Delhi District Court
Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) Scc 475" ... vs . State Of U.P. on 9 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02401R0220032016
Sessions Case No. 31/2016
Assigned to Sessions. 23.04.2016
Arguments heard on 09.06.2016
Date of Judgment 09.06.2016
FIR No. 498/2015
State v. Mohd. Jahur Hussain S/o. Sh. Ali Ahmad
R/o. Gali No.20, CBlock, Kamalpur,
Kamal Vihar, Burari, Delhi.
Police Station Kashmere Gate
Under Section 376(2) (n)(f)/312 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case Station House Officer of Police Station Kashmere Gate had filed a challan vide FIR No.498/2015 dated 18.02.2015 u/s 376(2) (n)(f)/312 IPC for the prosecution of accused Mohd. Jahur Hussain in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and section 207 Cr. P.C. had already been complied with by Ld. M.M. Since, this court is a Fast Track Court for trial of the cases pertaining to crime against woman, hence this case was sent by Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to this court for trial. Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Supreme court in "State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name of prosecutrix is not being given in the judgment. SC No.31/2016
State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 1/7
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2015 the prosecutrix along with her mother approached the Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi and gave her complaint for registration of the FIR. In her complaint the prosecutrix stated that she was residing with her mother, brother and sister on the given address and her father being a govt. servant used to reside in govt. quarter at GPO Post for the last 5 years. She further stated that accused is son of her Bua and that her marriage was finalized with him in their childhood and that the family of the accused was residing in Bihar. Prosecutrix further stated in the said complaint that the accused had been residing at her said house for last two years and during that period they became close friend and accused established physical relationship with her stating that if such thing can be done after marriage, there is nothing harm in doing the same before marriage. Prosecutrix further stated in her said complaint that accused established physical relationship with her for the first time at her aforesaid house (govt. quarter) at about 02:00 am and thereafter they indulging establishing physical relationship regularly. She further stated that she along with her family used to sleep in the same room and accused used to come on the bed of the prosecutrix and in the meantime, she developed pregnancy of 5 months and when she told this fact to the accused, he brought medicine and gave it to her for termination of pregnancy but nothing happened and that thereafter accused took her to a doctor at Burari and got her treated. SC No.31/2016
State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 2/7 Thereafter, the accused took a room on rent in Burari and started living there with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix further stated in her said complaint that her father passed away three years ago. She further stated that whenever she talks about her marriage with the accused he and his parents put demand of Rs.2 lacs and gold chain. They further told her that they would only let the accused marry to her after fulfilling the said demands. She further stated that her mother had already given Rs.50,000/ to the parents of the accused on 12.09.2015. Prosecutrix further stated that accused demanded the remaining amount of Rs.1.5 lacs and that unless and until this amount is paid to him this marriage will not be solemnized. Prosecutrix further stated that her parents also visited the house of the accused at Bihar after complete preparation of the marriage but the parents of the accused threw the belonging of her parent. Prosecutrix further stated in her said complaint that she wishes the accused to marry her else legal proceedings be initiated against him.
3. The police officials of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi called a counselor from NGO and gave counseling to the prosecutrix and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint a Zero FIR was registered under section 376/312 IPC. Since the jurisdiction of the present case was found lying with PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi the said FIR was sent to PS Kashmere Gate along with relevant documents. SC No.31/2016
State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 3/7
4. Victim was also got medically examined by the police of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi. The statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded by the Magistrate at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on the same day.
5. The present FIR was registered on the basis of the said Zero FIR and complaint of the prosecutrix at PS Kashmere Gate bearing FIR No.498/15 and the matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed under section 376/312 IPC against the accused.
CHARGE:
6. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 08.06.2016 framed a charge against accused Mohd. Jahur Hussain for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(n)(f)/312 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
7. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 01 witness namely prosecutrix 'Z' as PW1 .
8. PW1 Prosecutrix 'Z' is a material witness being victim. She deposed that accused present in the court is son of her Bua and her marriage with the accused SC No.31/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 4/7 was finalized during her childhood. She further deposed that they developed friendship and became intimate as their marriage was earlier finalized. She further deposed that accused established physical relationship with her with her consent several times during his stay at her and from the physical relation of the accused she also became pregnant.
9. PW1 further deposed that accused never demanded any money or jewellery articles to materialize his marriage with her. However, her mother had given him Rs.50,000/ to meet out the expenditure of her marriage without his demand and no quarrel had ever taken place with regard to any demand to solemnize the marriage between her and accused.
10. This witness has proved her complaint vide Ex.PW1/A. This witness has also proved MLC vide Ex.PW1/B.
11. This witness has also proved carbon copy of statement under section 164 Cr.PC vide Ex.PW1/C.
12. This witness has got been declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State but even during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness has not supported the case of prosecution on any point.
SC No.31/2016
State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 5/7
13. This witness had denied to the suggestion that accused had established physical relationship with her for the first time at her house without her consent stating that there is nothing wrong in it as he was about to marry her or that thereafter, accused had established physical relationship with her repeatedly on the assurance of marriage. This witness had denied to the suggestion that when she reminded the accused to marry her, he and his parents demanded cash of Rs.2 lacs and gold chain to solemnize her marriage with the accused or that she had also stated true facts of the case in her statement Ex.PW1/C recorded by the Magistrate at Karkardooma Court or that she have been won over by the accused, deliberately concealing the true facts of the case and deposing falsely.
14. Ld. counsel for accused requests to close P.E. as prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State seeks permission to examine other material/public witnesses to the prove the incident in question. Heard.
16. Since, material witness i.e. PW Prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution and from the perusal of testimony of aforesaid PW no incriminating evidence could come on record to connect the accused with the present case and SC No.31/2016 State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 6/7 further trial would serve no purpose, hence, request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State declined and P.E. is closed.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
17. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that present case was registered on the complaint of victim. It is further revealed that PW1 prosecutrix has been examined and prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution on any fact. From the close scrutiny of testimony of prosecutrix, it is also revealed that no any incriminating evidence could come on record to proceed further.
18. Hence, S.A. u/s 313 Cr. P.C. is dispensed with. Accused Mohd. Rizwan is acquitted from the charges u/s 376(2) (n)(f)/312 IPC. He is directed to execute bail bond u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. in sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
19. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.06.2016 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.31/2016
State Vs. Mohd. Jahur Hussain 7/7