Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Kumar on 22 October, 2011
State vs. Rakesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Sessions Case No. 61/11
FIR No. 344/09
ID No. 02406R0223912011
PS: Sangam Vihar
U/s 302/201/34 IPC
State Vs. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Lekh Raj,
R/o Village Chitli Tehsil, Khair
District, Aligarh, U.P.
Present Address: House No. A42,
Kalindi Kunj, PS Kotwali City,
District Bulandsahar, U.P.
Date of institution : 30.08.2011
Date of Judgment : 22.10.2011
JUDGMENT
The accused Rakesh Kumar has been put to trial for the SC No. 61/11 1/5 State vs. Rakesh Kumar offence U/s 302 IPC and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations that somewhere in July 1998, he alongwith his accomplices namely Ravinder @ Vicky, Dilawar and Om Prakash had committed murder of Ms. Suman and disposed off the corpus of the deceased Suman to conceal the commission of the offence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Ravinder @ Vicky was arrested in the case FIR No. 309/99, U/s 25 of the Arms Act on 26.07.1999 and during the course of investigation, he had disclosed that about two years back, his associate i.e the accused present in court had brought a girl namely Suman aged about 20/22 years and they started living as husband and wife. The prosecution case was that one Om Prakash @ Bittoo and Dilawar had also committed sexual recourse with that girl namely Suman. After passage of some time, Suman started insisting upon Rakesh Kumar to marry her and threatened that in case he would not marry her, he would make a complaint to the police. Thereafter, the accused Rakesh Kumar alongwith his accomplices namely Ravinder @ Vicky, Om Prakash @ Bittoo and Dilawar (who had faced the trial in this case and have been acquitted vide judgment dated 30.05.2001), conspired to kill Suman and they took her to a hilly area within the jurisdiction of PS Sangam Vihar and kill her. It is further alleged that at the instance of the accused persons and pursuant to their disclosure statements, the bones of the SC No. 61/11 2/5 State vs. Rakesh Kumar deceased, her hairs, bangles and metallic paajeb were recovered from the hilly area behind MBlock, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. Thereafter, the case was registered against the accused persons and after the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
3. Prima facie, a case U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was made out against the accused and accordingly he was charged for the said offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
4. The prosecution had examined four witnesses. PW1 was Kishore Kumar. PW2 was Inspector Subhash Malik. PW3 was Inspector Vijay Shrotriya and PW4 was Inspector Sukhbir Singh Rana. All these witnesses are formal in nature except PW1 who was the material witness of the prosecution. However, PW1 has not supported the prosecution case. He has deposed that the accused Rakesh Kumar had taken one room on rent in his house about 10/12 years ago and had remained there for only 1015 days. He denied the suggestion by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that he had brought one lady namely Suman and had introduced her as his wife. He further denied the suggestion that he had ever seen Suman and she ever stayed with the accused Rakesh Kumar in the tenanted room. So, despite the cross examination of this material witness of the prosecution, nothing could come in favour of the SC No. 61/11 3/5 State vs. Rakesh Kumar prosecution case.
5. The another public witness on which the prosecution was placing reliance was Ram Prasad who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. However, as per the report submitted by Inspector Subhash Malik, he has now expired. It may be noted here that when the accomplices of the accused Rakesh Kumar namely Ravinder @ Vicky, Dilawar and Om Prakash @ Bittoo were put to trial, Ram Prasad had appeared as PW2, however, he had not supported the prosecution case at all. He had categorically stated at that time, that he does not know anything about the case and despite his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, nothing could be extracted from him in favour of the prosecution case.
6. Since the material witness of the prosecution has already expired and another public witness has not supported the prosecution case, the evidence was closed by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused to connect him with the commission of the offence. Therefore, the statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is not required to be recorded. The prosecution has failed to bring anything on the record to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him. Thus, the accused Rakesh Kumar stands SC No. 61/11 4/5 State vs. Rakesh Kumar acquitted of the charge U/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He is in custody. Be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated: 22nd October, 2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South
East Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 61/11 5/5