 IPC
Date of committal to session Court: 02.08.2011
Date on which judgment reserved: 28.07.2012
Date of which judgment announced: 30.07.2012
JUDGMENT :
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C is as under: That on 06.06.2005, complainant Surender lodged a written complaint in the police station on the subject; of kidnapping again of his wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) by Rajinder, Dharme, Joginder, Howa Singh, Inderpal and of their nonappearing in the Court. In the said complaint it is alleged that his wife prosecutrix (named withheld 2 of 24 3 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri being a case u/s 376 IPC) has been kidnapped by the said five persons on 03.06.2005 at about 3.00 PM. She has been searched but could not be found out. It is further alleged that at about 8.00 PM his advocate Rahul Dua received a phone call, in which it is directed to reach at District Karnal, Tehsil Neesing, Village Dachhar because prosecutrix had told him on phone that she had gone out of her house to fetch water, at that time some persons caught her and after putting a handkerchief on her mouth had pressed her mouth strongly and had pushed her in a vehicle and after sometime she became unconscious and had taken her to an unknown place and these persons have made her condition very worse. It is further alleged that his advocate at that time asked her (prosecutrix) to give phone to some other person, and the phone number was 01745266161, on which prosecutrix gave the phone to Mamu Ram, owner of STD.
It is further alleged that his advocate talked with Mamu Ram and Mamu Ram told that this lady is in a terrified condition and this lady had asked him (Mamu Ram) to dial the Delhi phone number and he (Mamu Ram) dialed the Delhi phone number and he (Mamu Ram) told that this lady is also crying too much and this lady has also told him (Mamu Ram) that some persons after putting her in a Maurti have brought her here and at about 8.30 PM in the night after bringing her at their home have left her at an unknown 3 of 24 4 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri place.
It is further alleged that on hearing the incident of prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC), his advocate advised them to first lodge the report at Narsing Police Station. It is further alleged that thereafter they left Delhi and by that time the villagers had sent his wife to Balmiki Mohalla.l They reached at village Dacchar and met Mamu Ram of STD wala and came to know about the entire incident. The residents there told that, that lady had been stayed at the house of Kokan Balmiki. It is further alleged that when they reached at the house of Kokan Balmiki, there they came to know that Kokan is the real brotherinlaw (jija) of Rajinder and Dharme and Rekha is the real sister of Rajinder and Dharme. It is further alleged that when they aksed about prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC), on which Rekha told that her real brother Dharme and some of his friends have taken her (prosecutrix) from there. It is further alleged that they told some of the villagers and requested them to bring back his wife, but the villagers despite lot of insistence did not disclose the address of the place so that they may reach to her.
It is further alleged that he had made an application earlier also that he apprehends danger from these persons as they threatened that they will not allow his wife to go to Court and they have thus executed the threat.
4 of 24 5 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri It is further alleged that Kokan of Dacchar made them wander here and there but did not disclose about them. It is further alleged that he went to police station Narsing and told all the details to SHO Inder Pal Ji, who told that this case is of Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, therefore, lodge the report there but assured of all help and advised them to search her out and also gave the phone number of the Police Station as 01745271029. It is further alleged that thereafter he left that place and searched them at different places but nothing could be known about them. It is further alleged that these persons were knowing that if prosecutrix will depose in the court then the real offenders will get punishment. It is further alleged that he apprehends danger by the fact that, when these persons can again kidnap his wife, then it is possible that they can kill his children, his wife and him also because these are moneyed people and he a poor person earns his living by sorting out the waste (kabada) and runs the family and he being a poor person how he can compete with them. It is further alleged that his wife is still entraped in the clutches of these persons and if you don't believe him, inquiry can be made at village Dachhar, Police Station Narsing as many persons are witness to this incident and the whole truth will come out. Strict legal action is requested to be taken against all the culprits so that his wife and children be restored to him. It is further alleged that he apprehends danger to life and property from 5 of 24 6 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri these person.
On the said complaint SHO got registered a case u/s 365/34 IPC and investigation of the case was handed over to SI Daya Nand. During the course of investigation, SI Daya Nand made inquiries from the witnesses. After the transfer of SI Daya Nand, the investigation was handed over to ASI Wazir Singh. After the transfer of ASI Wazir singh the investigation was handed over to SI Ramvir Singh. On 12.08.2005 prosexutrix herself came to the police station whose statement was recorded and she was got medically examined and the exhibits given after her medical examination were got deposited in malkhana. Statement of prosecutrix was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Accused persons were searched for. After the transfer of SI Ramvir Singh the investigation was handed over to SI K.S. Dogra.
During the course of investigation the statements of witnesses were recorded. Section 376 IPC was added in the case. Accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inder Pal were arrested.
After the transfer of SI K.S. Dogra, the investigation was handed over to SI Suresh Chand. During the course of investigation accused Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Joginder were formally arrested and released on bail as they had already obtained the anticipatory bail. The exhibits were sent to 6 of 24 7 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri FSL.
Upon completion of necessary further investigation challan was prepared for the offences u/s 365/376/34 IPC against accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender and was sent to the court for trial.
2. Since the offence u/s 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Session u/s 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of Session, after hearing of charge prima facie a case u/s 365/366/34 IPC and U/s 376(2)(g) IPC against accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender alongwith accused Jogi Ram (since P.O) was made out. Charge was framed accordingly which was read over and explained to accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined 12 witnesses. PW1 Surender, PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, Senior Medical Officer, 7 of 24 8 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, PW3 Dr. Binay Kumar, Senior Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, PW4 Ct. Naresh Kumar, PW5 SI (Retd.) Ranbir Singh, PW6 SI (Retd.) K.S. Dogra, PW7 SI (Retd.) Chandan Singh, PW8 SI Wazir Singh, PW9 SI Suresh Chand, PW10 HC Gobind Singh, PW11 Dr. Anita, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi and PW12 Dr. Ajay, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
PW1 Surender is the husband of the prosecutrix and is the complainant. He proved his complaint Ext. PW1/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. He was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He was also crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, Senior Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, who deposed that on 15.08.2005 at about 12.10 PM he examined prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW2/A, after medical examination she was referred to S.R. Gynae. He has further deposed that the undergarments and high vaginal swab was sealed and handed over to L/Ct. Chand Kiran.
8 of 24 9 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri PW3 Dr. Binay Kumar, Sr. Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi83, who deposed that on 16.03.2011 at about 7.35 PM accused Rajender @ Inder S/o Jogi Ram was examined by him and after examination he was of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that patient was not capable for performing sexual intercourse and proved his MLC Ex. PW3/A signed by him at PointA. He has further deposed that he had also preserved the patient blood sample and under garment sealed and handed over to the IO.
PW4 Ct. Naresh Kumar, who joined investigation with IO and deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the arrest memo of accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme Ext. PW1/B and personal search memo Ext. PW4/A and the seizure memo of the exhibits which were given by the doctor after the medical examination of the accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme Ext. PW4/B. PW5 SI (Retd.) Ranbir Singh is the initial IO of this case who deposed on the investigational aspects and besides proving the other memos also proved seizure memo of the exhibits handed over by the concerned doctor after the medical examination of the prosecutrix, application dated 9 of 24 10 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri 16.08.2005 for recording the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ext. PW5/B, application dated 18.08.2005 for recording the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C moved by ASI Chandan Singh Ext. PW5/C, application for obtaining the copy of the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ext. PW5/D. PW6 SI (Retd.) SI K.S. Dogra is the subsequent IO of this case who also deposed on the investigational aspects and proved arrest memo of accused Dharam Singh Ext. PW1/A, his personal search memo Ext. PW4/A, his disclosure statement Ext. PW6/A, arrest memo of accused Rajender Ext. PW4/F, his personal search memo Ext. PW4/G, his disclosure statement Ext. PW6/B and arrest memo of accused Inderpal Ext. PW4/C, his personal search memo Ext. PW4/D, his disclosure statement Ext. PW6/C. PW7 SI (Retd.) Chandan Singh is also the Investigating Officer of this case who deposed that on 18.08.2005, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him for getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded from the concerned court U/s 164 Cr.P.C. He moved an application in the concerned court at Tis Hazari as the prosecutrix was not well. Thereafter, he 10 of 24 11 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri returned to the police station and the case file was deposited with MHC(R).
PW8 SI Wazir Singh is also the Investigating Officer of this case who deposed that on 08.06.2005, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him, he went to the jhuggi of complainant at P1, Jhandewala Mandir, Sultanpuri, where he met her husband Surender. He was interrogated who had shown his inability about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he was transferred on 16.06.2005, and the case file was deposited with the concerned MHC(R).
PW9 SI Suresh Chand is also the Investigating Officer of this case who deposed that on 19.04.2011, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He formally arrested accused Hawa Singh and proved his arrest memo Ext. PW9/A, arrest memo of accused Jagminder @ Joginder Ext. PW9/C, their personal search memos Ext. PW9/C and Ext. PW9/D respectively. He also proved the biological and serological results Ext. PW9/E & Ext. PW9/F respectively.
PW10 HC Gobind Singh is the MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries of register no. 19 i.e entries nos. 9251, 12681, 12687 Ext.
11 of 24 12 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri PW10/A, Ext. PW10/B and Ext. PW10/C respectively. He deposed that he sent four pullandas to FSL Rohini Delhi through Ct. Ashok Kumar on 06.06.2011 vide RC No. 41/21/11 which is Ext. PW10/D. The receipt was handed over to him by Ct. Ashok Ext. PW10/E which he obtained from the office of FSL for depositing the case property. He further deposed that on 21.09.2011 he received the result of FSL alongwith the four pullandas from FSL, Rohini through SI Amrit Lal which is Ext. PW10/F. He also made the entries in register no. 19 regarding sending the samples to FSL Ext. PW10/G and entry regarding receipt of the result and the pullandas from FSL Ext. PW10/H. PW11 Dr. Anita, SGM Hospital, Manoglpuri, Delhi who deposed that on 15.08.2005 she medically examined prosecutrix. She proved her detailed gynaecological report Ext. PW11/A on the MLC of the prosecutrix Ext. PW2/A. She further deposed that on local examination, no external injuries on the labia majora and labia minora was normal. No external injuries seen. Hymen old healed, ruptured and os was two finger inserted in the vagina. As per vaginal examination uterus was retroverted, multiparous size, free and mobile and bilateral fornix clear. Her report bears her signatures at PointA. 12 of 24 13 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri PW12 Dr. Ajay, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi who deposed that on 14.03.2011 he examined the patient Dharam Singh @ Dharme and after examination that there was nothing to suggest that the patient not capable of performing sexual intercourse and proved the MLC of accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme Ext. PW12/A signed by him at PointA. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of the evidence.
6. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
7. Statements of accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. They did 13 of 24 14 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri not opt to lead any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.
9. Now let me peruse and analyse the testimony PW1 of Surender, PW1 Surender is the husband of the prosecutrix and is the complainant. He proved his complaint Ext. PW1/A on the basis of which FIR was registered.
PW1 Surender in his examinationinchief has deposed that he does not know the date, month and year his wife had gone with six persons namely Inder Pal, Joginder, Hawa Singh, Rajinder and one more person who is in custody whose name presently he does not remember but his name was Dharma and one more person who was the father of Rajinder, whose name he does not recollect. He does not remember the time when his wife went with the said six persons as he is an illiterate person. He had gone for 'Bhadwa' ( a custom of carrying a stick and thereunder begging is made). His family members had telephoned him that his wife is missing. He came 14 of 24 15 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri back from 'Bhadwa'. By the time he returned back his family members had already lodged an application with the police that Surender's wife is missing and Surender has been informed who will pursue the further action after his return. On his return from 'Bhadwa', he was called by the police at the police station. Thereafter the police picked up the above said accused persons and later on they were sent to the jail and thereafter on receipt of the summons of the court he has come today before the court. He had lodged a complaint with the police regarding missing of his wife. His complaint is Ex.PW1/A thumb impressed by his at point A. His wife was taken by the above said accused persons from the bus stand of bus route no. 901 in a van, when she had gone to fetch water. The name of his relative is Balwan who had informed him regarding the missing of his wife when he was on 'Bhadwa'. All the facts and circumstances were mentioned by him in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. He had no talk with his wife when she had gone away. He did not search for his wife. After his wife had gone with the above said accused persons she had returned back. After her returning back she again went away with some other person whose name he does not know. Again she returned back. After her returning back she again went away with some other third person. Vol. she had given birth to two children from the said third person after killing one child of his (PW1) which she had taken with 15 of 24 16 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri her at the time of going away with the said third person. His wife is presently living with her father and is presently she is engaged with some other person.
His testimony remained uncorroborated in the absence of the examination of the prosecutrix.
Nor there is any material on the record which corroborates the testimony of PW1 Surender. Nonexamination of the prosecutrix has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution.
It is also to be noticed permission was sought by Ld. APP to crossexamine PW1 Surender as he was resiling from his previous statement made to the police which was granted. Inspite of incisive crossexamination by Ld. APP the prosecution case could not be rescued.
It is pertinent to reproduce the crossexamination of PW1 Surender as was conducted by Ld. APP for the state which reads as under: 16 of 24 17 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri "I do not know as to what is contained in the complaint E.x. PW1/A. Vol. I am not so much literate. It is wrong to suggest that I had gone through the contents of the complaint Ex.PW1/A and thereafter I put my thumb impression at point A. I had not mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) that even for the second time the above said five accused persons had kidnapped my wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion A to A where it is so recorded). I have not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that the above said five accused persons had kidnapped my wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) on 3.6.2005 in the noon time at about 3.00pm. (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion B to B where it is so recorded). I have also not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that I had searched for my wife but she was not traced out thereafter at about 8.00 pm our advocate Rahul Dua made a phone call to me and stated that I should go to District Karnal Tehsil Nisang Gaon Dachaur Pauch because he (advocate) has received a phone call from my wife who has stated that when she had gone for fetching water some fellows had caught hold her and also smelt her something by putting handkerchief on her mouth and also gagged her mouth and thereafter she was taken in a vehicle and when she regained conscious she was found herself in a isolated place and the kidnapped persons had treated her badly. (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion C to C where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that the said advocate also told me that he received the phone call from no. 01745266161 and when the conversation was going on my wife has given the phone to the owner of the STD namely Mamu Ram. Thereafter the advocate talk to Mamu Ram who stated that my wife is in a very perturbed condition and she has called him (Mamu Ram) to dial at Delhi. The STD person had also stated that the wife was weeping and my wife has stated to him (Mamu Ram) that some persons had put her in the Maruti van and around 8.30 pm they have put my wife in an isolated place.
17 of 24 18 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion D to D where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that said advocate advised us to report the matter to the police station at Delhi and after reporting the matter we left from Delhi to the said village Dauchar and met the STD owner Mamu Ram where we come to know all the facts and circumstances. (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion E to E where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that after reaching in the said village the villagers had informed that one lady stayed at the house of Kokan Balmiki and when we went to his house then we came to know that Kokan Balmiki is the brother in law (Jija) of Rajinder and Dharma and on further inquiry by us about prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) the sister of Kokan namely Rekha informed us that his brother Dharme and his associates had taken her (my wife) from their house and the persons of the same village also inform us that they had appealed to Dharme and his associate to return my wife but they did not pay any heed to it. Despite intensive insistence the villagers did not disclose the particulars of the place so that we may reach to her (my wife). (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion F to F where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that previously also we had filed a complaint mentioning that we were in danger from the accused persons as they had given us threatening that they will not allow my wife to appear in the court and they executed such threat. (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion G to G where it is so recorded). I had not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that thereafter we had gone to the PS Nisang and met SHO Inderpal who apprised us that the matter belongs to the jurisdiction of PS Sultan Puri. However, they assured us to help us in this matter and they had also given their police station phone No. 01745271029 (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion H to H where it is so recorded). I had also not stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A that when they can kidnap second time my wife, they can also kill me and my child. I am a poor man 18 of 24 19 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri and want action against all the accused persons. (Confronted with the complaint ExPW1/A from portion J to J where it is so recorded). I am not aware who had written the contents of the complaint Ex.PW1/A. It is wrong to suggest that as my wife is not living with me, I am annoyed with her that is why I am not deposing the true facts stated in my complaint Ex.PW1/A. I know all the five accused persons present in the court as they live in my neighbourhood. It is wrong to suggest that I was threatened by accused persons to depose in their favour.
Q On 14.3.2011 at your instance accused Dharma was arrested from his house. Is it correct?
Ans I do not know the date, but it was after 34 months police had come to me and inquired about accused Dharme and I pointed towards the house of accused Dharme who was arrested by the police. The arrest memo of the accused Dharme is Ex.PW1/B which is thumb impressed by me at point A. Accused Dharma is present in the court today (correctly identified).
I can identify the other accused persons if shown to me. Accused Rajinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Joginder are present in the court today (correctly identified)."
(Name of prosecutrix withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC). During his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused PW1 Surender deposed which is reproduced and reads as under: 19 of 24 20 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri "Q Was your wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) in the habit of leaving/eloping prior to the date of incident?
Ans She had initially eloped with accused Dharma and thereafter she had eloped with a number of persons. (chhatiso ke saath chali gayi).
It is correct that accused Joginder @ Jagminder along with other accused persons present in the court have been wrongly and falsely implicated by prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that my wife initially also never went/eloped with accused Dharma as deposed."
"It is correct that accused Hawa Singh has been wrongly and falsely implicated by my wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) in a present case."
"It is correct that accused Dharma and Rajinder have been wrongly and falsely implicated by my wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) in a present case".
"It is correct that accused Inderpal has been wrongly and falsely implicated by my wife prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) in a present case."
(Name of prosecutrix withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC).
20 of 24 21 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri In view of above and in the circumstances, the testimony of PW1 Surender is of no worth and of credence therefore, cannot be relied upon.
10. The remaining prosecution evidence of PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh to PW12 Dr. Ajay pertains to medical examination of the prosecutrix; the medical examination of the accused persons and pertains to investigational aspects as detailed in the witnessography. However, at the cost of repetition, the facts deposed by PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, PW7 SI (Retd.) Chandan Singh & PW11 Dr. Anita relating to the prosecutrix reads as under: PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, Senior Medical Officer, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, who deposed that on 15.08.2005 at about 12.10 PM he examined prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW2/A, after medical examination she was referred to S.R. Gynae. He has further deposed that the undergarments and high vaginal swab was sealed and handed over to L/Ct. Chand Kiran.
PW7 SI (Retd.) Chandan Singh is also the Investigating Officer of this case who deposed that on 18.08.2005, the investigation of this case was entrusted to him for getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded 21 of 24 22 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri from the concerned court U/s 164 Cr.P.C. He moved an application in the concerned court at Tis Hazari as the prosecutrix was not well. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and the case file was deposited with MHC(R).
PW11 Dr. Anita, SGM Hospital, Manoglpuri, Delhi who deposed that on 15.08.2005 she medically examined prosecutrix. She proved her detailed gynaecological report Ext. PW11/A on the MLC of the prosecutrix Ext. PW2/A. She further deposed that on local examination, no external injuries on the labia majora and labia minora was normal. No external injuries seen. Hymen old healed, ruptured and os was two finger inserted in the vagina. As per vaginal examination uterus was retroverted, multiparous size, free and mobile and bilateral fornix clear. Her report bears her signatures at PointA. Due to the nonexamination of prosecutrix, the depositions made by PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, PW7 SI (Retd.) Chandan Singh & PW11 Dr. Anita advance the case of the prosecution.
11. On careful perusal and analysis of the entire evidence on record I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
22 of 24 23 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri The hostility of PW1 Surender, husband of the prosecutrix and non examination of the prosecutrix has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on the record to indicate that accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender and Jogi Ram (P.O) abducted the prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) and she was taken to Village Dachhar, PS Nisind in Karnal District, Haryana with the intention to secretly and wrongfully confining her and with the intention that she is likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and was kept in a room where she was repeatedly forcibly against her consent raped by accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme and Rajender @ Jinder.
12. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion as far as the involvement of accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender in the commission of the offences u/s 365/366/34 IPC and u/s 376 (2) (g) IPC is concerned, the same has not been sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis the prosecution has miserably failed to bring the guilt home to the accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender beyond shadows of 23 of 24 24 FIR No. 870/2005 PS Sultanpuri all reasonable doubts and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender. I, therefore, acquit Dharam Singh @ Dharme, Rajender @ Jinder, Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender for the offences u/s 365/366/34 IPC & u/s 376 (2) (g) IPC after giving them the benefit of doubt. Accused Inderpal, Hawa Singh and Jagmender @ Jogender are on bail. However u/s 437A Cr.P.C, the bailbonds of the said accused persons shall remain in force for six months and they to appear before the Hon'ble Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any petition filed against this judgment. Accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme and Rajender @ Jinder are in judicial custody. They be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. However, on their release accused Dharam Singh @ Dharme and Rajender @ Jinder shall appear in the court and shall execute a bailbond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each Under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open Court today on 30th Day of month of July, 2012.
(MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.
Rohini/Delhi.
24 of 24