Delhi District Court
State vs Sachet Singh on 17 October, 2017
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. :165/16
STATE
versus
Sachet Singh
son of Sh Hawa Singh
R/o H. No. 77/27, Gali No 5
Vikas Nagar, Budhpur Road
Rewari Haryana.
FIR No. : 712/14
Offence U/S : 328/376D IPC
Police Station : Nangloi
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE
AFTER COMMITTAL: 20/12/2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:17/10/2017
JUDGMENT
1.Present case has been filed against accused Sachet Singh for the commission of offence under section 328/376 D of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on the intervening night of 05 06/10/14 between 11 p.m to 7 a.m in a flat in Sector 14 at
-:: Page 1 of 5 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Dwarka, Delhi accused had administered water containing some intoxicating substance to prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) in order to commit the offence of rape . It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Sachet Singh along with co accused Amit (whose case has already been disposed off vide order dated 19/08/2015 by my Ld Predecessor) in furtherance of their common intention had committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix.
2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 27/02/2017, charge for offence under section 328/376D IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, (name mentioned in the file but withheld to protect her identity) has deposed that she knows accused Amit Kumar and Sachet Singh. In the month of October, 2014, she came to meet accused Amit from Kurukshetra and she stayed with accused in a flat at Dwarka. Friend of accused namely Sachit went away after dropping them at the flat. Physical relations were established between her and coaccused Amit with her own consent. She has further deposed that in the morning accused Sachit came to
-:: Page 2 of 5 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
the flat and took them in his car and dropped them at Metro Station Dwarka. PW1 had stated that present accused Sachit Singh had not done any offence against her. They both came to Nangloi by metro. She was standing at Metro Station along with accused Amit. One constable came and inquired them as to from where they had been coming. Constable took them to the PS. Police asked her to call her parents but she called Mr Sunil, with whom she used to work prior to the incident. Mr Sunil was called in the PS. Initially police officer asked them to give Rs.10,000/ and demanded the said amount from Mr Sunil also. As none of them had paid the money, present FIR has been registered against accused persons. This witness has been declared hostile by ld Additional P.P.
5. The prosecutrix, has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that physical relations established between her and coaccused Amit were consensual and she has also stated that accused Sachet Singh had not done anything wrong towards her. Thus she has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. PW1 was crossexamined by Ld Additional P.P. In the cross examination conducted by Ld Additional P.P, PW1 has stated that physical relations between her and coaccused Amit were established with her own consent & no force or threat
-:: Page 3 of 5 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
was given to her for establishing such relations, further she had also stated that present accused Sachet Singh had not committed any offence against her.
6. In the circumstances, as 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, thus prosecution evidence was closed. All other witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been part of investigation & thus are formal witnesses. 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 was closed.
7. Requirement of recording statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, of the accused is dispensed with as nothing incriminating against him has come on record when the prosecutrix has turned hostile & has stated that nothing wrong have been committed by accused Sachet Singh against her. Nothing material has come forth in her cross examination conducted by the prosecution.
8. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Sachet Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under section 328/376D IPC. As per provisions
-:: Page 4 of 5 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
of 437A Cr.P.C, bail bonds of accused Sachet Singh is extended for further six months on the same terms and conditions.
9. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 17th October, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 5 of 5 ::-