Delhi District Court
State vs Narender Kumar, S/O Shikam Singh, on 9 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : NORTH EAST /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R037632013
Sessions Case No. 67/2013
Assigned to Sessions. 21.05.2013
Arguments heard on 09.10.2013
Date of Judgment 09.10.2013
FIR No. 395/2012
State Vs Narender Kumar, S/o Shikam Singh,
R/o Village Himmatpur, Police Station
Shimbhabli, Distt. Hapur, U.P.
Police Station Karawal Nagar
Under Section 363/366/376 (2) (f) IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Unfolded story of prosecution case is that on 27.10.2012 complainant Dhirender Dube had lodged a complaint Ex.PW1/A in the police station Karawal Nagar regarding the missing of the victim. SI Sushil Tiwari had put his endorsement on the statement of complainant and got the present case registered vide FIR No. 395/2012 u/s 363 IPC. During the course of investigation police had arrested accused Narender Kumar and police of police station Karawal Nagar had filed a challan vide FIR No. 395/2012 dated 07.12.2012 u/s 363/366/376 IPC for the SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 1/6 prosecution of accused Narender Kumar in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and section 207 Cr. P.C. had already been complied with by Ld. M.M. Since, this court is designated court for trial of the cases pertaining to child victims, hence this case was sent by Ld. District Judge/Incharge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts to this court for trial. Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in "State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being given in the judgment.
CHARGE:
2. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 12.07.2013 framed a charge against accused Narender Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376 (2) (f) IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 02 witnesses namely PW1 Dhirender Kumar, father of victim and PW2 Prosecutrix victim.
4. PW1 Dhirender Kumar, father of victim is a material witness being complainant but this witness has been declared hostile by ld. APP for the State as he has not supported the case of prosecution. This witness, on seeing the statement Ex.PW1/A , identify his signature at point A but he states that he does not know about the contents of the same. This witness has deposed that the missing report of her SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 2/6 daughter with the police stating therein that victim had gone to her school but she did not turn up. This witness has further deposed that victim was recovered after 23 days of his report to the police and victim had come along with his sandu namely Pramod Bajpai to his house.
5. Even in his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness stated that he had mentioned wrong date of birth of victim in affidavit Ex.CW1/B. His statement Ex.PW1/B has been confronted by Ld. APP for the State. This witness admits that victim was medically examined for determination of her age. This witness had denied to the suggestions put by ld. APP for the State.
6. In his cross examination by ld. counsel for accused, this witness admits that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and victim had not disclosed the name of any Narender to him or to anyone in his presence.
7. PW2 Prosecutrix is a material witness being victim. This witness has been examined by this court after ascertaining her knowledge and capacity of understanding by putting some questions and after getting reply on being satisfied, this witness was examined.
8. This witness has been declared hostile by ld. APP for the state as she did not support the case of prosecution on any count. She has deposed that she had studied upto 6 th standard from Vimal Convent Public School, Delhi. This witness could not identify SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 3/6 the accused produced through video conferencing.
9. This witness stated that on 25.10.2012, she had gone with her friend namely Rajni to her house as her father had come from village. Thereafter, she did not return to her house as she was under fear that her father will beat her. This witness further stated that the parents of her friend Rajni had advised her not to go back home as it was late night and next day, she went to the house of her mausa. Thereafter, on third day in the evening time, she had returned back to her house.
10.Even in her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, her statement Ex.PW2/A and PW2/B have been confronted by Ld. APP for the State.
11.Ld. counsel for accused requests to close the P.E. on the ground that no incriminating evidence has been produced on record against accused and examination of remaining PWs would not serve any purpose.
12.Ld. counsel for accused further submits that victim has not supported the case of prosecution. PW victim had refused to identify the accused who had been produced before the witness through video conferencing and that this witness had also denied to the suggestions of ld. APP for the State that present accused had committed rape with her.
SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 4/6
13.Ld. counsel further submitted that PW1 Dhirender Kumar, complainant who is father of victim had also not supported the case of prosecution on any count even in suggestion put by ld. APP for the State and other witnesses are official witnesses who are not much relevant for the case of prosecution. PW1 had also denied to the suggestion put by ld. APP for the State that accused was apprehended on his pointing out.
14.On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has objected the request of Ld. counsel for accused and requests to examine remaining PWs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
15.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that PW2 victim had not supported the case of prosecution on any count. Since victim had not identified the accused in the present case and she did not support the case of prosecution on any count and PW1 Dhirender Kumar, complainant who is the father of victim had also not supported the case on the fact of age or date of birth of victim.
16.Since, no incriminating evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to connect the accused with the present case. In these circumstances, further trial of the case would not serve any purpose. Hence, request of Ld. APP is declined. P.E. closed.
SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 5/6
17.Since no incriminating evidence have been brought on record connecting accused with the present case, hence, SA u/s 313 Cr. P.C. dispensed with. By exercising Section 232 Cr. P.C. accused Narender Kumar is acquitted from the charges u/s 363/366/376(2)(f) IPC in absence of incriminating evidence against him.
18.In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C., accused Narender Kumar is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
19.File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09.10.2013.
(RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ NORTH - EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.67/2013 State v. Narender Kumar 6/6