Delhi District Court
State vs Iqbal Ahmed on 16 November, 2011
SC No. 33/11
FIR No. 472/10
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs Iqbal Ahmed
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No. 33/11
FIR No. 472/10
Police Station Najafgarh
U/Section 376/328/384/292/34 IPC
Received on assignment 01.06.2011
Reserved for orders on 16.11.2011
Judgment announced on 16.11.2011
State V/s Iqbal Ahmad
S/o Shri Zamil Ahmad
R/o H.No. B-291/292,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar,
Dakshin Puri, Sector -5,
New Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. In short, the case of prosecution is that about 5-6 months prior to 26.10.2010 when prosecutrix S (name withheld in view of mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court) aged about 21 years was going to Haridwar with her colleague Iqbal Ahmed, the accused and was sitting in a cabin of sleeper bus, accused had administered some intoxicating substance to the prosecutrix S and raped her. He had also taken some nude/obscene photographs of prosecutrix in his SC No. 33/11 1 of 5 16.11.2011 SC No. 33/11 FIR No. 472/10 PS: Najafgarh State Vs Iqbal Ahmed mobile phone and kept them in his possession in order to extort money by threatening to publish the said clips. Prosecutrix made a complaint to the police on 26.10.2010. She was got medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded and after necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
2. Consequent to supply of copies to the accused as per law, the case was committed to Sessions where after due deliberation, charge under Sections 328/376/292 and 384 IPC was framed and served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish charges as per law.
3. The prosecutrix stepped into witness box as PW1. She did not support the prosecution case at all and was declared hostile. She was then cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP at length but she stuck to her stand that She was having an affair with the accused and wanted to marry him. She had consensual physical relations with the accused who was her colleague in a restaurant. Thereafter, she heard from someone that accused intended to marry another girl on which she came under severe depression. She approached the police in the said state of mind and got the case registered. Subsequently, she got married to the accused. The prosecutrix was then cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she, however, stuck to her guns and controverted the suggestion that she was SC No. 33/11 2 of 5 16.11.2011 SC No. 33/11 FIR No. 472/10 PS: Najafgarh State Vs Iqbal Ahmed drugged or raped by the accused at any point of time. She maintained that her statement before the police as well as before the Magistrate were not given in a fit state of mind. She volunteered that she was under acute depression and did not know the contents of her statements. She denied that the accused had prepared any obscene video clip of her sexual relations with him or he ever used to threaten her to publish the said clip. She controverted, on being suggested, that she was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused. On being cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, she admitted that she was about 21 years of age at the relevant time and was in love with the accused. She wanted to marry him and was having physical relations with him of her own volition and further that accused had never raped her nor did he make any obscene clip of her. She admitted that she actually wanted to marry the accused as she was in love with him and had approached the police under misconception, feeling that accused would not marry her.
4. It is undisputed that prosecutrix was an adult being more than 20 years of age at the relevant time. Even her own sworn deposition is that accused never forced himself upon her and she voluntarily had sexual relations with him. She has gone to the extent of affirming on oath that she had approached the court under misconception on being scared that accused would not marry her. This statement of PW-1 clearly implies that the FIR was got SC No. 33/11 3 of 5 16.11.2011 SC No. 33/11 FIR No. 472/10 PS: Najafgarh State Vs Iqbal Ahmed registered by her only to ensure that accused should get married to her. There is obviously no truth in the statements given by her to the police or to the Ld. MM during investigation. The prosecutrix is the only material witness of the present case and the other prosecution witnesses including her mother are either formal or official in nature. In such scenario, I am of the firm view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending for recording statement of other witnesses because even if all the witnesses are examined, no finding of conviction of accused can be returned in any eventuality.
5. In light of forgoing discussion, PE is closed. There being no sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused warranting recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Arguments are heard, at length.
6. For the same reasons as detailed here in above, accused is hereby acquitted. His Bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and his surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, of surety be returned and endorsement, if any, on the documents be cancelled.
7. Accused Iqbal Ahmed is however directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. undertaking to appear if called, before Appellate Court as mandated therein. Personal bond and surety bond are filed and accepted for a period of six months SC No. 33/11 4 of 5 16.11.2011 SC No. 33/11 FIR No. 472/10 PS: Najafgarh State Vs Iqbal Ahmed as provided under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
8. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 16.11.2011 (MAMTA TAYAL)
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA:NEW DELHI
SC No. 33/11 5 of 5 16.11.2011