Delhi District Court
State vs . Bablu Chauhan on 7 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 27/14)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0027422014
State Vs. Bablu Chauhan
FIR No. : 505/13
U/s : 376/506 IPC
& u/s. 10 of POCSO Act, 2012
P.S. : Maurya Enclave
State Vs. Bablu Chauhan
S/o Sh. Ganesh Chauhan,
R/o Jhuggi Ekta Camp,
AU Block, Pitampura,
Delhi.
Permanent r/o : Village Lagadi,
PS Vipur, District Banka,
Bihar.
Date of institution of case - 24.01.2014
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 07.05.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 07.05.2014
JUDGMENT :
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that accused Bablu Chauhan, who is the real father of victim K, a minor aged about 6 years, SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 1 of 20 2 sexually assaulted the victim K, at their residence on 21.12.2013 at about 3:00 PM. On the day of incident, PW4 Smt. Rekha, mother of the victim K, had gone for her work and when she returned back from work at about 5:00 PM, she found that her husband Bablu Chauhan had been apprehended by women from her neighbourhood. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW4 Smt. Rekha was told by her neighbourer PW14 Smt. Meenu that accused Bablu Chauhan had taken victim K in a vacant jhuggi and removed her pant and as he was about to do wrong act with her (victim K), the child started screaming, hearing which she (Meenu) went there and rescued victim K. The accused was given beatings by women and other persons from neighbourhood. On hearing this from PW14 Smt. Meenu, PW4 Smt. Rekha gave a call to police at 100 number and when police came to the spot, she made complaint Ex.PW4/A. The PW4 Rekha further alleged that accused had committed similar acts with victim K earlier also but had begged for her forgiveness. However, when he repeated his misdeeds on 21.12.2013, she (PW4 Rekha) was forced to report the matter to police. 2 After recording complaint Ex.PW4/A, the IO took victim K to Dr. BSA Hospital for her medical examination. The victim and her mother was also got counseled through NGO and thereafter case FIR was got registered in the present case. The accused was arrested and was further got examined at Dr. BSA Hospital and the samples taken from him, by the concerned doctor, were seized by the IO.
3 During the course of investigations, IO got the statement of victim SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 2 of 20 3 K recorded u/s.164 CrPC on 22.12.2013. Thereafter victim K was produced before concerned CWC from where she was handed over in custody of her mother. The exhibits of the case were got sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed in this Court. 4 After hearing arguments, charge for the offence under Section 9
(m) & (n) of POCSO Act punishable under Section 10 of POSCO Act, 2012 was framed against the accused. An alternative charge for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f)(i) r/w Section 511 IPC was also framed against the accused. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. 5 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses.
Victim and other public witnesses 6 The PW2, K is the victim child, aged about 6 years. Her statement was recorded in camera proceedings. It was ensured that the victim child was comfortable while deposing and for this purpose, certain preliminary questions were put to victim child K to ascertain her competence to depose as witness and to be satisfied that she understood the importance of speaking truth. After being so satisfied, her testimony was recorded on oath. In the relevant portion of her testimony, the PW2 stated as under : SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 3 of 20 4 "Q. Kya baat hua tha ?
Ans. Kuch nahi.
Q. Aap kyon roi thi ?
Ans. Kanta bhuk (pierced) gai thi. Maine nikal di."
7 Since the witness did not state anything about the alleged
incident, the learned Additional PP was permitted, on request, to ask certain leading questions from the witness. In response to the leading questions put by learned Additional PP, the witness stated as under : "Q. Khusboo aaj mummy ne mana kiya tha, ki papa ke bare me kuch nahi batana ?
Ans. The witness did not state anything but swayed her head side ways in an action reflecting "No".
Q. Kaya papa ne kabhi apki pant utari thi ?
Ans. Nahi.
Q. Kaya papa ne apke saath koi gandi baat
kari thi ?
Ans. Nahi. (At this stage, the witness pointed
towards the IO and said "ye mere papa ko nahi chod rahe, meri mummy kaam par rahti hai) Q. Kaya apke papa daru pite hai ?
Ans. Nahi
Q. Meenu Mausi koon hai ?
SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 4 of 20
5
Ans. Meenu mausi nahi hai, Mintu hai. Iski
behan hai. (the witness pointed towards her mother) Mausi ko fansa do.
Q. Mausi ka kaya naam hai ?
Ans. Kumkum ki mummy hai.
Q. Mausi ko kyon fansa de ?
Ans. Kyonki, we mere papa ko fansa diya.
Q. Kaya Meenu Mausi ne shor sunke, papa
se bachaya tha ?
Ans. Nahi. Kuch nahi kiya tha bus.
Q. Kaya police wali aunty aai thi ?
Ans. Nahi
Q. Kaya police tumhe doctor ke pass le gayi
thi ?
Ans. Haan.
Q. Kaya mummy ne bataya tha, ki aaj apko
kaya bolna hai.
Ans. Nahi. Mummy ne bhai ko aaj dandidandi
mara tha.
Q. Kyon mara tha ?
Ans. Kaam nahi karta, so kar nahi uthta."
8 At this stage, learned Additional PP requested for permission to
put questions to the witness qua her statement u/s.164 CrPC, however, SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 5 of 20 6 considering the tender age of the witness, said request was declined. 9 The witness was not crossexamined by the learned defence counsel.
10 The PW4, Smt. Rekha, is the mother of the victim child. She merely deposed that on the day of incident when she returned back from her work, she found her neighbourers gathered at her jhuggi and that she was asked to call the police. She further stated that nothing had happened with her daughter and she was instigated by her neighbour Meenu to lodge a complaint against her husband i.e. accused as a few days prior to the registration of case FIR, a quarrel had taken place between accused (husband of PW4) and husband of Meenu. The PW4 identified her signatures on her complaint Ex.PW4/A but denied contents thereof during her detailed crossexamination by learned Additional PP. 11 During her crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the PW4 termed it correct that she had signed on many blank papers as well as printed proformas at the instance of police and that since she was illiterate, she was not aware of the contents of the said documents. She further stated that none of the documents had been read over to her by the police. She also stated that she had given her statement before the learned MM at the instance of and upon tutoring by Smt. Meenu.
12 The PW14, Smt. Meenu, is the neighbour of the complainant SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 6 of 20 7 Smt. Rekha. She has been put forth as the witness to alleged sexual assault of the victim by the accused. This witness also failed to support the prosecution case and stated that on the day of incident, she was trying to sleep in the afternoon, after finishing her work, and that in the meantime, she heard noise of public persons, hearing which she came out of her jhuggi and that she brought the victim child from her jhuggi and gave food to her as the child had asked for the same. The PW14 further stated that the mother of the victim child used to go for work and generally returned back at about 5:00 PM and that when the mother of the child returned back, on that day, she handed over victim child to her. The PW14 stated that police had come to jhuggi of the complainant but she was not aware why it had come and who had called the police. She also stated that she had not told anything to the police but she was threatened to sign some papers by the police and was further told to depose in the Court as tutored by the police. 13 During her crossexamination by learned Additional PP, the PW14 stated that she was illiterate and that she did not have any enemity with the police or accused Bablu Chauhan. The PW14 was put contents of her statement u/s.161 CrPC i.e. Mark "X" in details, however, she denied having stated to the police that on 21.12.2013 when she came out of her jhuggi, she saw accused Bablu Chauhan, husband of complainant Rekha, present in an empty jhuggi, adjacent to her jhuggi, with his six year old daughter K or that accused had removed pant of child K at that time or that child K was crying bitterly when PW14 saw her. The PW14 further denied having stated in Mark "X" that she (PW14) and the other ladies rescued SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 7 of 20 8 victim K from accused, who was in an inebriated condition, apprehended him and gave him beatings having caught him red handed while attempting to commit wrong act with his daughter K. The PW14 also denied having told Rekha, mother of victim K, about the acts of the accused. The PW14 admitted having appeared before the learned MM for her statement u/s.164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW9/G. The PW14 also admitted that Rekha, mother of victim K, was her friend and that she was facing character assassination in the locality as she was living alone with her children and that she (PW14) could do anything to support her.
14 The PW15, Smt. Sushila, is the sister of PW4 Rekha. She merely deposed that at the time of incident, she was having 3 / 4 months pregnancy and generally remained confined to her jhuggi and that she did not know anything about the incident. Despite lengthy crossexamination of this witness by learned Additional PP nothing which could be of any aid to prosecution case could be brought out from the said crossexamination. 15 The PW9, Sh. Bhupinder Singh, learned MM, had conducted the proceedings u/s.164 CrPC and proved the same as Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/H i.e. the application filed by IO for recording of statement of victim child u/s.164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW9/A ; statement of victim child u/s.164 CrPC as Ex.PW9/B ; the certificate given by PW9 as Ex.PW9/C ; statement of mother of victim child as Ex.PW9/D ; the certificate given by PW9 on her statement as Ex.PW9/E ; another application for recording of statement of eye witness Smt. Meenu as Ex.PW9/F ; statement of Smt. Meenu u/s.164 SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 8 of 20 9 CrPC as Ex.PW9/G and the certificate given by PW9 on her statement as Ex.PW9/H. 16 The PW3, Ms. Priyanka Chaudhary, is a Welfare Officer of SJPU North West District, and deposed regarding the counseling of victim child and her mother. She proved her report as Ex.PW3/A. Doctor witnesses 17 The PW8, Dr. Brijesh Patel, CMO, was deputed in place of Dr. Vinod Kumar, then JR Casualty, who had conducted general medical examination of accused vide MLC Ex.PW8/A, under supervision of the PW8 and had referred the patient to forensic medicine department for potency test and sample collection and deposed regarding the same. He further deposed that during examination, there was no fresh external injury was seen on the person of the patient.
18 The PW7, Dr. Brajesh Narain Singh, CMO, was deputed in place of Dr. Rajesh Gadewal, then JR, who had conducted medical examination of accused vide MLC Ex.PW7/A, under supervision of the PW7 and deposed regarding the same. Some Court questions were put to the witness relating to alcohol intake by the patient / accused, which are as under : Court Ques.: Are there specific findings relating to SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 9 of 20 10 alcohol intake by the patient / accused ?
Ans. Yes, as per the observations made by Dr. Rajesh Gadewal on the MLC, the patient's gait was staggering and his speech was also slurred. He had impaired coordination and the breath analyzer showed presence of 242.7 mg per hundred ml reading for the patient for presence of alcohol.
Court Ques.: What is the level of alcohol in the blood beyond which the patient would show symptoms of drunkeness ?
Ans. Any reading beyond 150 mg / 100 ml shows that patient would be drunk but it also depends upon the tolerance of the patient towards alcohol. In the present case, the MLC reflects that the alcohol had effected the gait, speech as well as coordination in the patient."
19 The PW5, Dr. Mukesh Kumar, had conducted medical examination of the accused vide MLC Ex.PW5/A and opined regarding his sexual potency by observing that "there was nothing to suggest that the person examined is incapable of performing sexual intercourse." 20 The PW6, Dr. Bhavna Bansal, was deputed in place of Dr.Swati Jain, then SR Gyne, who conducted the gynecological examination of the victim vide MLC Ex.PW4/B. She further deposed that as per MLC, the SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 10 of 20 11 mother of the victim had refused for the gynecological examination of the victim.
Police witnesses 21 The PW10, W/Ct. Manju, was posted at PCR, CPCR PHQ at the relevant time and deposed that she had received call from 100 number regarding 'yaha par ek admi ne ek ladki ka rape kar diya hai' and proved the attested copy of PCR form, filled by her, as Ex.PW10/A. 22 The PW1, HC Liyakat Ali, was posted as duty officer at PS Maurya Enclave at the relevant time. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A, endorsement by him on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B and the DD entry No.36A as Ex. PW1/C. 23 The PW13, SI Anil Kumar, is the first investigating officer of the present case and deposed that after receiving DD No.32 A Ex.PW1/C, he along with Ct. Om Prakash, Ct. Ashok and W/Ct. Premwati went to Ekta Camp, AU Block Jhuggies, Pitampura, Delhi, where he met Smt. Rekha, who informed him that her husband i.e. accused had committed wrong act with her daughter, aged about 6 years, and that her daughter had been saved with the intervention of her neighbour Smt. Meenu. He further deposed that he had informed the facts to the SHO, who deputed W/SI Meenu Goel to the spot for further investigations.
SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 11 of 20 12 24 During the crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the PW13 deposed that he did not know who had made call at 100 number and that he had reached the spot at about 7:15 PM and that the IO W/SI Meenu Goel reached the spot at about 7:30 PM.
25 The PW16, W/SI Meena Goel, is the main investigating officer in th present case and she deposed regarding the investigations carried out by her and the documents prepared by her during the course of investigations. She deposed that on 21.12.2013 after receiving DD No.32 A Ex.PW1/C, she had gone to the spot i.e. jhuggies at Ekta Camp, AU Block, Pitampura, Delhi, where she met PW13 SI Anil Kumar, W/Ct. Premwati, Ct. Om Prakash and complainant Smt. Rekha w/o accused Bablu Chauhan and her minor daughter K, aged about 6 years. She then deposed that the accused Bablu Chauhan was also present there, having been apprehended and beaten by the public persons. The PW16 further deposed that after inquiry from Smt. Rekha, she recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A and that thereafter she (PW16) took the victim child and the complainant to BSA Hospital for the medical examination of the child. The PW16 then deposed that she got the victim child and her mother counseled from NGO Taruna Katariya in the hospital itself and that thereafter she made her endorsement on the statement of complainant and prepared rukka Ex.PW16/A and handed it over to Ct. Om Prakash for registration of the FIR at the PS. The PW16 further deposed that thereafter she along with the victim child and her mother and L/Ct. Premwati went to the spot where she prepared site plan Ex.PW16/B at the instance of victim and her mother and that in the SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 12 of 20 13 meanwhile, Ct. Om Prakash also returned back to the spot, after registration of case FIR, and handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to PW16. She further deposed that the complainant produced pant of victim child, which she was wearing at the time of incident, before her which was taken into possession and was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of SP and thereafter seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. The PW16 then deposed that she arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/F and conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/G and that thereafter the accused was got medically examined through Ct. Om Prakash from BSA Hospital and that after his medical examination, the concerned doctor handed over the exhibits of the accused to PW16 which were seized by her vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/C. The PW16 further deposed that the wearing pant of accused was also seized by her, after sealing the same in a pullanda with the seal of SP, vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. 26 The PW16 further deposed that on 22.12.2013, she produced the accused before the concerned Court from where he was remanded to JC and that she got recorded the statement u/s.164 CrPC, of victim child and her mother Rekha, on the same day.
27 The PW16 then deposed that on 23.12.2013, she also got recorded statement of Smt. Meenu u/s.164 CrPC i.e. Ex.PW9/G and that the victim child was again got counseled from SJPU North West District. SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 13 of 20 14 28 The PW16 further deposed that on 26.12.2013 she produced the victim child before CWC Kingway Camp from where the custody of victim child was handed over to her mother vide order Ex.PW16/D. She also deposed that she had recorded the statement of witnesses Meenu, Sushila, Rekha and victim child K as per their version and that nothing was added or deleted by her while recording their statements u/s.161 CrPC. She proved the statement of Rekha as Ex.PW16/E1 to Ex.PW16/E3 ; statement of Smt. Sushila as Ex.PW16/F1 and Ex.PW16/F2 ; statement of Meenu as Ex.PW16/G1 and Ex.PW16/G2 and statement of victim child K as Ex.PW16/H. 29 The PW16 further deposed that she got the exhibits of the present case deposited in FSL Rohini through Ct. Jaidayal and that on 10.04.2014 the potency test of accused was got conducted after seeking permission from the Court.
30 During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the PW16 deposed that she had received call at about 7:10 PM and that at that time she was working as duty officer and that she had reached spot at about 7:25 PM and that there were about 60 - 70 public persons at the spot and that she had made two public persons namely Meenu and Sushila as witnesses in the case and that no other public person was joined by her in the investigations. She further deposed that she prepared rukka at the spot and thereafter she went to the hospital for medical examination of the victim. SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 14 of 20 15 31 The PW11, Ct. Jaidayal had deposited the exhibits of the present case with FSL, Rohini, vide RC No.143/21/13 and deposed regarding the same.
32 The PW12, HC Jayroop, was posted as MHCM at PS Maurya Enclave at the relevant time. He produced the original register No.19 and proved the relevant entries regarding deposit of the case property and sending the same to FSL Rohini as Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/C. 33 After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Bablu Chauhan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Meenu, who had a quarrel with him on earlier occasion and that no such alleged incident had ever taken place. The accused declined to lead any evidence in his defence.
34 Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State. 35 Learned Additional PP has contended that even though prosecutrix as well as material public witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case, no adverse inference can be drawn as the victim and her mother were facing financial crises after arrest of the accused and that they had no source of income to maintain the family. It is also stated that the other people residing in the locality of jhuggi cluster of victim and her mother SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 15 of 20 16 used to indulge in her character assassination and that due to social and financial pressure the public witnesses failed to support the prosecution case and it is thus prayed that the statements u/s. 164 CrPC of victim K, her mother Rekha, Mausi Smt. Sushila and neighbour Smt. Meenu be relied upon and and accused be convicted for the charged offences. 36 On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has contended that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt as all the material prosecution witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case. It is accordingly prayed that the accused be acquitted of the charged offence. 37 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP as well as learned counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
38 In the present case, accused Bablu Chauhan, who is father of victim child K, aged about 6 years, is alleged to have sexually assaulted the victim child K on 21.12.2013. The incident is stated to have occurred at about 3:00 PM and was reported to the police on the same day. The present case was registered against the accused on complaint made by PW4 Smt.Rekha, wife of accused Bablu Chauhan and mother of victim K. In the said complaint Ex.PW4/A, Smt. Rekha stated that on the day of the incident SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 16 of 20 17 when she returned back from her work at about 5:00 PM, she found that her husband had been apprehended by woman from the neighborhood. One of her neighbourers namely PW14 Smt. Meenu told PW4 Smt. Rekha that accused had taken child K to an empty jhuggi and had attempted to commit wrong act with her by removing her pant, however, child K started crying hearing which Smt. Meenu went and rescued her. The accused was giving beatings by women and boys from the neighborhood. The PW4 Smt. Rekha alleged that accused had attempted to commit such wrong act with child K earlier also but had begged of forgiveness from her, however, since he had again acted in this manner, she was forced to file her complaint. 39 It is evident from complaint Ex.PW4/A, the version which Smt. Rekha reiterated only partly during her testimony before the Court as PW4, that PW4 Smt. Rekha is not an eye witness to the incident and whatever she has stated, in her complaint Ex.PW4/A, was told to her by Smt. Meenu. The prosecution produced Smt. Meenu for her examination before the Court and she deposed as PW14, however, Smt. Meenu has failed to support the prosecution case. The relevant portion of testimony of PW14 Smt. Meenu has been reproduced in foregoing paragraphs. In her testimony before the Court the PW14 merely stated that on the day of incident, she went out of her jhuggi on hearing noise of public persons and brought victim child K from her jhuggi and gave her food as the child had asked for the same. She further stated that in the evening when the mother of the victim child came she handed over the victim to her.
SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 17 of 20 18 40 The prosecution has also put forth Smt. Sushila, sister of complainant, as a material public witness as she too is stated to have been present in the locality at the time of the incident and had been told by the women from the neighborhood that accused had attempted to commit wrong act with victim K in a state of inebriation. This witness was produced before the Court and was examined as PW15, however, she too failed to support the prosecution case and stated that she did not know anything about the incident.
41 As far as complainant PW4 Smt. Rekha is concerned, though she has supported the prosecution case, about the manner of apprehension of the accused by women and other persons from her locality, she denied that she had been told by her neighbour Smt. Meenu that she had seen accused while he was attempting to commit wrong act with the victim child K. She also denied that accused had committed such acts on earlier occasions as well but had asked PW4 to forgive him.
42 The victim child K, however, is the star prosecution witness. Learned Additional PP has contended that the family of victim child K has been facing extreme depriavations due to incarceration of the accused and that the neighbourers and other persons from the locality have been harassing the mother of victim K by indulging in her character assassination and due to this reason victim child K, complainant Smt. Rekha as well as the other public witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case. The submissions made by learned Additional PP cannot be sustained since the SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 18 of 20 19 Court is in the first instance required to be satisfied that the version given by the victim child K is unblemished and not influenced by any iota of tutoring. When the testimony of victim child K, as reproduced hereinabove, is perused, it is seen that victim child K has completely exonerated accused of all the allegations of sexual assault. In her statement, she has innocently stated that the IO has kept her father in confinement and that Smt. Meenu (PW14) was responsible for falsely implicating the father of victim child K. Subsequently, the PW4 Smt. Rekha also stated in her testimony that she had acted on tutoring by PW14 Smt. Meenu. Thus the element of tutoring which is evident from the statement made by victim child K as PW2, is firmly established from testimony of PW4.
43 Even otherwise the statement of victim child K u/s.164 CrPC is in total contradiction of her testimony before the Court. In her statement u/s. 164 CrPC Ex.PW9/B, the victim has stated that on the previous night (night prior to the day she appeared before learned MM), her father had done a wrong act with her after removing her pant. She further stated that earlier also her father had removed her pant and that she had been saved by Smt. Meenu, mausi. The contradictions in the two statements of victim i.e. her statement u/s.164 CrPC Ex.PW9/B and her testimony as PW2 definitely lead to conclusion that at least one of these two statements is a result of tutoring and in these circumstances either of the two statements cannot be relied upon without due corroboration. The testimony of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution namely PW4 Smt. Rekha, PW14 Smt. Meenu and PW15 Smt. Sushila corroborates the version given by the victim child K SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 19 of 20 20 in her testimony as PW2 before the Court. None of the public witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the version given by PW2 in her statement Ex.PW9/B made before the learned MM. In these facts and circumstances, the contention of learned Additional PP that the version given by the PW2 in her statement Ex.PW9/B ought to be considered for coming to conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, cannot be upheld. The only conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Bablu Chauhan on record, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquit accused Bablu Chauhan for the charged offences.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 07.05.2014) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 20 of 20
21
FIR No. 505/13
P.S. Maurya Enclave
07.05.2013
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Statement of accused u/s.313 CrPC recorded. Accused does not want to lead evidence in his defence.
Arguments heard.
Judgment shall be passed during the course of the day.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi At 4:15 PM Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused produced from JC with counsel Sh. Sanjay Kumar. Vide separate judgment, announced today in the open Court, accused Bablu Chauhan has acquitted of the charged offence. He is in J.C. He be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any case or proceedings.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 07.05.2014 SC No. 27/14 State Vs. Bablu Chauhan Page No. 21 of 20