Delhi District Court
State vs Yad Ram @ Raju S/O Kajorh on 17 December, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.08.2007
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT: 17.12.2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17.12.2007
SESSIONS CASE NO. 827/07
FIR NO. 400/07
PS-PUNJABI BAGH
U/S. 363/376/506 IPC.
STATE V/S YAD RAM @ RAJU S/O KAJORH
RAM, H.NO. F-53, MADIPUR J.J.
COLONY, DELHI.
JUDGMENT
Accused Yad Ram @ Raju S/o. Kajorh Ram R/o. H.No.F-53, Madipur J.J. Colony, Delhi has been chargesheeted by PS- Punjabi Bagh, to face trial for offences punishable under section 365/376/506 IPC.
1. Criminal law was set into motion of a DD lodged by complainant Mohini that her daughter 'V'(real name concealed) aged about 18 years had been missing since 29.5.2007. Subsequently 2 complainant made a statement in the PS on 03.06.2007 expressing suspicion on one Yad Ram S/o;. Kajorh Ram. As per prosecution case prosecutrix 'V' was recovered from the custody of the accused on 03.06.07. She was medically examined. Her statement was recorded wherein she stated that she had been abducted by accused and taken to Haridwar and subjected to rape. On her statement FIR, under section 363/376/506 was registered. During investigation statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by the learned MM, wherein she reiterated her submissions as made to the police. Finding sufficient material against the accused he was chargesheeted.
2. After compliance with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed to the court of Sessions, which in turn was assigned to this Court.
3. Vide order dated 07.09.2007 charge was framed for offence punishable under section 366/376 IPC to which accused pleaded 3 not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined the prosecutrix and the complainant as PW1 & PW2 respectively. PW1 resiled from her previous statement. Despite cross examination by the learned APP for the State, she did not support the prosecution case. Statement of PW2 does not help the prosecution. In such circumstances prosecution evidence was closed by order. For ready reference the order closing prosecution evidence is reproduced herein below:
"PW1 & PW2 examined, cross examined and discharged. At this stage, Sh. Sameer Chandra prays for prosecution evidence to be closed as the prosecutrix and the complainant have not supported the prosecution case. Sh. Sanjay Soni has opposed the prayer on the ground that other public witnesses and officials are available and their evidence may support the prosecution case. It is submitted that PW Brij Kishore who is present may be examined.
Heard. Since the prosecutrix who is the most important prosecution witness as regards the 4 present offence has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically deposed that she does not know the accused and was never kidnapped or raped by him. There shall be no useful purpose served by recording remaining prosecution witnesses. PE is, therefore, closed."
5. Nothing incriminating having come up against the accused his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
6. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Soni, learned APP for the State and Sh. Sameer Chandra learned defence counsel. Prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed that she had not been abducted or raped by the accused. She had left the house of her mother voluntarily and had gone to house of her Masi. She refused to identify the accused, and deposed that she did not know him. She further deposed that she has now married and living at her matrimonial home. Complainant Mohini (PW2) proved her complaint, but deposed that she had named the accused under suspicion and that her daughter was not recovered from the custody of accused.
5It is the case of the prosecution itself that prosecutrix was born on 22.11.1988 and was, therefore, 18 ½ years old at the time of occurrence.
7. Considering the fact that prosecutrix was major at the time of occurrence, coupled with the fact that she has totally turned hostile to the prosecution case, even denying abduction and rape; I am of the opinion that, accused deserves benefit of doubt. Prosecutrix being the sole witness to the occurrence being the victim herself, has denied the entire prosecution version. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that, prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. He is accordingly acquitted. He be discharged from custody forthwith if not required in any other case. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
i.e. 17.12.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.
6
FIR NO.400/07
PS-PUNJABI BAGH
U/S.363/376/506 IPC.
STATE VS YAD RAM @ RAJU
17.12.2007
Present: APP for the State with the IO.
Accused in JC with Sh. Sameer Chandra,
Advocate.
PW1 & PW2 examined, cross examined and discharged. At this stage, Sh. Sameer Chandra prays for prosecution evidence to be closed as the prosecutrix and the complainant have not supported the prosecution case.
Sh. Sanjay Soni has opposed the prayer on the ground that other public witnesses and officials are available and their evidence may support the prosecution case. It is submitted that PW Brij Kishore who is present may be examined.
Heard.
Since the prosecutrix who is the most important prosecution witness as regards the present offence has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically deposed that she does not know the accused and was never kidnapped or raped by him. There shall be no useful purpose served by recording 7 remaining prosecution witnesses. PE is, therefore, closed.
Since nothing incriminating has come up against the accused his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Vide a separate judgment Accused is acquitted. He be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.
2.15 PM At this stage, Dr. Pbebe Wallace and Dr. Brijesh Singh are present discharged unexamined as accused already stands acquitted.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.