Delhi District Court
State vs Kalu// S.C. No.700/18//Fir ... on 25 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT: ROHINI: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO:700/18.
STATE
VERSUS
KALU,
S/O. SH. SHYAMVIR,
R/O. GALI NO.9, MUKUNDPUR,
PART11, DELHI.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
R/O. VILLAGE - CHONKARA,
TEHSIL - SIKANDRA RAO,
DISTRICT - HATHRAS,
U.P.
FIR NO. : 113/18.
POLICE STATION : ADARSH NAGAR.
UNDER SECTION : 376/342/328/506/366 IPC.
DATE OF COMMITTAL TO SESSIONS COURT :10.10.2018
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED :25.01.2020
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT ANNOUNCED :25.01.2020
Present: Shri V.K. Negi, ld. Addl. PP for State.
Shri R.K. Sharma, ld. counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 1 OF 8
1. When victim went missing on 24.04.2018, her maternal grandmother got registered kidnapping FIR saying that she and victim used to work as maids. The victim was to go to H.No.2/13, Model Town for work on 24.04.2018 and hence, she left her near temple on Rameshwar Nagar Road at 9:00 A.M. But she did not return home thereafter. She was a girl of 16 years and 8 months having height of 5' 2" and weak body. Somebody had kidnapped/abducted her.
The victim's mother moved an application before court suspecting that a person namely Kalu had kidnapped her daughter. She divulged phone number of Kalu and her daughter. On 23.06.2018, the victim alongwith her parents and maternal grandmother appeared before police and her statement was recorded to the effect that she started residing with her maternal grandmother about 45 months prior to the registration of the FIR. Both were working as maids. On 24.08.2018, she alongwith her naani boarded a TSR and alighted near dairy on Rameshwar Nagar Road. Her naani went for work. On her asking, the TSR driver gave her water after drinking of which she felt sleepy and when she opened her eyes, she found herself in a room in village Mukundpur. TSR driver was telling his name as Kalu. A tall woman also used to reside with him. He established physical relations with her forcibly with the threat that if she told anybody about the incident, she would be killed. She STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 2 OF 8 remained there for about two months. When noone was present in his house on 10.06.2018, she ran away from there and told her mother about the incident.
2. Charge u/s.328/366/376/506 IPC was framed against accused on 15.03.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined two witnesses.
4. PW1 Smt. Prema, maternal grandmother of the victim, deposed that prosecutrix had accompanied her to Model Town on 24.04.2018 in a TSR from which they alighted on Rameshwar Nagar Road at about 9:00 A.M. She went to her duty place but the prosecutrix did not return and hence, she lodged missing report in police station Adarsh Nagar on 26.04.2018 vide statement Ex.PW1/A. She next deposed that her daughter returned home after twenty days.
5. The prosecutrix as PW2 deposed that she married with accused on 29.04.2018 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Mukundpur, Delhi. Her maternal grandmother had lodged kidnapping FIR as she was under the belief that she was minor. She next deposed that she had married with the accused with her free will and consent and was still residing with him. In crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP, she deposed that she did not tell police that she became unconscious due to consumption of water provided by the accused and that she was STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 3 OF 8 raped by him.
6. Under section 294 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted following documents: S. No. Name of the documents Admitte Denied Exhibited d i. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Yes - Ex.PX1 Satto, W/o. Rambir (mother of the prosecutrix).
ii. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Yes - Ex.PX2 Rambir, S/o. Sh. Dojram (father of the prosecutrix).
iii. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Yes - Ex.PX3 Manveer, S/o. Ramsewak iv. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Kavita Yes - Ex.PX4 Devi, W/o. Umesh Kumar.
v. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Sarvesh Yes - Ex.PX5 Diwakar, S/o. Sh. Shyamveer.
vi. Proceedings and certificate u/s. 164 Yes - Ex.PX6
Cr.P.C. conducted by Ms. Richa &
Manchanda, ld. MM on 25.06.2018 Ex.PX7
vii. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Munna Yeas - Ex.PX8
Lal Arya S/o. Sh. Uday Singh.
viii. Potency test of accused conducted by Yes - Ex.PX9
Dr. Varun Kumar Katiyar, RML
Hospital.
ix. MLC No.156670, dt. 23.06.2018 of Yes - Ex.PX10
victim conducted by Dr. Avnish
Tripathi, BJRM Hospital
x. School admission record of the Yes - Ex.PX11
prosecutrix issued by the Principal, Nigam Prathibha Vidyalaya, Rajeev Nagar, Delhi - 110086.
xi. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Yes - Ex.PX12 Ved Prakash to whom the father of (statement), the Prema told about missing of the Ex.PX12A victim, recorded her statement and (rukka), STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 4 OF 8 made rukka.
xii. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of W/HC Yes - Already Shamila, who got conducted the Ex.PX10 medical examination of the prosecutrix. xiii. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of HC Yes - Ex.PW2/B Dariyab Singh, who accompanied the (arrest memo), IO during investigation. Ex.PW2/C (personal search memo), Ex.PW2/D (disclosure statement) and Ex.PX13 (pointing out memo), xiv. FIR No.113/18, PS - Adarsh Nagar Yes - Ex.PX14. registered by HC Lalit (Duty Officer). xv. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Yes - Ex.PX15 Babu Lal, who lodged the missing (Missing report report. running into five pages). xvi. WSI/IO Namrata, who got recorded Yes Disclo Ex.PX16 the statement of the prosecutrix, sure (application for arrested accused Kalu who pointed statem recording out the place of incident, who ent statement of the interrogated Lambi @ Meena Devi, ExPW prosecutrix u/s. Geeta Mathur, Manveer Singh, got 2/D 164 Cr.P.C.), conducted Potency test of the Ex.PX17 accused, got age documents of the (application for victim from the school, who getting of the examined Munna Lal Arya (priest) statement u/s. and who filed the chargesheet. 164 Cr.P.C.), already Ex.PW2/B (arrest memo of the accused), already Ex.PW2/C STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 5 OF 8 (personal search memo of the accused), already Ex.PW2/D, (disclosure statement of the accused), Ex.PX12 (pointing out memo) and Ex.PX18 (rough site plan)
7. Under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused took the stand that he and victim were in affair and wanted to marry each other, to which her father did not like and he put pressure upon victim due to which a false case was registered against him.
8. Not a single witness has been examined by accused in defence.
9. Ld. defence counsel argued that there is no evidence in the case. Initially, the prosecution came out with the version that victim was minor. In fact, she is a major and married accused in a temple since then, they are there residing together as husband and wife.
10. The accused admitted the school documents of the victim. As per those documents, her date of birth is 02.02.2000. The offence is said to have taken place on 24.04.2018. So on the date of offence, the victim was more than of 18 years.
11. The victim deposed that she married accused on STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 6 OF 8 29.04.2018 with her free consent. The prosecution itself has placed on record a document purporting to be a certificate of marriage between the parties issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Mukundpur, Part II, Delhi, which shows that parties had married each other on 29.04.2018. Those documents are accompanied by the affidavits of the accused and victim in which they declared themselves as major.
12. Statement of public witnesses namely Kavita Devi, Sarvesh and Munna Lal Arya have been admitted by the accused under section 294 Cr.P.C., as Ex.PX4, Ex.PX5 and Ex.PX3 respectively. As per Kavita, the accused used to drive ECCO van of a lady namely Meena Devi, who was known to her. The accused did not drive that vehicle for about 1 - 1 ½ months. After sometime, she saw a girl visiting the house of Meena Devi who had married with accused Kalu. Further statement of Kavita Devi is that the said girl used to talk to Meena Devi smiling. She had seen the victim wearing red bangles and applying sindoor. She concluded her statement saying that it was seeming from her conduct that the girl was not under pressure of anybody.
Statement of Sarvesh is to the effect that he saw victim in a situation in which a married woman lives. She used to wear red bangles and apply sindoor and she used to come to meet Meena Devi i.e. employer of the accused. Manveer's statement is to the effect that accused had married with the victim and he alongwith his bhabhi Geeta had stood witnesses to the marriage.
STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 7 OF 8 So, above witnesses also corroborate marriage between the victim and accused.
13. The victim nowhere deposed that the accused took her to a room in Mukundpur, when she was unconscious due to consumption of water served by him and he raped her there several times for two months.
14. In view of above discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Kalu is acquitted of the offence he was charged with.
15. The personal and surety bonds of accused is hereby cancelled. Surety is hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety, be cancelled and the document be returned to surety.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2020.01.25
GREWAL 16:41:04 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
on this 25thJanuary, 2020 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North)
Rohini Courts : Delhi
STATE VS KALU// S.C. NO.700/18//FIR NO.113/18//PSADARSH NAGAR 8 OF 8