Delhi District Court
State vs Monika D/O Jaidev on 11 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST,
NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0060532014
SC No. 47/14 Date of assignment : 14.03.2014
FIR No. 368/13 Date on which arguments
PS. Farsh Bazar were heard : 11.03.2015
U/S. 328/365 IPC Date of judgment : 11.03.2015
& u/s 109 r/w section 376 IPC
State Versus Monika D/o Jaidev
R/o 4/2886, Gali No.1, Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi-32.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution as disclosed in the chargesheet is that on 12.09.2013, SI Alka Sharma as per direction of SHO police station Farsh Bazar reached at LNJP Hospital where she met the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix lodged a written complaint against the accused to SI Alka Sharma wherein she made following allegations:-
(a) Prosecutrix is a house wife and is residing with her husband. She used to go to learn stitching.
Prosecutrix knew accused Monika who was residing in the same street as the prosecutrix. On 06.09.2013 at about 2.30 pm, when the prosecutrix was on her way for the stitching classes, accused Monika met her. On that day, the SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 1 of 9 husband of the prosecutrix who was a driver had gone out of Delhi in connection with some work. Accused Monika induced the prosecutrix to accompany her and took her to the car of co-accused Noni. After going for some distance, accused Monika and co-accused Noni served some soft drink to the prosecutrix due to which she became unconscious. When she regained her consciousness, she found that accused Monika was not in the vehicle. Co- accused Noni told the prosecutrix that whatever was to happen has happened and he asked her not to disclose anything to her husband. He threatened the prosecutrix that if she will disclose the incident to her husband or any other person, he would kill her and throw acid on her face. Accused Noni then left the prosecutrix at the house of her aunt. Prosecutrix was frightened and she did not disclose the incident to any person.
(b) Next day, the prosecutrix went to the house of her parents. On 11.09.2013 at about 1.00 pm, her husband came and brought her back to their home. On being informed about the incident, the husband of the prosecutrix asked her to inform the incident to police. Thus, she made this complaint to the police against the accused.
2. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 2 of 9 No.368/13 under section 376D/506/328 IPC was got registered at police station Farsh Bazar against the accused persons. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at JPN Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded on 25.10.2013. During investigation accused Manik @ Noni was found to be a juvenile and he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Sexual assault kit was got prepared and sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. Accused Monika was arrested and after completion of investigation, chargesheet under sections 376D/328/506/109 IPC was filed against the present accused Monika.
3. Since the major offence in this case was triable by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 06.03.2014, learned M.M. committed this case to the Court of Sessions and on allocation, it was assigned to this court.
4. Vide order dated 19.08.2014, a charge under sections 328/365 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC was framed against the accused Monika to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined two witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix as PW1 and one Raju SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 3 of 9 Chauhan, friend of husband of the prosecutrix as PW2.
6. PW1 (prosecutrix) has not supported the case of prosecution to the extent that the present accused (Monika) was the person who had introduced the prosecutrix to the person who had raped her or had served cold drink which made the prosecutrix giddy. The prosecutrix deposed that in the year 2013 she was residing at Bihari Colony, Delhi with her husband and in laws. She started going to learn stitching work. The prosecutrix met a girl at the training centre who was also learning stitching work. In September, 2013 that girl took her to the Friday weekly market where that girl introduced the prosecutrix to the co-accused Noni (the juvenile). Prosecutrix further deposed that after that accused Monika and co-accused (the juvenile) took her in a car and after some distance, they served her some cold drink. After consuming that cold drink, the prosecutrix became unconscious. Prosecutrix has further deposed that when she regained her consciousness, she found herself in the car with the co- accused (the juvenile) but that girl was not present in the car. At that time she was not wearing her lower clothes. She has further deposed that she had felt that co-accused had committed rape on her. Prosecutrix asked the co- accused as to why he did so with her. Co-accused SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 4 of 9 threatened the prosecutrix to kill her husband if she will disclose about the occurrence to any person including her husband. She did not disclose the incident to her husband. Thereafter at about 7.00 pm, co-accused left the prosecutrix outside the house of her aunt. Next day she went to her parental home. Thereafter her husband brought her back to Bihari Colony. She deposed that on the asking of her husband she went to the police. Prosecutrix has deposed that initially due to fear she did not give statement to the police but thereafter on 12.09.2013 she made her statement Ex.PW1/A to the IO. She further deposed that on 15.09.2013, she was got medically examined at JPN Hospital. Thereafter her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/D was got recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. During evidence accused Monika was shown to the prosecutrix for identification but after seeing the accused Monika, the prosecutrix did not identify her. She has deposed that accused Monika who is facing trial in this case is not the same girl who had got her introduced to the co-accused and took her in a car with the co-accused. This witness deposed that she did not know accused Monika and she had not seen her earlier. She further deposed that the accused Monika facing trial in this case has not done SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 5 of 9 any wrong with her.
8. Since the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution, she was cross examined by the learned Addl. PP for the State. Even during her cross examination also, the prosecutrix did not support the case of prosecution. The prosecutrix did not identify the accused Monika and maintained that accused Monika facing trial in this case is not the same girl who got her introduced with co-accused and then took her in a car with co-accused and served her cold drink. Prosecutrix was cross examined by the accused. During cross examination also the prosecutrix reiterated that she does not know accused Monika.
9. PW2 Raju Chauhan deposed that the husband of the prosecutrix was his friend. He deposed that on 12.09.2013 at about 9.00 pm after receiving an information regarding admission of her husband at JPN Hospital, he reached there. He deposed that on that day in his presence, IO SI Alka recorded the statement Ex. PW1/A of the prosecutrix and he also signed the same.
10. During cross examination, this witness has stated that the statement Ex. PW1/A of the prosecutrix was not read over to him when he signed the same and he SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 6 of 9 signed the same on the asking of the IO.
11. In the testimonies of PW1 (prosecutrix) and PW2, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused to connect her with the alleged offences. Perusal of chargesheet and material attached with the chargesheet would show that the remaining prosecution witnesses were either the police officials who were involved in the investigation of this case or the doctors who medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused or the learned MM who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. None of these witnesses can have personal knowledge of the facts of this case. The case of the prosecution against the present accused was based exclusively on the statement of the prosecutrix but the prosecutrix has stated that the present accused is not the person who had abetted the offence of rape against her. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution, no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining witnesses. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed. In the circumstances, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
12. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 7 of 9 and perused the record.
13. The accused Monika is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under sections 365/328 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC.
14. The prosecutrix during her deposition has not identified the accused Monika and deposed that she is not the same girl who took her to co-accused and served cold drink to her in a car. Prosecutrix has deposed that she does not know the accused Monika who is facing trial in this case as she never saw her earlier. She also deposed that the accused Monika has not done any wrong with her. Under these circumstances, no incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the accused Monika with the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 365/328 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC. The statement of PW2 Raju Chauhan who was friend of husband of the prosecutrix is also of no help to the case of prosecution as he has no personal knowledge about the allegations made in the present case. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 365/328 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC.
SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 8 of 9
15. In view of above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused Monika for the offences punishable under sections 365/328 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC. Thus, the accused Monika is acquitted of the offences punishable under sections under section 365/328 IPC and under section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC. It is ordered accordingly.
16. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 11.03.2015 (SARITA BIRBAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.47/14 State vs. Monika page 9 of 9