Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 30 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0731152008
SC NO. 45/13 Date of Institution :19.12.2008
FIR No.215/08 Date of Argument :19.01.2013
PS Welcome Date of Order :30.01.2013
U/S 366/376 IPC
State Versus Accused
Rafiq @ Kala
S/o Late Sh. Abid Ali
R/o N-29, Welcome,
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 27.05.2008, prosecutrix ___________X____________ arrived at P.S. Welcome, Delhi and made a statement before the police that she was very well knew accused Rafiq s/o Abid Ali r/o N-29, Welcome, Delhi for the last two years. He used to have conversation with her on phone and used to meet her out of her house and he used to say that he was in deep love with her and he wanted to marry with her. She treated his assurances as correct and she started moving with her at many places including India SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 1 of 23 Gate, Lodi Road, and Guest House on his false assurance that he will marry her. He committed wrong act with her despite of her objections. During the last two years, he committed wrong act with her for about 15-20 times at different places at Delhi and outside Delhi on the false assurances of marrying her. On 24.05.2008 at about 3:30 p.m. he took her to Garh Ganga in a guest house and in the night, after false assurance of marrying with her, committed wrong act with her. On 25.05.2008 at about 11 p.m. in the night, she returned to her house. Thereafter, she asked Rafiq that he had played with her honour and he must marry with her. Accused replied that he was with her only for the purpose of enjoyment and his assurance to marry her was a false promise. He also disclosed that his marriage has been fixed with a girl, Gudia for 09.06.2008. He clearly refused to marry with her. She prayed for taking action against accused. On her statement, FIR No.215 dated 27.05.2008 at PS Welcome u/s 376 IPC was recorded. She was taken to GTB Hospital where her MLC was prepared. Doctor found that her hymen was torn. Doctor also took samples of smear, pubic hair, etc. and handed over the same to the police. Accused Rafiq was arrested on the same day. His arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. He was interrogated. He made a disclosure statement which was recorded. He was SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 2 of 23 also taken to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Doctor observed that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual act. Samples of his blood, pubic hair and underwear were taken by the doctor and handed over to Ct. Bhupender who handed over the same to IO. IO seized the samples vide separate seizure memo. He recorded statement of witnesses and filed a charge sheet against the accused for his trial for the offences punishable u/s 366/376 IPC.
2. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents to the accused committed this case to the court of sessions and the case was assigned to Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
3. Vide order dated 16.03.2010 the court opined that prima facie case for framing of charge against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 366/376 IPC was made out. Therefore, charge against the accused for his trial for the said offences was framed and read over to him in vernacular language. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 3 of 23 examined W/Ct. Pinky as PW1; HC Bhupinder Singh as PW2; Dr. P. Phukan, CMO, GTB Hospital as PW3; ASI Sheela as PW4; ________X_______, prosecutrix as PW5; HC Ram Gopal as PW6; ASI Onkar Dutt as PW7; ASI Mahavir Singh as PW8; Dr. Nitasha Gupta Sr. Resident, GTB Hospital as PW9; and HC Ved Prakash as PW10.
5. Vide order No.20/372-512/F.3.(4)/ASJ/01/2013 dated 04.01.2013, on constitution of Special Fast Track Courts for trial of sexual offences, Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, transferred this case to this court.
6. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here in after referred to as the Code was recorded. All the material and incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused admitted that he knew prosecutrix for the last two years since 24.05.2008. He also admitted that he was having telephone conversation with her. He also admitted that prosecutrix made a complaint against him and on the basis of that complaint FIR against him u/s 366/376 IPC was recorded and that on the identification of prosecutrix he was arrested on 27.05.2008 and his arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared and that he was produced before a doctor by HC Bhupinder Singh where his SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 4 of 23 medical examination vide MLC Ex.PW3/A was conducted and that the samples of semen, blood, underwear were taken. He pleaded that he never made any physical relation with her. He and prosecutrix were having different religion. Prosecutrix wanted to marry him but marriage could not be solemnized due to different religion. Due to that reason prosecutrix filed a false case against him. He expressed his ignorance about the remaining prosecution evidence. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
7. After closing of evidence by the prosecution, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused and perused file.
8. In order to prove its case that accused committed an offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel marriage, etc. punishable u/s 366 IPC, prosecution has to prove firstly that the prosecutrix was abducted by the accused, i.e., accused either by force compelled or by any deceitful means induced the prosecutrix to go from her place and secondly, the prosecutrix was abducted with the intention that the prosecutrix may be compelled or knowing it to be likely SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 5 of 23 that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced to do illicit intercourse.
9. In order to prove its case for the offence of rape, punishable u/s 376 IPC, the prosecution has to prove firstly that accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and secondly, sexual intercourse was committed against her will or under false pretext to marry her.
10. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that prosecution witnesses have proved both the offences against the accused beyond any reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt and the accused is liable to be held guilty and convicted for the said offences.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused submitted that testimony of prosecutrix was self contradictory and unreliable. The conviction cannot be based on such a piece of evidence. He submitted that accused is entitled for acquittal by getting benefit of doubt.
12. After considering the arguments of Ld. SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 6 of 23 Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and on analyzing the prosecution evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond any reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt. The reasons which support my conclusion are firstly that statement of prosecutrix is not only inconsistent, self contradictory but also she had made material embellishments in her statement which convert her testimony as unreliable and untrustworthy. For example, on the point of getting information about the fixation of marriage of accused Rafiq, she stated in her statement EX.PW5/A that accused himself told that he was going to marry with a girl named Gudiya on 09.6.2008. In the court she stated that her friend, whose name she told in cross examination as Thania, informed her that Rafiq was going to marry on some date which she could not recollect. In the statement EX.PW5/A she stated that Rafiq gave said information to her at Garh Ganga and also told her that he was giving false promise of marriage only for his entertainment whereas in the statement in the court she stated that when she confronted accused Rafiq about the information of his marriage which was received from her friend he left the lodge after telling her that he would come back in the evening to marry her. Accused never came back. She returned to Delhi on 25.5.2008 at 11 P.M. SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 7 of 23 and had a conversation with Rafiq who told her that he was giving false assurance of marriage for the purpose of his enjoyment. Thus, there are contractions on the source of information about marriage of the accused and there is also a contradiction about place of information about the marriage.
13. In her statement she made embellishments. She stated that she had told to the police that her friend Tania had informed her about the factum of intended marriage of accused while staying in guest house, Garh Ganga; that Rafiq had told her that he was going and he would come back in the evening and that she had straightway came to P.S. from guest house. These were the embellishments which the prosecutrix made in her statement.
14. Secondly, prosecutrix has failed to support prosecution case completely. She stated that she did not remember the date but for quite some time accused was alluring her to marry her for the last two years and during the period of said two years he used her on the pretext that he would marry her. He used to have physical relations with her. On 24.5.2008 she and accused had gone to Garh Ganga. Accused took her to a lodge and made physical relations with her. She received a call from her SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 8 of 23 friend about fixation of marriage of accused. She confronted the accused with that information and he left giving assurance that he would return in the evening to marry her. He failed to return and she immediately returned to Delhi and straightway went to P.S. and lodged a report EX.PW5/A. As she did not support the prosecution case completely, she was declared hostile and she was cross examined by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor then only she recalled the prosecution case and gave her answer in affirmative. This has further created doubt about the truthfulness of her testimony.
15. Thirdly, there are contractions in her testimony and testimony of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. For example, in cross examination she stated that she had never written any letter to the accused that he should not meet her mother otherwise her mother would made a complaint in the P.S. Conversely, in her letter Ex. PW5/DA, the prosecutrix wrote to the accused that he should not meet her mother or brother for the purpose of her marriage with him. 13 love letters have been proved on record as Ex. PW5/DA(1) to Ex. PW5/DA(13). Besides, IO PW8 in his cross examination stated that the prosecutrix did not disclose that she was exchanging love letters with accused. During investigation SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 9 of 23 he did not come to know that both prosecutrix and accused were writing love letters to each other. Prosecutrix in her cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel stated that police had never asked to show said guest house where the alleged rape was committed. On the other hand, PW8 deposed that prosecutrix could not identify any specific location. He had asked the complainant to accompany him to Garh Ganga but she refused to go. These contradictions further create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
16. My decision on this aspect finds support by the principles of law laid down in case of Babu Lal and Others v. State, 1994 JCC 111 wherein, the Delhi High Court observed that:
"10. As far as these appellants, namely Babu Lal, Arjun Das and Leela Ram are concerned, there are material contradictions in the statements of the two injured, Om Parkash and Bhagwan Das who are the real brothers. The other alleged eye witnesses have also contradicted themselves on the most material points and the contradictions cannot be said to be minor and have occurred on account of passage of time. Moti Lal, PW13 on whose statement the case was registered has also not supported the case of prosecution in as much as he has denied that he has seen the incident or he saw these appellants giving injuries to the injured.*** There are serious lapses in the prosecution story in connecting these appellants with the offence. The story put up by the prosecution as far as these appellants are concerned, is unbelievable and doubtful."SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 10 of 23
17. My decision on this aspect further finds support by the principles of law laid down in case of a case Labh Singh v. State of M.P., IX-1986(3) Crimes 176, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC on the ground that there were material contradictions in the prosecution case which were causing doubt on the prosecution story.
18. As the testimony of the prosecutrix is inconsistent, self contradictory and it has not been corroborated by any other witness so the principles of law laid down in case State v. Jai Hind, 2012 VI AD (Delhi) 170, relied on by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor will not provide any benefit to the prosecution.
19. Fourthly, in her cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, she admitted that accused Rafiq used to have conversation with her on telephone and he used to meet her outside the house and also used to tell that he loved her; he wanted to marry her; and for the last two years she used to take her to India Gate, Lodhi Road and guest house. In her cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel she admitted that her love affairs remained with the accused Rafiq for about two years; they used to write love letters to each other; 13 love letters SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 11 of 23 EX.PW5/DA (1) to (13) were written by her; her family members were not happy with the relationship with accused because of different religion; in her letters it was mentioned that the outcome of her marriage with the accused depends on her family members and destiny; she was in deep love with the accused; her family members and family members of accused never meet each other for her marriage with the accused; she did not know the name of guest house at Garh Ganga where accused had taken her 2-3 times; she had gone with the accused at guest house at Garh Ganga only; police never told her to show the guest house; she did not tell the specific place to the police at Lodhi Garden or India Gate where they used to sit; she was scared that her family members were not willing for her marriage with the accused; she never asked for permission from her family members to marry accused Rafiq; none of her family members accompanied her to make complaint against accused to the police; and that she made complaint against the accused against the wishes of her family members. In her statement prosecutrix told her age as 24 years. These admissions by the prosecutrix have established that there was no deception by the accused to obtain consent of the prosecutrix to leave her house to accompany with the accused. These admissions further lead to the conclusion SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 12 of 23 that prosecutrix, freely, voluntarily and consciously accompanied the accused and further that she roamed with him as she was in deep love with accused. Their marriage could not be solemnized due to difference of religion and that neither the prosecutrix nor the accused initiated any action for seeking consent of their respective parents. Rather, the prosecutrix advised the accused not to meet her parents. This provides benefit to the accused to create doubt about the genuineness of the allegations of abduction or rape made by the prosecutrix against him.
20. My attention goes to a case Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 163: 2003 AIR SCW 1035. In that case the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the accused appellant. She was, however, aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members. She admits having told so to the appellant when he proposed to her the first time. She had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to. That is why she kept it a secret as long as she could. Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the appellant, and in fact succumbed to it. She thus freely SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 13 of 23 exercised a choice between resistance and assent. The Apex Court held that:
"The consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a 'misconception of fact'. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code. There is no strait jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. The Court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them"
21. In re, Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu, AIR 1960 Mad 308, it was observed :
"A woman is said to consent only when she agrees to submit herself while in free and unconstrained possession of her physical and moral power to act in a manner she wanted. Consent implies the exercise of a free and untrammelled right to forbid or withhold what is being consented to; it always is a voluntary and conscious acceptance of what is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former."
22. The principles of law laid down in case of Uday v. State of Karnataka, (Supra), and In re, Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu (Supra), are applicable on the facts of the present case and therefore, it is held that the prosecution SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 14 of 23 could not prove lack of consent of the prosecutrix or that accused abducted her or made physical relations with her without her consent or on false assurance of marriage.
23. Fifthly, except testimony of PW5, testimonies of all other witnesses are formal in nature. PW-1 deposed that on 27.5.2008 she had taken prosecutrix ____X____ to GTB Hospital for her medical examination. After medical examination she handed over the MLC of prosecutrix to IO along with two sealed pullandas. PW-2 deposed that on 27.5.2008 he took accused Rafiq @ Kala present in the Court to GTB hospital for his medical examination. After medical examination, he obtained MLC of the accused and handed over the same to the IO along with three sealed pullandas with one sample seal and the IO seized those vide memos ExPW2/A. PW-3 deposed that on 27.5.2008 at about 9.15 p.m., one Rafiq male 25 years was brought in the hospital by Ct. Bhupender for his capability to perform sexual intercourse. He was examined by Dr. Tigga. He proved MLC as ExPW3/A. In MLC ExPW3/A it has been opined that there was nothing to suggest that the patient was not capable of performing sexual act. PW4 proved copy of FIR as EX.PW4/A and rukka EX.PW4/B. PW6 only carried the sealed pulinda from P.S. to FSL Rohini. PW-7 deposed that on 27.5.08 he was working as MHC(M) at PS SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 15 of 23 Welcome. On that day ASI Mahavir Singh deposited six sealed pullandas including sample seal. The same was entered by him at Serial No. 2230 in the register. On 24.6.08 these samples were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Ram Gopal PW-6. He proved the relevant entry as PW7/Aand PW7/B. He proved acknowledgement as PW/C. PW8 is IO who deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation. PW-9 on 27.5.2008 at about 10.15 A.M. medically examined_____X____ aged 24 years female and proved her MLC as EX.PW5/D. On local examination, her hymen was found torn. Thus, PW5 is the only material witness of the prosecution.
24. Sixthly, there is lack of scientific evidence to support the prosecution case. In MLC EX.PW5/D of prosecutrix, it has been mentioned that prosecutrix had taken bath and changed her under garments. Thus, she herself destroyed the scientific evidence which could connect the prosecutrix with the accused to show that he was the accused who committed rape on her. The prosecution proved FSL reports as EX.PW8/C and EX.PW8/D. These FSL reports could not connect the accused with alleged sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In these circumstances it may be held that there is absence of scientific evidence to support the SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 16 of 23 prosecution case. This has further created doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
25. My decision finds support by a case Sanya alias Sanyasi Challan Seth v. State of Orissa, 1993 CRI. L.J. 2784, wherein it was observed by Orissa High Court that:
"In the absence of any medical opinion which could have corroborated the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, it would not be safe to maintain the conviction. Although it is well settled that the lone testimony of the victim lady can be made the sole basis for conviction and no corroboration is necessary in case the same is accepted as true and free from suspicion, yet as has been mentioned above, because of the inherent defect in presenting the prosecution case, the same is not free from doubt. As has been held in many cases all that is required is that, there must be some circumstance which should not support the version of the victim lady by way of corroboration. But all those elements are lacking in the case. The witnesses are found to be related to each other and there is no independent witness although I find from the materials on record that there were also few others including Sureshwar who were accompanying P.W. 1 but not examined. The medical evidence is also absent with regard to the opinion as to the fact of rape. For the reasons above the conviction is liable to be set aside."
[Emphasis supplied]
26. My decision further finds support by a case Lachhman and another v. State, 1973 CRI. L.J. 1658, wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:
"It is a very well-settled rule that in rape cases the evidence of the complainant must be corroborated. A charge of rape is a very easy charge to make and a very SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 17 of 23 difficult one to refute, and in common fairness to accused persons, the courts insist on corroboration of the complainant's story. However, the nature of the corroboration must necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case. Where rape is denied, the sort of corroboration one looks for is medical evidence showing injury to the private parts of the complainant, injury to other parts of her body, which may have occasioned in a struggle, seminal stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the places where the offence is alleged o have been committed; and in all cases importance is attached to the subsequent conduct of the complainant. Whether she makes a charge promptly or not is always relevant. (Emperor v. Mahadeo Tatya, AIR 1942 Bom 121 (FB). In Mahla Ram v. Emperor (AIR 1924 Lah 669), also it has been held that where there is no independent evidence in support of the statement of the complainant that she was raped by the accused it would be most dangerous to base a conviction on her uncorroborated testimony alone." [Emphasis supplied]
27. Seventhly, conduct of the prosecutrix was not found natural. For example, on one hand she was alleging that accused under the false pretext of marriage made physical relations with her many times and on the other hand she was writing love letters to the accused advising him not to meet her mother for her marriage with the accused. She herself did not disclose to her parents that she wanted to marry with accused. She knew that there was difference of religion and that may be a hurdle in her marriage with the accused. She was even writing that her marriage with the accused was dependent on the will of parents and destiny. In these circumstances it is not SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 18 of 23 believable that she was not aware of the consequences of her friendship with the accused. Therefore, it is not acceptable that accused obtained her consent under deception of marriage with him. This has further created doubt about the reliability of the testimony of the prosecution case.
28. Eighthly, there is unexplained unreasonable delay in lodging FIR in the present case. Prosecutrix herself stated that accused had been making physical relations with her on a number of times i.e., 15-20 times, for the last two years. She chose to make complaint only on 27.5.2008. She has not explained as to why she did not lodge the complaint earlier. The delay has further created doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
29. My decision finds support by principles of law laid down in a case Jagdish v. State, (Delhi), 1987(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 613 : 1987(1) AICLR 465, wherein the Delhi High Court observed:
"8. This inference is further fortified from the delay of 46 hours and 45 minutes in the lodging of the First Information Report after the alleged occurrence. Regarding the importance of the lodging of the First Information Report at the earliest, the Supreme Court authority reported as Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 S.C.C. (Crl.) 543, is highly instructive wherein it SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 19 of 23 held as follows at page 547 :- "First Information Report in a Criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite after results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.
9. In that case there was delay of more than 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R. though the police station was only at a distance of two miles and it was held that this circumstance would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the case and it was not safe to base conviction upon to."
30. My attention also goes to a case Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 [1] JCC 482 wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"104. If one integral part of the story put forth by witness was not believable, then the entire case failed. It is settled law that where witness makes two inconsistence statements in their evidence either at one stage of both stages, the testimony of said witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 20 of 23 circumstances; no conviction can be based on the evidence of said witnesses."
31. Ninthly, my attention goes to a case reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
The principles of law laid down in above case are applicable on the facts of present case and therefore, it is held that accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt as in the present case two views, one, leads to his innocence and another leads to his involvement in the crime are possible.
32. Tenthly, the accused has succeeded in creating doubt in prosecution case so he is entitled to get benefit of doubt.
33. My decision finds support by the case Ajmer Singh and another v. State of Haryana, II-1989(1) Crimes 424, it was held by P&H High Court that:
SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 21 of 23"It is not necessary for the accused to substantially prove their plea. Suffice it to say that if the accused succeeds in creating a doubt, they would be entitled to benefit of it."
34. Lastly, it is one of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that let hundreds of criminal may go unpunished but one innocent person should not be punished. It would be just fair and appropriate, if accused is given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt.
CONCLUSION
35. In view of the above reasons, discussion and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt that accused Rafiq @ Kala either committed offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. punishable u/s 366 IPC or committed rape on the prosecutrix punishable u/s 376 IPC. Consequently, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused, he is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 366/376 IPC.
36. However, accused is directed to furnish his personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 22 of 23 like amount as per provisions of Section 437A of the Code for a period of six months.
37. After furnishing of surety bonds file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court Dated: 30.01.2013 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.45/13 State vs. Rafiq @ Kala Page 23 of 23