Delhi District Court
State vs Madan Mohan on 13 April, 2015
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC - 2 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 98/2013
Unique ID No. : 02401R0549382013
State versus Madan Mohan
S/o Sh. Braham Prakash
R/o H. No. 715/5, Anand Parbat,
Punjabi Basti, Military Road,
Delhi
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 71/2013
Police Station : Prashad Nagar
Under Section : 376/366/403 IPC
Judgment reserved on : 06.04.2015
Judgment pronounced on : 13.04.2015
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
1. The above named Accused is facing trial in this case on the charges that on 02.04.2013 he abducted the Prosecutrix 'N' [name withheld to protect the identity of Prosecutrix] from her house, dishonestly inducted the Prosecutrix to bring her jewellery, education documents, clothes etc. Prosecutrix delivered the said articles to Accused which were recovered from his possession. Further, in April, 2012 and thereafter on two occasions at his house and during the period from 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013 at Ashoka Guest House, Agra, he committed rape upon the Prosecutrix by threatening to injure her reputation. Case as per Chargesheet:
2. The facts of the case as borne out from the chargesheet are that missing report of 'N' was lodged in PS Prashad Nagar vide DD No. 80 B dated 02.04.2013. On 06.04.2013 parents of Complainant brought her to PS and Complainant made her statement. Complainant stated that she is residing with her parents and has taken examination of class XII from Andhra School. She stated that she met the Accused Madan Mohan for the first time in March 2012 outside tuition centre at Sat Nagar. Thereafter, they gradually started meeting with each other. Then she stopped talking to him. She alleged that Accused Madan Mohan used to come to meet her outside her tuition centre and used to tell her that he loves her and wants to marry her. Then they started meeting each other. In April, 2012 Accused took her to his house at Anand Parbat. No one was present in his house on that day. She alleged that Accused committed rape upon her. Then on the second occasion, when she again went to the house of Accused, no one was present in his house and Accused established physical relations with her without her consent.
3. Prosecutrix further alleged that in June, 2012 when she went to the house of Accused at Anand Parbat Accused again tried to establish physical relations with her and when she refused for the same, he told her that he had her photographs on his mobile phone and if she refused for establishing physical relations with him, he will upload the photographs on internet. She alleged that Accused blackmailed her and thereafter, she had developed attraction for Accused.
4. On 02.04.2013 Prosecutrix 'N' went to meet Accused in his company at Sat Nagar and thereafter, went to her house. From her house, she took her marksheet of X class, hall ticket of class XII, gold ring, gold tops, some clothes and cash and came outside her house and met Accused in the gali. Thereafter, they both went to Ashoka Guest House at Agra and stayed there from 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013. She alleged that in that hotel Accused established physical relations with her without her consent. On 05.04.2013 they came to Delhi in a bus. She stated that they stayed in a house of bua of jija of Accused at Sadar Bazar, Delhi. On 06.04.2013 they came to Tis Hazari Court for getting their marriage registered. She met her parents there who told her that Accused Madan Mohan is already married. From there, her parents took her to PS. She stated that Accused established physical relations with her after telling her that he is unmarried and gave her false assurance of marriage and threatened to upload her photographs on internet.
5. ASI Prabha got Prosecutrix medically examined vide MLC No. 1068/13. On the basis of aforesaid, case under Section 376/366 IPC was registered against Accused. ASI Prabha deposited the exhibits in malkhana and handed over the copy of MLC and pullandas to SI Rekha. Thereafter, SI Rekha made enquiries from parents of Prosecutrix. They stated that Accused induced her daughter on the false assurance of marriage took her way and forcibly raped her.
6. On 08.04.2013 statement of Prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 CrPC by Ld. MM/Delhi and exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini. Thereafter, Complainant also stated that her cash, jewellery and luggage are with Accused Madan Mohan. After discussion with senior officers, Section 406 IPC was added. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Complainant. On 12.04.2013 Accused surrendered in the court of Sh. Naveen Gupta, Ld. MM/Delhi. Accused was arrested on the same day after obtaining permission from Ld. MM/Delhi. Personal search of Accused was conducted but nothing could be recovered. Disclosure statement of Accused was recorded. Two days PC remand of Accused was obtained and he was medically examined at LHMC. Exhibits were taken into police possession.
7. At the instance of Accused, articles of Prosecutrix were recovered from the house of Accused i.e. two bags containing some jewellery items, some clothes and personal use articles of Prosecutrix. Accused also got recovered his two mobile phones which was taken into police possession. Section 411 IPC was added.
8. During investigation on 13.04.2013, SI Rekha alongwith staff and Accused Madan Mohan reached at Agra where he pointed out the room in a guest house where he established physical relations with Prosecutrix without her consent. On checking the register of guest house, it was found containing entry regarding stay of Accused with Prosecutrix w.e.f. 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013. SI Rekha took into police possession the photocopy of register of guest house. On 15.04.2013 exhibits of Accused were sent to FSL, Rohini. On 27.04.2013 TIP proceedings of jewellery of Prosecutrix was got conducted in the court of Sh. R. K. Pandey, Ld. MM/Delhi. On 30.05.2013 mobile phone of Accused was deposited in FSL, Rohini. Statement of witnesses were got recorded under Section 161 CrPC. As Accused has concealed the articles of Complainant, after discussion with senior officers, Section 406/411 IPC was replaced with Section 403 IPC.
Charges:
9. On the basis of material on record, Accused was charged for offence under Section 366/420/376/506 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial when the charges were read over and explained to him. Prosecution Evidence:
10. PW2/Prosecutrix deposed that she is doing graduation and completed her schooling till ClassXII from Andhra Education Society School at Prashad Nagar. She correctly identified the Accused in court. She deposed that she met him for the first time in March, 2012 outside her tuition classes in Sat Nagar. He used to follow her and try to talk to her, but she used to ignore the Accused. However, as he continued to persuade her to talk to him, she started talking to him. Accused told her that he loves her and requested her to meet his mother stating that he wants to marry her.
11. Accused took her to his house at Anand Parbat in the month of April, 2012. No one was present at his house. Accused forcibly established physical relations with her despite her refusal and all her efforts to stop him proved futile. When she was dressing, Accused pretended to talk on his mobile phone, but in fact, he made a video recording of her. While she was leaving from there, Accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to any one, otherwise he would upload the video on internet.
12. Thereafter, whenever the Accused asked her to meet him, she used to meet him, sometimes, at his house and sometimes they used to roam around on his motorcycle. Accused used to established physical relations with her without her consent at his house and on all these occasions, there was no one present in his house. They used to meet frequently for about one year and on each and every occasion, Accused used to establish physical relations with her by extending the same threats.
13. On 02.04.2013, she was alone in her house. Her mother had gone for physiotherapy treatment, her father had gone to his office and younger brother had gone to the park to play. She heard the Accused shouting her name from the gali outside her house. When she look out of the window, Accused was standing there. He asked her to pack her certificates of class 10th and 12th, clothes, jewellary, cash etc. and meet him near the office of Flipkart, which was 34 galis after her house. When she asked him as to why he wants her to bring my belongings with her, Accused told her to do as he says. As the Accused was blackmailing her by threatening that he would upload her video on the internet, she was left with no choice and she went to the place as directed by the Accused. She also took along with her about 25 merit certificates, her marksheet of class 10th, hall ticket of class 12th, three gold rings and one pair of gold ear rings, Rs. 24000/ in cash and her clothes.
14. Accused took her to Sarai Kale Khan Bus Stand in a TSR. From there they boarded a bus to Agra. He took her to Ashoka Guest House which was at Kacheri Road, Baluganj, Agra. They stayed there from 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013. There also Accused established physical relations with her without her consent. She tried to resist, but she was alone and Accused also threatened her as before.
15. They returned to Delhi on 05.04.2013 by bus. Accused took her to house of one of his relatives i.e. Bua of his Jeeja at Sadar Bazar. He kept her there for one night. Family of his Bua was also living at that house. Accused asked her to leave all her belongings including cash and jewellary there. However, she was wearing one ring when she left from there on 06.04.2013.
16. On 06.04.2013, Accused brought her to Tis Hazari Courts for registration of their marriage. After 1015 minutes, she met her parents in court and they informed her that Accused is already married. Accused had told her in the first meeting that he was unmarried. Her parents also told her that they had been coming to the court every day in search of her. Accused then told her that he has filed a case for divorce which is pending disposal and managed to escape from there. On learning that the Accused is already married, she went to PS Prashad Nagar along with her parents. she narrated all the facts to the police.
17. Her complaint to this effect is Ex.PW2/A. Prosecutrix was taken to LHMC for her medical examination. She was also produced before the ld. MM, where her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded.
18. Prosecutrix pointed out the house of the Accused at Anand Parbat and police prepared the site plan at her instance, which is Ex. PW2/C. She does not remember the date when the site plan was prepared at her instance. Some of her clothes were recovered from house of the Accused.
19. Prosecutrix also went to Agra with police and pointed out the room of Ashoka Guest House, where Accused kept her and established physical relations with her forcibly. Police prepared the site plan which is Ex. PW2/D.
20. Prosecutrix also identified her two gold rings and one pair of ear rings before Ld. MM. The TIP statement is Ex. PW2/E.
21. Prosecutrix brought the case property which is on her supardari i.e. two gold rings Ex. P1 and P2, one pair of gold earrings Ex. P3 [colly] and two bags Ex. P4 and P5 containing articles as mentioned in seizure memo Mark PW2/A. Witness states that case property is the same which was taken by the Accused from her on the false assurance of marriage.
22. PW1 HC Devender Singh was Duty Officer who recorded FIR No. 71/13, computerized copy of which is Ex. PW1/A.
23. PW3 'SC' deposed that Prosecutrix 'N' is his daughter. As far as he remember, her date of birth is 30.12.1994. She went missing on 02.04.2013 from his house. He went to PS Prasad Nagar for lodging her missing report, but police did not lodge any missing report. They made search for Prosecutrix at several places, but she could not be found. On 06.04.2013, one of the friends of Accused Madan Mohan, whose name and address he does not remember, told him that Prosecutrix was with Accused Madan Mohan and he has to come at Tis Hazari Courts along with Prosecutrix. He correctly identified Accused present in court. He along with his wife came to Tis Hazari Courts. At about 1111:30 AM, they saw Prosecutrix with Accused near Gate No.1 of Tis Hazari Courts. Prosecutrix also saw them and on seeing them, she started shouting 'Bachao Bachao' and ran towards them. Accused was apprehended by some persons including some advocates and was given beatings but Accused managed to escape from there. They took Prosecutrix to PS Prasad Nagar. Prosecutrix was medically examined. Police recorded the statement of Prosecutrix and got recorded the FIR. On the way to PS from Tis Hazari Courts, Prosecutrix told him that Accused had taken her away with him forcibly and also informed about the incident.
24. During his deposition, a court question was put to father of Prosecutrix that how did the police suspect the Accused and go to the house of Accused with him before registration of FIR. The father of the Prosecutrix replied that he used to visit the PS frequently after missing of him daughter, but police did not lodge any complaint. Police might have made some inquiries about his daughter and come to know about Accused.
25. PW4 Dr. Deepti Kaur gynecologically examined Prosecutrix on 06.04.2013 and prepared MLC Ex. PW4/A. She also collected the exhibits, sealed the same with the seal of hospital and handed over the same to the police official accompanying the patient.
26. PW5 HC Jaipal Singh deposed that on 13.04.2013 while he was posted at PS Prashad Nagar and was on patrolling in the area of PS Prashad Nagar, he received a call of Duty Officer, who asked him to reach LHMC. Ct. Ram Hari and SI Rekha met him when he reached at LHMC. One more person was present alongwith them and later he came to know that his name is Madan Mohan. PW5 correctly identified Accused present in court. A raiding party was constituted by SI Rekha comprising of herself, PW5 and Ct. Ram Hari. Accused led them to a house of his relative in the area of Sadar Bazar, where they met one lady. Nothing incriminating could be recovered there. Accused was again interrogated and he disclosed that the articles were lying at his house at Anand Parbat. Accused led them to his house at Anand Parbat. Accused got recovered a bag from a bed lying in a room at ground floor of the house. On checking the bag, it was found containing some jewellery articles. Jewellery articles were converted into sealed pullanda. Accused also got recovered two mobile phones from the same bed. Both the mobile phones were also converted into sealed pullanda. The bag and jewelery were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The pullandas of both the mobile phones were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ram Hari. They came back to PS. IO recorded his statement. PW5 correctly identified the case property i.e. mobile phone make Samsung and mobile phone make Wing which are Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW2/1. PW5 also identified two gold rings and one pair of earrings. The same are Ex. P1 and P2. PW5 also identified two bags and its contents which were recovered from the possession of Accused Madan Mohan. The bags and its contents as per seizure memo Ex. PW5/A are Ex. P4 and Ex. P5 respectively.
27. PW6 SI Rekha deposed that on 06.04.13 she was posted as SI at PS Prasad Nagar. On that day, after the registration of FIR, this case was assigned to her for investigation. She received original rukka, copy of FIR, MLC of Prosecutrix and other relevant documents including exhibits. Exhibits were deposited in the malkhana. She recorded the statement of ASI Prabha, Ct. Sumiti, parents of Prosecutrix and supplementary statement of Prosecutrix.
28. On 08.4.13 statement of Prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 CrPC. She collected the copy of statement. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini.
29. On 12.04.13 Accused Madan Mohan surrendered before the court. She correctly identified Accused present in court. With the permission of the court, Accused was interrogated vide his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW6/C. In his disclosure statement, Accused disclosed that he can get recovered the belongings of Prosecutrix from the house of Bua of his brother in law [Jija] at Sadar Bazar. Accused was taken on two days PC remand. SI Rekha alongwith Accused and Ct. Ram Hari went to LHMC where Accused was medically examined and his potency test was conducted vide MLC PW6/D. Examining doctor handed over some exhibits to her which she seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/E. HC Jaipal was called in the hospital.
30. PW6 SI Rekha further deposed that she constituted raiding party comprising of herself, HC Jai Pal and Ct. Ram Hari and at the instance of Accused, they reached at H. No. 11020, Peepal Wali Gali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. There one lady Sunita met them. On enquiry, she told them that she is the Bua of Jija of Accused. She further told them that Accused came at her house on 05.04.13 alongwith one girl whom Accused introduced to her to be the sister of his friend. She further told that Accused again came there on 06.04.13 and took two bags alongwith him from her house. Accused was further interrogated. Then, he disclosed that he kept the belongings of Prosecutrix at his house. Thereafter, he led them to his his house at H. No. 715/5, Military Road, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Accused got recovered two bags from a bed which was lying in a room of his house at ground floor stating to be the belongings of Prosecutrix. On checking the bags, they were found containing clothes, original certificates, sandals, two gold rings, one pair of gold earrings and other daily use articles. Both the bags were put in a plastic bag and sealed with the seal of 'RC' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Ram Hari. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, Accused also got recovered two mobile phones make 'Wing' and 'Samsung' from the same bag. The mobile phones were also converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of 'RC' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/C. On checking the mobile phones, the mobile phone make 'Wing' was having camera. SI Rekha recorded the statements of witnesses. Exhibits were deposited in malkhana.
31. PW6 SI Rekha further deposed that on 13.04.13 she went to Agra at the instance of Accused. Accused pointed out Room No. 109 at first floor of Ashoka Guest House at Kachheri Road, Balu Ganj, Agra to be the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW6/F1. She collected the relevant copies of entry register from the hotel and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/F. The said copies are collectively Mark PW6/X [running into two sheets]. She recorded the statement of Deepak Kumar, the Manager of the hotel. They came back to Delhi. During investigation, she collected the age proof of Prosecutrix from MCD and from her school and as per record her date of birth is 30.12.1994.
32. On 14.04.13 she inspected the house of the Accused at the instance of Prosecutrix and prepared the site plan already Ex. PW2/C. On 15.04.13 exhibits of Accused were sent to FSL for examination. She also sent mobile phones to FSL, Rohini for examination and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 27.04.13 TIP of case property was got conducted and she collected the copy of TIP proceedings. On 28.07.13 SI Rekha inspected the Ashoka Guest House at Agra at the instance of Prosecutrix and prepared the site plan at her instance which is already Ex. PW2/D. After completion of investigation, prepared the chargesheet and since pending the FSL result, filed the chargesheet in court.
33. PW6 SI Rekha collected the FSL result i.e DNA examination Ex. PW6/G (running into four sheets) and examination of mobile Ex. PW6/H and filed the same in court. As per mobile examination report, there was no facility to examine the mobile in FSL, Rohini, so she sent pullanda of the mobile phone to CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, Delhi.
34. PW7 Ct. Anil deposed that on 30.05.2013, he took the sealed parcels along with the relevant documents from the malkhana and deposited the same in FSL Rohini vide RC No. 36/21/13.
35. PW8 Ct. Vinay Kumar deposed that on 15.04.2013, he took sealed exhibits alongwith relevant documents from the malkhana and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 21/21/13.
36. PW8 SI Prabha deposed that on 06.04.2013 while she was posted as ASI at PS Prashad Nagar, a missing report was already registered at PS Prashad Nagar vide DD No. 80B dated 02.04.2013. On 06.04.2013, she was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. At about 3 PM, Prosecutrix alongwith her parents came to PS. She recorded the statement of Prosecutrix which is already Ex. PW2/A. She sent the Prosecutrix for her medical examination to LHMC alongwith L/Ct. Sumiti and her mother. Ct. Sumiti came back to PS after medical examination of Prosecutrix and handed over some sealed exhibits to her which she seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. SI Prabha deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. She prepared the rukka Ex. PW8/B on the statement Ex. PW2/A and got registered the FIR. On the directions of SHO, the investigation was transferred to W. SI Rekha and she deposited the case file with MHC[R].
37. PW9 HC Mukesh recorded the missing report lodged by father of Prosecutrix on 02.04.2013 vide DD No. 80B which is Ex. PW9/A [OSR].
Statement of Accused under Section 313 CrPC:
38. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, Accused stated that he and Prosecutrix were having love affair since 2011. He never committed rape upon Prosecutrix nor induced her to accompany him to any place nor extended any threats to her. In fact, as they were having love affair, she voluntarily accompanied him to Agra and physical relations were also established between them with her consent. He did not ask Prosecutrix to bring anything from her house. She herself brought her certificates, jewellery, cash etc. while leaving her house. Accused also stated that Prosecutrix told him that her parents are not at home for 23 days and they can go out during this period. He does not know why the Prosecutrix has implicated him falsely in this case. He was always ready and willing to marry her and is still unmarried. Probably, her parents were not interested in getting her married to him and she has got registered this false case against him at the instance of her parents.
39. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in his Defence. Arguments, Analysis and Findings:
40. I have heard detailed submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel as well as Ld. Addl. PP and gone through the evidence on record.
41. Ld. Counsel for Accused states that Accused has been falsely implicated in this case and Prosecutrix was having consensual physical relations with each other as they were in love with each other whereas Prosecution has emphasised the fact that Prosecutrix was compelled to enter into physical relations with Accused under his threat that he would circulate her objectionable photographs on internet.
42. From the submissions made and on the basis of material on record, there are certain admitted facts which clearly emerge, and which may be enumerated as follows:
a) That Prosecutrix/PW2 and Accused were having a love affair.
b) It is admitted that physical relations were established between Prosecutrix and Accused. It may be reiterated, even at the cost of repetition, that though Accused claims that he was having consensual physical relations with Prosecutrix, it is the claim of the Prosecutrix that she entered into physical relations with Accused under force and due to his threat that he would upload her objectionable photographs on internet in case she refused to have sexual intercourse with him.
c) That Prosecutrix left her house on 02.04.2013 and took her jewellery, clothes, cash and her certificates alongwith her while leaving the house.
d) That Accused and Prosecutrix went to Agra by bus and stayed at Ashoka Guest House from 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013. It may be reiterated again that claim of the Prosecutrix that she stayed with the Accused at the above said guest house as he had threatened her to upload her objectionable photographs on internet and it is due to this reason that she also established physical relations with him.
e) That Accused and Prosecutrix admittedly lived in the house of Bua of Jija of Accused at Sadar Bazar on the night of 05.04.2013 after returning to Delhi from Agra.
f) That on 06.04.2013 Accused and Prosecutrix came to Tis Hazari Courts for the purpose of registration of their marriage.
g) Accused has also not disputed that he was medically examined vide MLC No. 21517 and that his potency test was got conducted vide report Ex. PW6/D and after his medical examination, exhibits were seized by the doctor and handed over to the police.
h) Accused also admits that he led the police party to H. No. 11020, Peepal Wali Gali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi which is house of Bua of Jija of Accused. Thereafter, he led police to his house and got recovered articles Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 i.e. bag containing two gold rings, one pair of gold earrings and one bag belonging to the Prosecutrix, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and that he also got recovered two mobile phones which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B.
i) Accused also admitted that on 13.04.2013, he led the police party to Agra and also pointed out Room No. 109, First Floor of Ashok Hotel vide pointing out memo Ex. PW6/F and that IO collected relevant entries of the hotel register Mark Ex. PW6/X and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/F1 and also prepared site plan of the said hotel room Ex. PW2/D.
j) The report of DNA examination Ex. PW6/G and report of CFSL, CBI with regard to examination of mobile phones of the Accused Ex. PW6/H was also not disputed by the Accused, as submitted during trial.
43. On 27.11.2014 the following witnesses cited in the chargesheet were dropped by the Prosecution in view of the aforesaid admitted position:
i) PW Deepak Kumar, as the factum of stay of Accused and the Prosecutrix in the concerned hotel at Agra is not in dispute.
ii) Mr. B. Dhanlaxmi, Principal, Andhra Education Society and Sub Registrar (Births & Deaths), Karol Bagh, as it is not in dispute that the Prosecutrix was 18 years of age at the time of the incident in question.
iii) PW Ct. Ram Hari, Ct. Ravinder and HC Girdhari being repetitive in nature.
iv) Dr. Pankaj, as the factum of potency report of the Accused is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
v) Ms. Aanchal, Ld. MM, as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has already been exhibited and Ld. Defence Counsel does not dispute the factum as regards recording of the same.
vi) PW L/Ct. Sumati, as she had only accompanied the Prosecutrix for her medical examination, which is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
44. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the only question which now remains to be proved by the Prosecution is as to whether the Accused abducted the Prosecutrix on 02.04.2013 and committed raped upon her, as alleged and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 366/376 IPC. It is further to be proved by the Prosecution as to whether the Prosecutrix carried her belonging with her on 12.04.2013 while leaving her house on the basis of any inducement given by the Accused and whether Accused threatened to injure her reputation by uploading her objectionable photographs on internet, as alleged or not.
45. As discussed above, the Accused has not disputed the fact that he was having love affair with the Prosecutrix. It is, however, the claim of the Prosecutrix that Accused took her to his house at Anand Parbat in the month of April, 2012 and forcibly established physical relations with her despite her refusal. She also deposed that while she was dressing, Accused pretended to talk on his mobile phone, but in fact, he made a video recording of her. While she was leaving from there, Accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to any one, otherwise he would upload the video on internet.
46. It may be pertinent to note at this juncture that Prosecutrix was confronted with her complaint Ex. PW2/A wherein she has not stated that in April, 2012, Accused forcibly established physical relations with her or that while she was dressing, Accused pretended to talk on his mobile phone, but in fact, he made a video recording of her. While she was leaving from there, Accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to any one, otherwise he would upload the video on internet. It is noteworthy that though this claim of the Prosecution is reflected in her statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex. PW2/B, her complaint Ex. PW2/A is totally silent to this effect.
47. Interestingly, in the very next paragraph after PW2 deposed that Accused threatened to upload her video on internet, if she disclosed the incident of April, 2012 to anyone, Prosecutrix/PW2 also deposed "Thereafter, whenever the Accused asked me to meet him, I used to meet him, sometimes, at his house and sometimes we used to roam around on his motorcycle." She also deposed that Accused used to establish physical relations with her without her consent by extending the same threat to her. It is noteworthy that on the one hand, Prosecutrix claimed that Accused was establishing physical relations with her after extending threats to upload her objectionable video on internet while on the other hand, Prosecutrix was meeting him whenever he asked and was also roaming around with him on his motorcycle. This claim of the Prosecutrix is totally contrary to her claim that she was being pressurized by the Accused into physical relations. It is difficult to believe that a girl, who is being compelled to have physical relations with Accused under threat, would continue to meet him and even roam around with him on motorcycle.
48. From the testimony of Prosecutrix, it also appears that this continued for about one year and it is only on 02.04.2013 that she left her house for going to Arga with Accused.
49. As per testimony of PW2 'N' on 02.04.2013 when none of her family members were at home, Accused came outside her house and called out to her. He asked her to pack her belongings and met him near his office. She also deposed that as Accused was blackmailing her that he would upload her video on internet, she was left with no choice and she went, as directed by the Accused alongwith her certificates, jewellery, cash and clothes in a bag.
50. As discussed above, though Accused does not dispute the fact that Prosecutrix left her house on 02.04.2013 itself. Her claim that he never asked her to bring her her certificates, jewellery, cash and clothes etc. from her house with her and she eloped from her house voluntarily as she was in love with him. To my mind, the plea of the Accused appears to be quite probable in view of the fact that Prosecutrix did not mention any of these facts in her complaint Ex. PW2/A. It is not her claim in the initial complaint that Accused was standing outside her house or that he asked her to bring her belongings alongwith her under threat that he would upload her objectionable video on internet. Rather in her crossexamination dated 26.03.2014, the Prosecutrix admitted "It is correct that I stated to the police that on 02.04.2013, I had gone to meet Accused at his company at Sat Nagar. It is also correct that after meeting the Accused, I returned to my house." From the aforesaid admission of the Prosecutrix, it is apparent that her claim that Accused came to her gali and asked her to pack her belongings, is false.
51. Prosecutrix also claimed that Accused took her in a bus to Agra and that she stayed with him at Agra from 02.04.2013 to 05.04.2013 where Accused established physical relations with her without her consent. The Accused does not dispute this claim of the Prosecutrix that they went to Agra or that physical relations were established between her and Prosecutrix. It is the plea of the Accused that said physical relations were consensual. It may be noted that in her examination in chief, the Prosecutrix did not claim that Accused established physical relations with her in Agra under the threat that he would upload her video on internet. Rather, she simply deposed that Accused established physical relations with her. However, to my mind, this claim of the Prosecutrix also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that said alleged video recording made by the Accused on his mobile phone was not brought before the court during the entire course of trial.
52. It is apparent on going through the claim of the Prosecution that its entire case of rape allegedly committed on Prosecutrix under the threat of video recording hinges upon the fact that Accused recorded her objectionable video in April, 2012 at his house while she was dressing. This claim of the Prosecutrix has, however, not been proved on record by the Prosecution. Firstly, it is not the claim of the Prosecutrix that she ever saw any such video recoding or that Accused ever showed her any such video recording allegedly made by him. Secondly, the Investigating Agency firstly sent the mobile phones recovered from possession of Accused to FSL, Rohini. After a consideration gap of time, a report was received from FSL, Rohini to the effect that they do not have requisite facility to examine the mobile phones in their lab. Thereupon, during the course of trial, IO had moved an application seeking permission to deposit the mobile phones in CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road, Delhi, which application was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2014. The report of the CFSL, CBI, Lodhi Road was then received during the course of trial on 10.03.2015 regarding examination of mobile phones. As per the said report, no relevant data could be recovered from the mobile phone of Accused and the experts were unable to give any opinion with regard to the fact whether the phones contained any video recording of photographs of any other girl.
53. In the light of the above discussion, it is apparent that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove the fact that Accused had recorded any objectionable video of the Prosecutrix 'N'.
54. To my mind, it was incumbent upon Prosecution in this case to prove the allegations of recording of objectionable video of Prosecutrix by the Accused by bringing on record cogent evidence to this effect, which Prosecution has miserably failed to do. In the light of the aforesaid, the entire claim of the Prosecutrix that Accused under the threat of uploading her objectionable video on internet continued to commit rape upon her from April, 2012 till 05.04.2013, must be rejected.
55. For the same reason, the claim of the Prosecutrix that she, on the instance of Accused, carried alongwith her class X and XII certificates, jewellery, cash and clothes while leaving her house on 02.04.2013, also must necessarily be rejected.
56. In other words, in absence of any evidence to prove that Accused was threatening Prosecutrix on the basis of any objectionable video, it cannot be accepted that she was being raped by the Accused under any such threat or that Accused abducted her on 02.04.2013 on the basis of any such threat.
57. It may also be necessary to mention at this juncture that it is an admitted fact that Accused and Prosecutrix were having a love affair. It is the claim of the Prosecution that when the parents of the Prosecutrix met her in Tis Hazari Courts on 06.04.2013, they told her that Accused is already married and thereupon she accompanied her parents to the PS and got the FIR registered. However, during the entire length of trial, the Prosecution did not bring even a shred of evidence to prove that allegations that Accused was already married. No witness was even cited, leave alone, examined on record, to prove that Accused was already married, neither did the Prosecution bring on record any documentary evidence to this effect. It thus appears that it is parents of the Prosecutrix, who were not interested in marriage of the Prosecutrix with the Accused, and they in order to take the Prosecutrix alongwith them, concocted a story of Accused being already married and thereby took her alongwith them from Tis Hazari Courts on 06.04.2013.
58. I also find that the version of father of Prosecutrix examined as PW3 to be exaggerated and contradictory to the testimony of Prosecutrix. He has claimed that on 06.04.2013 when he and his wife met Prosecutrix and Accused near Gate No. 1, Prosecutrix ran towards them shouting 'Bachao Bachao'. It may be noted that in her entire testimony Prosecutrix did not depose that she ran towards her parents on seeing them while shouting 'Bachao Bachao'. There is nothing in her testimony to suggest that she voluntarily approached her parents in Tis Hazari Courts on seeing her parents. Rather, she deposed she met her parents on 06.04.2013 in Tis Hazari Courts and they informed her that Accused is already married.
Conclusion:
59. Consequently, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, accused Madan Mohan S/o Sh. Braham Prakash is hereby acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 366/420/376/506 IPC. Bail bonds cancelled. Surety discharged.
60. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 13.04.2015 (Kaveri Baweja)
Additional Sessions Judge Special FTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Madan Mohan
FIR No. 71/2013
PS : Prashad Nagar
SC No. : 98/2013
13.04.2015
Present : Sh. Mohd. IqrarLd. APP for State.
Accused on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. Panna Lal, Adv.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, Accused Madan Mohan is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 366/420/376/506 IPC.
Accused is directed to furnish personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
However, Accused seeks time to furnish surety.
At request, personal bond of Accused is accepted till 16.04.2015.
(Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeSFTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Madan Mohan
FIR No. 71/2013
PS : Prashad Nagar
SC No. : 98/2013
16.04.2015
Present : Sh. Mohd. IqrarLd. APP for State.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. Panna Lal Sharma. Accused has furnished personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of order dated 13.04.2015.
Bail bond furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeSFTC2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.