Delhi District Court
State vs Jaswant Singh @ Kale on 4 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF
SHRI BALWANT RAI BANSAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01, SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), SOUTH, NEW DELHI
CISSC No.7891/16
FIR No.1441/16
PS: Mehrauli
In the matter of:
State
versus
Jaswant Singh @ Kale
S/o: Sh. Khajaan Singh
R/o: House No.213A,
Ward No.2,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
............ Accused.
Date of Institution : 26.10.2016.
Date of Reserving Judgment : Unreserved.
Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2018.
:JUDGMENT:
[1]. Accused Jaswant Singh @ Kale S/o Sh. Khajaan Singh has been facing trial for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 12 and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 and sections 366/ CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 1 of 15 343/506/323/376(2) of the IPC, on the allegations that, he sexually harassed the girl child (the victim/prosecutrix), namely, 'A' (PW1, whose real name withheld in order to conceal her identity), aged 15 years, and kidnapped her, confined her wrongfully, gave beatings to her, threatened her, and also committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her.
[2]. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2016, on receipt of information vide DD No.37A at PS Mehrauli, IO/WSI Sonam Joshi alongwith Ct. Dara Singh, reached the spot (address withheld in order to conceal the identity), where the complainant, namely, 'A' (sister of the prosecutrix and her full particulars are withheld in order to conceal the identity), met them and lodged the missing report of her younger sister (the prosecutrix). She alleged that her younger sister, namely, 'A' is missing since 05:00pm on 26.07.2016, and they made search for her, but could not trace her out. On the said complaint, the present case FIR was registered for the commission of the offence under section 363 of the IPC and the CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 2 of 15 investigation was taken up by IO/SI Sanjay Kumar. During the investigation, on 28.07.2016, the complainant informed the police telephonically that her sister (the prosecutrix) has been kept by Jaswant @ Kale at House No.150, Ward No.2, Mehrauli, and thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered.
[3]. During the investigation, the prosecutrix stated that Jaswant @ Kale called her on 26.07.2016 and took her to a house, stating that it was his sister's house, and there he had done intercourse with her forcefully. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from AIIMS hospital, and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which she corroborated the allegatons and further stated that she was kept in the house of the accused and not in his sister's house, and she was also beaten up and sexually assaulted by the accused several times during the time of her captivity, and the accused also threatened her. The date of birth proof of the prosecutrix was also collected as per which, her date of birth is 28.12.2000, and finding the prosecutrix as a minor, sections 366A/376/323/342/506 of the IPC and CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 3 of 15 sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act were added to the present case FIR. During the course of the investigation, the accused Jaswant Singh @ Kale was arrested from his house, and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was prepared under sections 363/376/323/366A/342/506 of the IPC and sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act 2012.
[4]. Charge for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 12 and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 and sections 366/343/506/323/376(2) of the IPC was framed against the accused, to which, the accused pleaded notguilty and claimed trial, and the case was proceeded for prosecution evidence.
[5]. In the list of witnesses, the prosecution cited 18 witnesses, out of which, three witnesses, including the prosecutrix as PW1, have been examined so far.
[6]. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the prosecutrix who is the main witness of the prosecution has already been examined as PW1 alongwith her mother and sister as PW2 and CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 4 of 15 PW3 respectively, and no other public witness remains to be examined. He submitted that PW1 (the prosecutrix) who is the main witness and the alleged victim of the case, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that since nothing incriminating evidence has come against the accused, therefore, to save the precious time and manpower and resources of the court, the further proceedings in the present case may be stopped, and the accused may be acquitted of the offences charged against him. [7]. On the other hand, the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the contentions made by the counsel for the accused. [8]. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. [9]. There are 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses for proving its case, and out of the said 18 prosecution witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined, including the prosecutrix as PW1. It is pertinent to evaluate herein the testimony of PW1, who is the main and crucial witness of the prosecution, to CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 5 of 15 decide the fate of the case.
[10]. PW1, the prosecutrix 'A' (full particulars are mentioned at Sl. No.02 in the list of the witnesses and the name withheld in order to conceal her identity) deposed that she knew Jaswant Singh @ Kale prior to the incident being the neighbour as he was residing near her house. She had a quarrel with her stepmother and therefore, she sought help from Jaswant that he should let her live in his house, and Jaswant had agreed for the same. She stated that Jaswant gave his mobile phone to her and told her that in case she needed his help, she can call him on his mobile phone as he was leaving Delhi. After onetwo days, her sister came to the house of Jaswant and she got scared, therefore, she levelled false allegations against Jaswant. She further deposed that Jaswant @ Kale has not done anything wrong with her. She also deposed that she does not want to say anything else. She was taken to the hospital for her medical examination on 28.07.2016, and her consent was taken for the same on the consent form Ex.PW1/A. She was also produced to this CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 6 of 15 court complex for recording of her statement before a lady Magistrate which is Ex.PW1/B. [11]. PW1 (the prosecutrix) was crossexamined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor and during her crossexamination, she denied the correctness of the suggestions put by the Ld. Prosecutor. [12]. When PW1 (the prosecutrix) was crossexamined by the accused, she categorically admitted the suggestion that she had given her statement to the Magistrate Ex.PW1/B due to fear of her mother and not voluntarily. She stated that nothing had happened with her as stated by her in her statement Ex.PW1/B. [13]. PW2, namely, 'JS' (full particulars withheld in order to conceal the identity) is the mother of the prosecutrix, who also turned hostile. In her evidence, she stated that on 26.07.2016, her victim daughter, namely, 'A' (the prosecutrix) went missing from their house and after two days, she was found from the house of the accused. She stated that on inquiry, her victim daughter disclosed that Jaswant @ Kale had taken away her and committed galat kaam with CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 7 of 15 her and he released her on 28.07.2016. However, she further deposed that she cannot identify the said Jaswant @ Kale. PW2 (the mother of the prosecutrix) also turned hostile and she was also crossexamined by the Ld. Prosecutor, in which, she also denied the correctness of the suggestions put by the Ld. Prosecutor.
[14]. When PW2 (the mother of the prosecutrix) was cross examined by the accused, she stated that she does not know whether the accused had done galat kaam (wrongful acts) with her victim daughter or not. She admitted the suggestion that her statement was not recorded by the police and that her victim daughter had not told her that accused had done any galat kaam with her. [At this stage, Court Question was put to the witness that "she has stated in her examination in chief that her daughter told her that the accused had done galat kaam with her, while in her crossexamination, she denied the same; which of the statement is correct?" In reply to this Court Question, PW2 (the mother of the prosecutrix) stated that "due to confusion she might have stated in her examinationinchief that her CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 8 of 15 victim daughter had told her that the accused had done galat kaam with her, while in fact she had not told her so"].
[15]. PW3, namely, 'A' (full particulars withheld in order to conceal the identity and the same are mentioned at Sl. No.01) is the sister of the prosecutrix and is the complainant, who also turned hostile. In her evidence, she deposed that on 26.07.2016, her sister went missing from their house since 05:00pm. She stated that they tried to search her out but no clue was found, and thereafter, on the same day, she called the police and the police recorded her statement Ex.PW3/A dated 27.07.2016, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered. She deposed that after two days, her victim sister was found from the house of the accused. She stated that nothing had happened with her victim sister, and somebody told them that her victim sister was present at the balcony of the accused from where she was recovered. She deposed that she does not want to say anything more.
[16]. PW3 (the sister of the prosecutrix) was crossexamined CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 9 of 15 by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor and during her cross examination, she denied the correctness of the suggestions put by the Ld. Prosecutor. She denied the correctness of the suggestion that her victim sister told her that she was kidnapped by the accused on the pretext of roaming and then took her to house No.213, Ward No.2, Mehrauli and there the accused committed wrong act with her. She further denied the correctness of the suggestion that her statement dated 30.07.2016 under section 161 Cr.P.C. (MarkPW3/B) was recorded by the police. She also denied the correctness of the suggestions that her victim sister told her that the accused had been chasing her for the last 7 days, or that she also told her that on 26.07.2016, the accused had called her pursuant to which, her sister had gone with him at the house of his sister. She denied the suggestion that her victim sister also told her that her mobile phone was snatched by the accused at the house of his sister and SIM was also removed from her mobile phone, or that she was beaten by the accused with the belt and he locked her, or that her victim sister also told her that accused Jaswant Singh had threatened her to kill her if she disclosed CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 10 of 15 his acts to anyone, or that on 28.07.2016, accused was supposed to sell her victim sister but the customers had not come there. [17]. When PW3 (the sister of the prosecutrix) was cross examined by the accused, she categorically admitted the suggestion that she identified the accused, only being the neighbour, and her victim sister had not told her that the accused has committed any wrongful act with her.
[18]. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother and sister, and have critically evaluated the same. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was sexually harassed by the accused and he also kidnapped her, kept her in wrongful confinement, threatened her, gave her beatings and also committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against her.
[19]. As per the testimony of PW1 (the prosecutrix), she has categorically stated that she had a quarrel with her step mother and therefore, she sought help from accused Jaswant that he should let her CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 11 of 15 live in his house, for which the accused agreed. She categorically stated that after onetwo days, her sister came to the house of the accused and she got scared, therefore, she levelled false allegations against the accused. She categorically stated in her evidence that accused Jaswant @ Kale has not done anything wrong with her. [20]. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Prosecutor, PW1 (the prosecutrix) denied the correctness of the suggestion that accused told her that his sister is residing in backside and he has some work with her and they will come after meeting his sister. She further denied the correctness of the suggestion that when she alongwith the accused reached the house of sister of the accused, he beat her, snatched her mobile phone and also took out the SIM, or that thereafter, the accused took out his belt and gave her beatings, or that thereafter, he locked the door and asked her that he wanted to have forcible physical sex with her. She categorically denied the correctness of the suggestion that thereafter, the accused had sex with her. She also denied the correctness of the suggestion that the accused and his CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 12 of 15 brother had been threatening her to withdraw the case, otherwise they would kill her, or that the brother of the accused had also shown gun to her after lifting his shirt.
[21]. In her crossexamination, PW1 (the prosecutrix) admitted that she had given her statement Ex.PW1/B to the Magistrate due to fear of her mother and not voluntarily, and she also stated that nothing had happened with her as stated by her in her said statement Ex.PW1/B. [22]. On the other hand, in her crossexamination by the accused, PW2 (the mother of the prosecutrix) has categorically stated that her statement was not recorded by the police, and she also admitted that her victim daughter had not told her that the accused had done any galat kaam with her. To a court question, she however, categorically replied that due to confusion, she might have stated in her examinationinchief that her victim daughter had told her that the accused had done galat kaam with her, while in fact she had not told her so. She could not even identify the accused Jaswant @ Kale. PW3 CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 13 of 15 (the sister of the prosecutrix) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and she deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by her mother PW2. In her crossexamination, PW3 (the sister of the prosecutrix) categorically stated that she identified the accused, only being the neighbour, and her victim sister had not told her that the accused has committed any wrongful act with her.
[23]. In view of the aforesaid discussions, particularly, keeping in view the testimony of PW1 (the prosecutrix), in my considered opinion, no useful purpose will be served by examining the remaining prosecution witnesses, as it will not affect the fate of the case. The other prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses. The medical and forensic evidence placed on record by the prosecution also does not indicate towards the guilt of the accused. Continuing with this trial any further, will only result in wastage of time and resources, and there will be no impact on the result of this trial. Hence, the prosecution evidence has been closed and the SA of the accused has been dispensed with.
CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 14 of 15
[24]. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid discussions, there being no evidence against the accused, accused Jaswant Singh @ Kale is entitled to be acquitted, and accordingly, the accused is not found guilty of committing the offences punishable under sections 12 and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 and sections 366/ 343/506/323/376(2) of the IPC, and consequently, he is acquitted of the said offences.
[25]. However, Jaswant Singh @ Kale is required to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety of like amount, under section 437A of Cr.P.C, which shall remain in force for a period of six months. The bail bonds are furnished and the same are accepted. [26]. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 04th of the May, 2018. Additional Sessions Judge01, Special Court (POCSO), South:Saket Courts: New Delhi.
CISSC No.7891/16 'State vs. Jaswant Singh @ Kale' Page 15 of 15