Delhi District Court
State vs Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 1 Of 10 on 9 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
S.C.NO.47/1/11
FIR No. 213/10
U/s 376/506 IPC
PSPalam Village
State
Vs.
Kushal Kumar Singh
S/o Sh Binay Kumar Singh
H.No.RZH 602 Gali no.16
Raj NagarII, Palam Colony
New Delhi
...... Accused
Challan filed On : 26.04.2011
Received by Sessions Court: 05.07.2011
Judgment Delivered on: 09.02.2012
JUDGMENT
Accused Kushal Kumar Singh had been sent up by the Police of PS Palam Village to the court of Ld.MM for the commission of offence punishable u/s 376/506 IPC. This case was triable by the court of State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 1 of 10 FIR NO.213/10 sessions, so it was committed by the Ld.MM on 03.06.2011 and received by the court of sessions on 05.07.2011.
2. The facts in brief of the prosecution's case are that on 23.10.2010, Ms. Jyoti Arora, prosecutrix had filed a written complaint Ex.PW4/A before SHO PS Palam Colony wherein she has alleged that She met Kushal Singh in the year 2008 when she was a student of Arena Animation, Janakpuri. Kushal started following her and proposing her for marriage but she was not interested and she used to avoid. Later on they became friends and used to go around with other friends. It has further been alleged that in the month of April 2010, Kushal took her to his house to introduce to his parents. When she reached there nobody was there. She waited for his parents to come. Kushal gave her something to eat and after taking the same she became semi unconscious. It has further been alleged that thereafter Kushal had committed sexual act with her against her consent and wish. It has further been alleged that Kushal has given her some medicine to eat forcibly and asked her not to tell anyone otherwise he will defame her and her family.
State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 2 of 10 FIR NO.213/10It has further been alleged that she was again forced to have sex by the accused by blackmailing her and he has also taken some photographs of her and even booked the room in hotel corporate park five/six times using her I.D where he committed rape upon her without her consent since she was under threat. She was blackmailed by saying that accused is having her nude pose. It has further been alleged that accused has prepared MMS in his mobile and with the help of same he started blackmailing her. It has further been alleged that on the basis of MMS and photographs, the accused started blackmailing her and started demanding money from her and she used to stole money from her brother business which used to be kept at house and she started giving him. It is further the case of the prosecution that later the prosecutrix came to know that she is pregnant. She told about this to accused who again started blackmailing her that he will inform the people of the area and past the photos. He took away Rs.8/10 lacs in total and when she could not bring money from her house, he took away forcibly her two sets of gold ear rings and gold chain and once she brought two ginnis of gold and gave to him under fear and threat. It has further been alleged that accused used to tell her that he will return all the articles State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 3 of 10 FIR NO.213/10 and photos but he is still blackmailing her and he again demanded Rs.3.00 lac more to return MMS and photos. He has threatened her that he has put the MMS on computer and if he does not meet his demand then he will circulate on the internet. It has further been stated that when the accused did not stop blackmailing, the prosecutrix informed her parents and under their help and guidance, she has filed the complaint. On this written complaint, IO made her endorsement and got the case registered vide FIR no. 213/10. The investigation was done. The prosecutrix was taken to DDU Hospital where her medical was conducted. After medical examination, vaginal swab, pubic hair and pregnancy slide were seized and prosecutrix was found pregnant. Her pregnancy was got terminated after taking her consent. Accused Kushal was arrested. The statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded by the Ld. MM. After completion of the investigation challan was filed.
3. The accused Kushal Kumar Singh was charged u/s 376/506 IPC on 01.09.2011 by Ms. Ravinder Kaur, the then Ld. ASJ, to which the accused pleaded State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 4 of 10 FIR NO.213/10 not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in support of its case in all has examined 4 witnesses. PW1 Dr. Aruna Singh has examined the prosecutrix Jyoti and prepared her MLC Ex.PW1/A. She has also appeared for Dr. Bhatacharya who had prepared the MLC of accused Kushal Kumar Singh. The MLC is Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 Dr. Sarabjeet has also examined the prosecutrix Jyoti and he did not find any fresh injury on the person of Jyoti. Her vitals were normal. He has stated that the patient was unmarried and 8 week pregnant which was confirmed later on by her ultrasound.
6. PW3 Dr.Shashi Lata Maheshwari Nee Kabra has deposed that on 25.10.2010 she conducted the MTP of prosecutrix Jyoti vide details Ex.PW3/A. She has preserved the POC with formalin for biopsy, POCs with normal saline for DNA testing and blood in plain vial.
State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 5 of 10 FIR NO.213/107. Pw4 Ms.Jyoti is the prosecutrix and she has deposed that She know the accused. She met him in the year 2008 at Arena Animation. There they came closer and had love affair. After sometime they could not continue their relationship. She went into depression. Thereafter some of her friend wrote a complaint and obtained her signatures upon it which she signed without going through the same as she was in depression due to her break up with accused. She admitted her signatures on the complaint Ex.PW4/A. She has further stated that she never had any physical relationship with the accused. She had also given said statement in the court however, she had given the same at the behest of her friend and it was not voluntarily given by her and the said statement is not correct. She does not want to say anything else. She admitted her signatures on statement u/s 164 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW4/B. PW4 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State. The statement Ex.PW4/A was read over to her but she denied having made the same to the police. She admitted about conducting of her medical examination . She has denied each and every other suggestions put by the Ld. APP for the State.
State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 6 of 10 FIR NO.213/108. In view of the testimonies of the witnesses PW4 is the victim/complainant in this case but she did not level any allegation against the accused. She did not stated that accused has ever forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her while she is the star witness of the prosecution. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State but no fruitful has come out. Other PW1 to PW3 are formal witnesses being doctors who examined the prosecutrix. Ld. APP for the State made request to examine more witnesses in this case. But in consideration of the testimony of PW4 who is the victim in this case, I am of the view that it would be futile exercise of the court as no fruitful would come out by examining the other witnesses. Therefore the request of Ld.APP to examine more witness has been declined and prosecution evidence was closed. In consideration of the testimonies of PW1 to 3, I find no incriminating evidence against the accused in this present case so, his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
9. From perusal of the testimony of PW4 Jyoti, it is revealed that she is the complainant/Victim & star State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 7 of 10 FIR NO.213/10 witnesses of the prosecution case but she has not supported the version of the prosecution case. It is well settled law that victims/complainant are the best witnesses to give the true and correct version of the prosecution case and there does not seem any plausible reason to disbelieve such witnesses. But in this case PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution. It is held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Raj Kumar Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 that: 'Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot be regarded as reliable and trustworthy witness of the occurrence' It is also held by Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. Delhi Admn. 1997 Criminal Law Journal 108(SC) CC Cases that : 'When the prosecution witness gives two different statements in their testimonies either at one or two suggest, therefore the testimony become unreliable and unworthy of credit and in the absence of any circumstances no conviction could be made therein'.
State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 8 of 10 FIR NO.213/1010. In consideration of the above observations observed by the Hon'ble Apex court and Hon'ble High court and in consideration of the testimony of PW4 Jyoti she is not reliable and trustworthy in respect of the prosecution version.
11. In the present case PW4 is the star witness of prosecution case. In fact she is the backbone of the prosecution case and the entire prosecution case rests upon her testimony but she has not supported the prosecution case from any corner & other PWS are formal witnesses.
12. In overall analysis of the prosecution witnesses testimony of PW4 who is Complainant/victim her testimony is unworthy of credit and in the absence of any circumstances & in consideration of the testimonies of above Pws and on the basis of evidence on record the accused cannot be convicted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and on the perusal of the testimony and version of prosecution the case of the prosecution seems to be doubtful against the accused.
State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 9 of 10 FIR NO.213/10There is no substantive evidence against accused in this case.
13. From the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given above, I give the benefit of doubt to the accused Kushal Kumar Singh and acquit him from the charges levelled against him u/s 376/506 IPC. Accused is on bail. So, his bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 09.02.2012 (SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) South West District DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI State Vs.Kushal Kumar Singh Page No. 10 of 10 FIR NO.213/10