Delhi District Court
Sc No. 13/13 State vs Mustaq Etc. Page No. 1/6 on 19 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE : SE01
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA: SAKET
COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID No. 02406R0041382013
SESSIONS CASE NO. 13/13
FIR NO. 311/12
POLICE STATION : BADARPUR
UNDER SECTION : 366/366A/376(g)/342/365 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. MUSTIAK
S/O SH. IKRAMUDDIN,
R/O VILLAGE SHANKROT, TEHSILKHEKDA,
DISTRICT BAGHPAT, UP.
2. SAKIR
S/O SH. NAWAB ALI,
R/O VILLAGE SHANKROT, TEHSIL KHEKDA,
DISTRICT BAGHPAT, UP.
3. SAKIB @ SALEEM
S/O SH. LIYAKAT ALI,
R/O D947, DEVU CAMP, BUDH VIHAR, TAJPUR PAHARI,
BADARPUR,DELHI.
SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 1/6
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.01.2013.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 19.08.2013.
DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2013.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1. On 08.10.2012 complainant Prem S/o Giriraj R/o Shiv Sharda Colony, Ballabhgarh, Haryana lodged a missing report of her daughter namely 'X' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) at police post Ballabhgarh. Missing girl was searched by I/C Police post.
On 18.10.2012 family members of the missing girl came to know about the whereabouts of the girl and at the instance of the complainant missing girl namely 'X' was recovered from the Badarpur, Tajpur Pahari. Thereafter, complainant gave his statement that her daughter/prosecutrix namely 'X' was missing since 08.10.2012. Her daughter was recovered from the Dali Singh H.No. B129, Tajpur Pahari, Budh Vihar Colony, Badarpur. Her daughter told him that on 08.10.2012 she had gone to Palwal to meet her friend Hukam but could not find him. She came to Badarpur Border where she met Sakib who took her in a dumper to NOIDA along with his friends. The driver of the dumper did wrong act with her. Thereafter, they took her to Mustaq's house where Sakir, Sakib and Mustaq committed rape with her without her consent. On the information received from the complainant, police arrested the accused persons Sakir, Sakib SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 2/6 and Mustaq from the house of Dal Singh, Tajpur Pahari, Badarpur. Prosecutrix was also recovered from there. Thereafter, case under section 342/376G/34 IPC was got registered against the accused persons. Further investigation of the case was handed over to W/SI Anju Tyagi. Prosecutrix's counselling was got conducted by Ms. Garima, from NGO. Accused persons and prosecutrix were got medically examined at AIIMS Hospital. Statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded by the police official. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 376(g)/342/365/366/366A IPC against the accused persons in the court.
2. Since the offence under Section 376(g)/366/366(A) IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, after supply of documents, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Charge against the accused persons:
3. Prima facie case under section 363/34 IPC, 366/34 IPC and 376 (g) IPC was made out against the accused persons. Charge under Section 363/34 IPC, 366/34 IPC and 376 (g) IPC was framed on 08.05.2013 upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined: SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 3/6
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 is prosecutrix who deposed that on 08.10.2012 she had gone to Palwal to meet her boyfriend Hukum Singh but as he was not available she came back to Badarpur, Bus Terminal where one person met her and took her along with him. He called up his friends, one of his friend came along with dumper. They all went to NOIDA where they ate food. She stated that they wanted to take her to their house but she refused. So, they brought her back to Badarpur, Bus Stand and dropped her there. As she could not reached home her parents reported the matter to the police. Police inquired from her about the incident which she orally stated to the police. She stated that she does not know anything else about the case. The witness became hostile and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state but nothing material has come out from her cross examination.
6. PW2 is Sh. Prem Singh who is the complainant in this case. On 08.10.2012 when he and his wife returned home they did not find their daughter 'X' at home. They searched her but could not find her. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police. After her daughter was recovered, she told him that she had voluntarily gone to meet her boyfriend Hukum Singh at Palwal and was staying with him. He further SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 4/6 stated that he does not know anything about the case. The witness became hostile and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state but nothing material has come out from his cross examination.
7. PW3 is Ms. Saroj who has also deposed on the lines of PW2. The witness became hostile and has been cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state but nothing material has come out from his cross examination.
Conclusion:
8. To support his case, prosecution has examined three witnesses. All the three witnesses who are examined are hostile and have resiled from their statements. The prosecutrix has turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused and had denied that the accused persons had committed rape with her. The other two witnesses have also resiled on the point that they have told the police about the rape committed upon the prosecutrix. Apart from these witnesses all other remaining witnesses are formal in nature being the police officials and the doctors except PW Dal Singh who is also not a witness of the incident. In view of the testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents it will be futile to record the statement of remaining witnesses as even if the statement of remaining witnesses are recorded it cannot bring home the guilt of accused persons. Hence, PE is closed. As there is no incriminating evidence, statement of accused is dispensed with.
SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 5/6
9. Vide separate order, all the accused persons are acquitted of the offence under section 363/34 IPC, 366/34 IPC and 376(g) IPC.
10. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, all the accused are directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that they shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months.
11. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any. File be consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.08.2013 ( RENU BHATNAGAR ) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI SC No. 13/13 State Vs Mustaq etc. Page No. 6/6