Delhi District Court
"State Of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) ... vs . on 15 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case No. 528/2017
State V Jaswant Singh s/o Sh. Raghbir Singh
r/o Kurana, PS Matlaudha, Distt.
Panipat, Haryana.
FIR No. 136/2017
U/s 376 r/w Section 120B IPC
Police Station Nabi Karim
Assigned to Sessions 14.07.2017
Charges framed on 01.08.2017
Arguments heard on 09.10.2018
Judgment pronounced on 15.10.2018
Decision Acquittal
JUDGMENT :
1. That, the case of the prosecution is that the Station House Officer of Police
Station Nabi Karim had filed a challan vide FIR No.136/2017 dated 24.05.2017
u/s. 376 IPC for the prosecution of accused Jaswant Singh in the court of ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207
Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track
Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the
Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in
"State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs.
State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being
Case No.528/2017
State Vs. Jaswant Singh 1/17
disclosed in the judgment.
2. That, the coaccused whose name surfaced during investigation of the case are
Virender, Mukesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar @ Sanju. Out of them two accused
namely Mukesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar @ Sanju were declared P.O.
However, coaccused Virender was arrested before he could be declared P.O.
and supplementary chargesheet was filed against him and the matter against
him considered for framing of charge but he was discharged by my ld.
Predessor vide order dated 16.04.2018.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. That, in this case criminal law was set into motion on the basis of hand written complaint dated 16.05.2017 of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A and FIR No.136/2017 u/s 376 IPC at PS Nabi Karim was registered. In her complaint prosecutrix had narrated that she is permanent resident of 16745 S.W. Blanton St. Beaverton, OR 97078 U.S.A. came to India on 21.12.2016 for family wedding in beginning of January and a study abroad program which started Jan 29, 2017 and was to be held in Jaipur, Rajasthan. This program ended May 12 th 2017 Friday. She came to Delhi on Saturday May 13th 2017 to see off her friends who were going back to U.S. She has her family roots in Amritsar and family friends in Patiala Gence. She stayed back one more month to spend time with them and also tour same places of India. She return to U.S. July 13 th 2017 at 4:18 a.m. from Delhi. On Saturday May 13 th she arrived with her American friends in Delhi around 4 p.m. and checked into a hostel named Zostel in Paharganj. On Sunday May 14th at about 7 p.m. she went to Sam's Cafe with two of her American friends, Chentese and Asazina Yasmin. When they were finishing up their dinner, two boys who were sitting nearby introduced Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 2/17 themselves. They chatted for about ten minutes. They learned they were from Harayana and they also told them about their study in Jaipur. She exchanged numbers with them because they seemed to be friendly and good persons. One of them was Amanpal Singh (8295431447) and other was Varinder (720699414). This night, Sunday at 11:30 p.m. her two friends left for their flights via an Uber. She stayed that night alone in their room they had booked. On Monday, May 15th at about 9 p.m. Aman called her up. As had been discussed over telephone earlier that day, they set out to have dinner. After dinner they dropped her off back at her hostel.
4. That, it is further stated that on Tuesday May 16 th at about noon Varinder called her up to have lunch together. They met outside her hostel, which she checked out of. Her plan had been to go to Patiala that day accompanying Varinder was also his friend Sanju (8818008982) they took her for lunch at same place which she does not know but which was located near her hostel in Paharganj. They persuaded her to tour Qutab Minar with them. She left her luggage at the hostel, they agreed to keep it until she was to leave. They took a rickshaw to the metro station and there met another friend of theirs named Mukesh (8814972000). They were suggesting she accompany them back to their village in Harayana so she could learn about their village culture. She agreed to stay with them that night thought it was unclear how the room arrangements were be done. At this point she was convinced that they were good people because she had been with them all day and they had offered to have her meet their families. They got some drinks and snacks. She and Mukesh checked in the room at Le Alfano at 8:15 p.m. together and the other two boys joined them about 20 minutes later. They started having drinks. They insisted her to have drinks beyond her capacity. She become intoxicated.
Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 3/175. She further stated that at about midnight, she remember first two boys left the room and then the third one left the room. She remember a knocking on the door. The door does not require a key to enter umess. It was locked (probably). She remember a big large man in the room, 6ft or more and a large build. She does not remember how her clothes come off or how she got on the bed. But she remember his body wight against mine and she trying to push him off. She remember thinking she does not know this man at all, she does not know where his body was, with what kind of women he has had sex earlier and whether him raping her would lead to her contracting a disease. She vividly remember the lock of a condom. She was in the center of the bed. He was whispering something. She does not remember it all but she remember him saying "koi baat nahi", she pushed his chest but he was heavy. She couldn't move. She said no over and over and over. He put his hands on her shoulders and pulled down one penetration happened, her whole body went numb. She closed her eyes, turned her head to the left towards the bathroom and went limp. She remember getting up and pacing around. Unsure of what to do. She waited for the guys she knew and felt comfortable with to come back, her brain was hazy with intoxication. She wanted to leave the room but didn't know where to go so she waited Mukesh was the first to return. She remember pushing his chest once and angrily asking him again and again why he left her alone. Why he didn't come back sooner. The other boys returned and she told them all. They told her his name was Jaswant Singh and that he was not a close friend of theirs said he wanted to talk to her about U.S. They started bashing him and saying he wasn't a nice man. She further stated that while packing up during breakfast she attempted to talk more about the events the night before. But each time they said that Jaswant was overall not a good person and it was very bad that he did "dhka" with her. They never called it rape. When she called it rape and Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 4/17 suggested taking it to the police they made her feel as thought she was making too big a deal of a small thing. They told her that a court case would take too long and keep her in India for months more. They said they would take revenge on him themselves. They told her it was not worth going to police. She stated that thereafter, she reached Patiala around 4 p.m., slept, woke for dinner and then slept through night. She was took exhausted emotionally and physically to tell her friend Sukhmanpreet Kaur Padher and she finally told her friend the story. She wanted her to make a case but she was unsure how to proceed. She also told a close American friend from the Jaipur program named Priyanka she got her in touch with Aditya, who consulted his father, who is also lawyer, she was ensured that such an action shared not be let go and justice can and will be served. In view of the above, she requested to register a case and take action as per law.
6. That, during investigation, W/ASI Babita prepared rukka on 24.05.2017 and got the case registered. W/ASI Babita taken the prosecutrix to Lady Harding Medical College where she was medically examined on the same day i.e. 24.05.2017 and prepared site plan at the instance of prosecutrix. On 25.05.2017, statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by Ld. MM.
7. That, on 26.05.2017, accused was arrested and he was also medically examined in the LNJP Hospital and his potency test was conducted.
8. That, chargesheet was filed in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. After compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for trial of the offences of Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 5/17 sexual assault against the women through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CHARGE:
9. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 01.08.2017 framed charges against accused for the offence punishable u/s 376 r/w section 120B IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
10. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 07 witnesses namely PW1 Dr. Anjali, PW2 ASI Dharamvir Singh, PW3 Dr. Raj Kumar, PW4 Mohsin Akmal, PW5 Ms. Manika, MM, PW6 HC Gajender Singh and PW7 W/ASI Babita.
PWs Name of the Nature of the Documents proved Witness witness PW1 Dr. Anjali Medical witness She has conducted medical examination of prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that prosecutrix had refused for giving samples/exhibits because the incident was old by eight days. On local examination of prosecutrix her hymen was found torn.
PW2 ASI Dharamvir Police witness He has proved recording of FIR
Singh (duty officer)
vide Ex.PW2/B.
PW3 Dr. Raj Kumar Medical witness He has conducted the medical
examination of the accused qua
potency test vide MLC
Case No.528/2017
State Vs. Jaswant Singh 6/17
Ex.PW3/A. He found him
capable of perform sexual
intercourse under normal
circumstances.
PW4 Mohsin Akmal, Public witness PW4 Mohsin Akmal, Manager
of Hotel Le Alfanso deposed
Manager of
that record of the hotel guest
Hotel Le register, Ex.PW4/A was seized
by the police vide seizure memo,
Alfanso
Ex.PW4/B; he had also given
CCTV footage of date
16.05.2017 of the hotel to the
police. He had also given
certificate under section 65B of
the Evidence Act qua the
electronic record containing the
said CDs vide Ex.PW4/C. The
aforesaid entries at serial no.375
dated 16.05.2017 at 8:20 p.m. in
the hotel register were made by
him in his handwriting. The said
Mukesh and prosecutrix had
checkedin in the hotel at 8:20
p.m. He further deposed that
during his duty on the said day
no one came to the hotel to meet
the said Mukesh. No one
contacted to him in this regard.
He deposed that he does not
know any person by name
Jaswant Singh. During his
working hours no one entered in
the hotel in the name of Jaswant
Singh.
PW5 Ms. Manika, Ld. MM She has proved statement of
prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide
MM
Ex.PW5/B.
Case No.528/2017
State Vs. Jaswant Singh 7/17
PW6 HC Gajender Police witness He has taken the accused to
LNJP Hospital and got his
Singh
potency test conducted vide
MLC Ex.PW3/A.
PW7 W/ASI Babita. Police witness She has proved written
(Investigating complaint of prosecutrix vide Officer) Ex.PW2/A. She then prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A bearing her signature at point A. She got medically examined the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW1/A where prosecutrix refused to undergo for her internal examination and no exhibits were prepared by the doctor.
She has prepared site plan on the pointing out of prosecutrix at Hotel Le Alfanso vide Ex.PW7/B. She has got recorded statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
vide Ex.PW5/B from Ld. MM.
During the course of investigation, she arrested the accused vide arrest memo vide memo Ex.PW7/C. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo vide Ex.PW7/D. His disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW7/E. She correctly identified the accused present in court.
During the course of
investigation, on 26.05.2015, she
taken the accused to LNJP
Hospital where his potency test
Case No.528/2017
State Vs. Jaswant Singh 8/17
was conducted vide MLC
Ex.PW3/A.
On 27.05.2017, she was present
in PS then Sh. Mohszn Akmal
came there. He produced the
record i.e. photocopy of hotel
guest register alongwith IDs of
prosecutrix and associate of
accused namely Mukesh and he
also produced one CD of CCTV
footage of dt. 16.05.2017. She
seized all these documents and
CD vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/B. Sh. Mohszn Akmal
had also given a certificate u/s
65 B of the Evidence Act
regarding correct contents of CD
of CCTV footage vide
Ex.PW4/C. CD is Ex.PX.
She has proved her report
regarding service of summons
upon prosecutrix through email
on 13.07.2018 and 02.08.2018
vide Ex.PW7/H.
She deposed that after
completing investigation charge
sheet was filed against the
accused in the court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
11. That, after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the incriminating evidence put to the accused and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused claimed that he is innocent. As per prosecution case Virender who is mentioned as his associate was under liability to pay payment of Rs.50,000/ towards him. He had visited his house on 15.05.2017 to receive his payment of aforesaid amount where his mother met him and he asked her as Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 9/17 to why Virender is not attending his phone calls and she gave me address of Virender where he had been staying. The name of the hotel was Lee Alfanso. He claimed that he had visited the hotel Lee Alfanso in the night of 16.05.2017 at about 10:00 p.m. and visited at reception and hotel staff told him that there is no admission in the room without entry and they did not allow him to enter in the room. Then he made a call to Virender. On attending his phone call he started abusing him and threatening him and he asked him that "mein tujhe batata hoon paise, tu yahan bhi aa gaya paise lene". Thereafter, he returned back to his house.
12. He claimed that when he was present at his house on 25.05.2017 Virender in the company of ASI Babita and four other police officials who were in civil uniform picked him up from his house and brought him at PS Nabi Karim, Delhi. Prosecutrix had refused him to identify as culprit in the case in the police station before the IO. Thereafter, he was got medically examined and arrested in the police station. Accused has not preferred to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
13. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that as per the testimony of prosecution witness PW4 and PW5, it is proved on record that accused was responsible for committing rape with the prosecutrix. The fact of the case are also proved by the deposition of I.O. PW7 W/ASI Babita who has deposed about all the facts and circumstances of the case as such accused is responsible for committing rape with the prosecutrix.
14. On the other hand, ld. counsel for accused has argued and highlighted various loopholes in the story of prosecution and has submitted that accused is innocent Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 10/17 and has been implicated in the case on account of money dispute with the other coaccused Virender who has already been discharged from the case vide order dt. 16.04.2018. Ld. counsel for accused also highlighted that police was duty bound to get judicial TIP of the accused conducted which has not been done in the case.
15. He has also highlighted that as per deposition of PW7 I.O., she has admitted that accused Jawant Singh was in the custody on 24.05.2017 but was not arrested on that day and accused only arrested on 25.05.2017 and he was get identified by the prosecutrix as such investigation in the case has not been conducted properly and there is no scientific evidence on record.
16. Ld. counsel for accused also highlighted that prosecution has been failed to examine the star witness of the case, who is prosecutrix. She has not been examined in the case despite various opportunity given to police and prosecution failed to produce the prosecutrix in the court. He has also submitted that the prosecutrix was even duly served at her given address in USA through Ministry of External Affairs and despite that she has not come in the court to depose. He has also pointed out that apart from this the I.O. W/ASI Babita had send mail on the mail address of the prosecutrix asking her to come to court for her deposition but despite that the prosecutrix has not turned up in court nor there is any request from the side of prosecutrix to come for her deposition and it shows prosecutrix has made false allegations and she does not want to stand for her deposition in the court. On these grounds, ld. counsel for accused has prayed that accused may kindly be acquitted.
Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 11/17PERUSAL OF RECORD:
17. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the hand written complaint of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A, present FIR Ex.PW2/B was registered against the accused.
18. It is further revealed that PW4 Mohsin Akmal, Manager of Hotel Le Alfanso deposed that record of the hotel guest register, Ex.PW4/A was seized by the police vide seizure memo, Ex.PW4/B; he had also given CCTV footage of date 16.05.2017 of the hotel to the police.
19. It is further revealed that on 24.05.2017 during midnight prosecutrix came to PS Nabi Karim and gave her written complaint, Ex.PW2/A wherein she mentioned that accused had committed rape with her; PW7 ASI Babita prepared rukka, Ex.PW7/A and got the FIR, Ex.PW2/B registered from duty officer, PW2 ASI Dharamvir Singh.
20. It is further revealed that I.O. PW7 W/ASI Babita took the prosecutrix to Lady Hardinge Hospital, where she was medically examined vide MLC, Ex.PW1/A; her medical examination was conducted by PW1 Dr. Anjali.
21. It is further revealed that IO PW7 W/ASI Babita got prosecutrix counselled through a counsellor; she produced prosecutrix in the court of Ld. Magistrate on 25.07.2017 vide her application Ex.PW5/A; then PW5 Ms. Manika, Ld. Magistrate recorded her statement Ex.PW5/B under section 164 Cr.P.C.; she obtained a copy of the said statement vide her application, Ex.PW5/C.
22. It is further revealed that I.O. PW7 W/ASI Babita also visited the spot of incident and accused was arrested on the identification of prosecutrix vide Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 12/17 arrest memo, Ex.PW7/C; his personal search memo was conducted vide personal search memo, Ex.PW7/D; his disclosure statement, Ex.PW7/E was also recorded; accused also pointed out the room of the incident and memo, Ex.PW7/F in this regard was prepared.
23. It is further revealed that I.O. PW7 W/ASI Babita got accused medically examined in LNJP Hospital on 26.05.2017 vide MLC, Ex.PW3/A; accused was also medically examined regarding his potency by PW3 Dr. Raj Kumar.
24. It is further revealed that on 27.05.2017 PW4 Mohsin Akmal produced the record of register of the hotel and a CD containing CCTV footage which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW4/B; PW4 Mohsin Akmal also gave certificate, Ex.PW4/C under section 65 B of the Evidence Act regarding the correct contents of CCTV footage in the CD, Ex.PX.
25. Before reaching at any conclusion, let the relevant sections i.e. 120B/376 IPC be reproduced, which are as under: Section 120B IPC.
Causing hurt by means of poison, etc. with intent to commit an offence. Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or with thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilities the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 376 IPC:
Punishment for rape - (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by subsection (2), commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine. (2) Whoever,
(a) being a police officer commits rape
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house; or
(iii)on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 13/17 subordinate to such police officer; or
(b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or
(c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or
(e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
(h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(i) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
(k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or
(l) commits rape on a woman suffering mental or physical disability; or
(m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman.
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. For the purposes of this subsection,
(a) "armed forces" means the naval, military and air force and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government.
(b) "hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;
(c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861);
(d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.
Explanation 1 - Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this subsection.
Explanation 2 "Women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 14/17 children.
Explanation 3 "Hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for a reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.] FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
26. Having heard the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for the accused as well as ld. Addl. PP for the State and after gone through the case file as well as evidence led by the prosecution and the case file, this court is of the considered view that a FIR u/s 376 read with section 120B IPC was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix on 24.05.2017 whereby she has given a written complaint in which she has stated that on 16.05.2017, she was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual intercourse was committed by the accused without her consent. Simultaneously, she has also stated in her complaint that she along with other three friends were taken the liquor and she had already consumed 5 to 7 drinks and was under intoxication and influence of liquor and at that point of time all the male members left the room and after some time accused entered in the room and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and upon her complaint, FIR was registered on 24.05.2017 and she was also medically examined on the same day on 24.05.2017 and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Ld. MM of Central District on 25.05.2017 and thereafter, chargesheet was filed. After framing of charge against the accused, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and it was for the prosecution to examine the prosecutrix first and remaining witnesses are to be examined at the later stage but the prosecutrix was the resident of United States of America and the summons were issued to her through Embassy of United States of America and same has been got served and despite service of the summons the prosecutrix who was the material and star witness of this case has not turned up to depose in this case and to prove the allegations levelled by her Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 15/17 against the accused in her written complaint upon which FIR was registered and chargesheet was filed but the court has not stopped the proceedings and examine the other witnesses including the I.O. as well as doctor who was Dr. Anjali, SR, Department of Obs. & Gynae, LHMC Hospital who had conducted the medical examination of prosecutrix on 24.05.2017 and she had deposed that prosecutrix has refused for giving samples/exhibits because the incident was old by eight days and on local examination of prosecutrix her hymen was found torn. In the cross examination, this doctor has admitted that the prosecutrix had told to her that she was using gynecological device (mirena thread) and she is using the said device to prevent the excess bleeding. The said device is also used for contraceptive purpose.
27. It is worth mentioning that PW1 who had conducted medical examination of prosecutrix has written in her handwriting in medical report itself that the prosecutrix did not allow the doctor for internal examination and prosecutrix has stated to the doctor "I do not want to undergo sampling" and doctor has opined in the medical of the prosecutrix itself that samples will not helpful to prove that incident of sexual intercourse by the accused with the prosecutrix without her consent.
28. The I.O. of this case has also examined herself and deposed in respect of the investigation carried out by her.
29. That, even after recording the witnesses the summons to the star witness who is the complainant/prosecutrix in this case were sent through her email ID by the I.O. W/ASI Babita from her email ID and even despite receipt of the summons as well as the information for the deposition in this case by the Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 16/17 prosecutrix has been served through her email ID and even despite service of the summons and service through her email ID she did not turned up in the court to depose against the accused to prove the allegation of sexual intercourse without her consent and without recording her evidence and in absence of evidence of prosecutrix and in the absence of scientific evidence and expert evidence, allegations of sexual intercourse by accused with the prosecutrix without her consent cannot be considered as proved, prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, this court has no option except to acquit the accused. Hence, accused is hereby acquitted from the charges u/s 376 r/w Sec.120B IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.
30. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C. accused is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
31. As prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no order to compensation to the victim/complainant.
32. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.10.2018.
(SATISH KUMAR) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No.528/2017 State Vs. Jaswant Singh 17/17