Delhi District Court
Sc No: 742/17 State vs . Sonu Kumar on 19 February, 2018
SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 742/17
FIR No. 462/17
Police Station Dabri
Under Section 376/506/366A/354/
323/328 IPC
State
Versus
Sonu Kumar
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o RZB-38, Dwarka Puri
Gali No. 3, Vijay Enclave
New Delhi. .....Accused
Date of institution 08.12.2017
Judgment reserved on 19.02.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 19.02.2018
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 7
SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in present case on allegations of kidnapping, assaulting, voluntary causing hurt, administering intoxicating substance, threatening and of committing rape on prosecutrix "JK" aged about 19 years.
2. FIR in question was registered on 16.08.2017 on the complaint of prosecutrix alleging therein that Sonu is her neighbor, she was having friendship with him but his family members got him married to some other girl. After his marriage, Sonu started sending her letters. Whenever Sonu used to meet her, used to threaten her that if she will not talk to him, he will get acid thrown on her. On 18.07.2017, she went to Shani Mandir, Dashrathpuri where Sonu came with his two friends on his motorcycle. By pointing gun on her stomach, Sonu took her to a lonely place and offered pepsi Judgment 2 of 7 SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar laced with some sedative, after consuming it she became unconscious and after gaining consciousness, she came to know that Sonu established physical relation with her against her consent. Then she hired a rickshaw and reached her house. Sonu continously threatened prosecutrix that if she will not talk to him, he will kill her. On 16.08.2017, at about 10 pm, when prosecutrix went to buy milk from a nearby shop, suddenly Sonu came and held her hands and hairs, pushed her on the floor and gave beatings to her. He pelted stones and bricks at her. Prosecutrix raised an alarm by calling her family members. A quarrel took place between accused and family members of prosecutrix. Then prosecutrix called 100 number and reported against Sonu.
3. After registration of case, prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement was got recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Judgment 3 of 7
SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar
4. Accused was arrested and charge-sheeted.
Charge for offence punishable U/s 366/376/354/323/328/506(II) IPC was framed against accused.
4. Prosecution examined prosecutrix as PW1. She deposed accused Sonu is her neighbor. She was having friendship with him but family members of Sonu got him married to some other girl. After his marriage, accused started sending her letters. On 18.07.2017, she went with accused to roam around. When she returned, her family members objected to her act by stating that why she accompanied accused as he is already married. Thereafter, on 16.08.2017, a quarrel took place between her brothers and accused Sonu. She intervened in the quarrel and her kurti got torn in that quarrel. Under pressure of her brothers, she lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A. She was medically examined at DDU Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW1/B. Her statement was recorded by Judgment 4 of 7 SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar Ld. MM U/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW1/C. Prosecutrix proved seizure memo of the kurti as Ex. PW1/D. Prosecutrix also proved site plan of the place of quarrel as Ex. PW1/E. She testified that she made complaint under pressure of her brothers.
5. Since prosecutrix did not support prosecution case, she was declared hostile. In cross-examination of prosecutrix, nothing incriminating came out in evidence against accused. Prosecutrix maintained that a quarrel took place between her brothers and accused and thereafter under pressure of her brothers, she lodged present complaint.
5. As the prosecutrix did not support case of prosecution, examination of other witnesses was dispensed with. Statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.PC was not recorded as there is no incriminating evidence against him.
Judgment 5 of 7
SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar
6. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused entire material on record.
7. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that accused was her friends and when her brothers objected when she went out with accused who is already married. Thereafter, a quarrel took place between her brothers and accused. Under pressure of her brothers, she lodged present complaint.
8. Thus, after going through testimony of prosecutrix it becomes evident that true genesis of complaint in question was quarrel occurred between brothers of prosecutrix & accused and it is not the case where accused committed rape upon prosecutrix after administering intoxicating substance on her and of kidnapping, beating and threatening her. Medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted after one month of her alleged sexual assault. As such, there is no medical record to prove allegations of sexual assault.
Judgment 6 of 7
SC No: 742/17 State Vs. Sonu Kumar
9. In light of the aforesaid discussions, accused stands acquitted. His personal bond is canceled and surety is discharged. Documents, if any, be returned to surety. In terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in like amount for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 19th day of February, 2018.
Digitally signed by GAUTAM (GAUTAM MANAN) GAUTAM MANAN ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST MANAN Date: DWARKA COURTS:DELHI 2018.02.22 15:21:05 +0530 Judgment 7 of 7