Delhi District Court
Sc No. 169/14 State vs Hussain Page No. 1 Of 5 on 24 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 : SED:
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA/POCSO:
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID NO. 02406R0234732014
SESSIONS CASE NO. 169/14
FIR NO. 323/14
POLICE STATION : NEW FRIENDS COLONY
UNDER SECTION : 376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
HUSSAIN
S/O SHAMSUDDIN,
R/O 272 JHUGGI, PAHARI NO. 2,
TEMOOR NAGAR, DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.09.2014.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 24.09.2014.
DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2014.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.01.2014 on receiving DD No. 42B at about 01.20 PM and DD No. 43B at about 1.22 PM regarding a quarrel, ASI Devendra Singh reached at the spot. W/SI Seema also reached there. W/SI Seema took the victim/prosecutrix 'K' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) to AIIMS Hospital and SC No. 169/14 State Vs Hussain Page No. 1 of 5 got her medically examined. Medical documents were collected and statement of victim/prosecutrix 'K' was recorded wherein she stated that she is residing with her parents and studies in 11th class at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Sarai Julena. One person namely Hussain runs godown of kabadi near her house. She often used to meet accused while going to school and they started talking on phone and used to meet each other.
Accused Hussain on the pretext of marriage took her to a guest house at Ashram Chowk and made physical relations with her without her consent. On 21.07.2014 accused made a phone call to her and called her at the gate of Meera Bai College on 22.07.2014 at about 7 AM. She came there and met the accused. Accused Hussain then took her to the same Guest house at Ashram Chowk and on the pretext of marriage made physical relations with her. She told the entire facts to her mother who called up the police and narrated the incident. On the statement of victim/prosecutrix 'K' case was registered against the accused. Site plan was prepared at the instance of victim. Accused was arrested. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded and he was medically examined at AIIMS Hospital. Exhibits were got deposited in FSL, Rohini for examination. Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act was filed against the accused in the court. Charge against the accused:
2. Prima facie case under Section 4 POCSO Act was made out against the accused. Charge under Section was framed upon the accused SC No. 169/14 State Vs Hussain Page No. 2 of 5 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
4. PW1 is Sh. Vinod who deposed that he used to clean Sahil Palace guest house and also used to work in the kitchen. On 22.07.2014 accused Hussain came to his guest house with a girl at about 7 AM/7.30 AM. The accused made payment of Rs. 1200/ for taking a room in the guest house. He knows the accused prior to 22.07.2014 as he visited in his guest house three/four times earlier also. On that day, he did not made any entry in the register. Accused Hussain went inside the room of the guest house with the girl. During examination, witness turned hostile.
Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material has come out in the cross examination of the witness.
5. PW2 is prosecutrix 'K' who deposed that she is the youngest and she has two brothers and one sister. She was studying in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Julena in July 2014 in 11th class. She knows the accused Hussain who was residing in her neighbourhood. On 22.07.2014 she had gone to school. Hussain was also not present in his house. Family members of Hussain had mistook that she had gone along with accused Hussain and when she returned from school, his family members were quarreling with her family members. On asking of family members of accused Hussain of his whereabouts she stated that she is not aware of the same. Thereafter, family members of accused started quarreling with SC No. 169/14 State Vs Hussain Page No. 3 of 5 her. She clarified them that she had no relations with Hussain but despite that, they called the police. The police came and took her to police station. She stated to the police that she has no relations or affair with Hussain but the police officials insisted her and took her for medical examination though she stated that nothing wrong had happened with her. Police got her medically examined and also stated her to state before the magistrate that Hussain had made relations with her. She narrated the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C at the instance of police who told him to make that statement otherwise she will be in trouble. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the court. During examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material has come out in the cross examination of the witness.
6. PW3 is Ms. Kamlesh, mother of the prosecutrix 'K' who deposed that she is working as Maid. On 22.07.2014 a quarrel had taken place between her and accused Hussain and wife of accused Hussain namely Muskan on which she made a call at 100 number. She stated that nothing else had happened. She stated that she does not know anything about the present case. During examination, witness turned hostile. Ld. APP for the state has cross examined the witness but nothing material has come out in the cross examination of the witness.
Conclusion:
7. Perusal of the file reveals that PW2 prosecutrix 'K' and PW 3 Kamlesh are the only material witnesses who both have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. PW1 Vinod is a formal witness however he has also turned hostile. PW2 prosecutrix has denied SC No. 169/14 State Vs Hussain Page No. 4 of 5 that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on her on the promise of marriage. The mother of prosecutrix PW3 has also denied the allegations. Apart from these three star witnesses, remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Even if, the statement of remaining witnesses are recorded, it cannot bring home the guilt of the accused. It is futile to record the statement of remaining witnesses. Hence, prosecution evidence stands closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act.
9. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.PC, accused is directed to furnish bail bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount for the period of six months with the condition that he shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court as and when notice be issued in respect of any appeal filed by the state against the judgment within a period of 6 months. Case property be confiscated to the state after expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any. File be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.09.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR ) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA/POCSO ASJ01/SED/NEW DELHI SC No. 169/14 State Vs Hussain Page No. 5 of 5