Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Kumar on 7 September, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,
ASJ-01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Case ID No.02403R0231202015
SC No.9248/2016
FIR No. 616/15
PS : Sagar Pur
U/sec. 363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act'12
In re :
STATE
Vs.
Vijay Kumar son of Shri Vinod Kumar
Resident of Village Ramdashpur,
Post- Inayatpur, Distt. Sultanpur, UP. ....Accused
Date of filing of charge sheet : 31.10.2015
Date of framing of charge : 02.11.2015
Date of judgment : 07.09.2016
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment I will dispose of case of the prosecution based on FIR NO. 616/15, P.S. Sagar Pur.
2 The brief facts of the case as per investigation/charge State Vs. Vijay Kumar 2 sheet are that on 10.08.2015, the father of the prosecutrix reported to SHO PS Sagar Pur that his daughter prosecutrix X aged about 14 years is missing since 09.08.2015 and somebody kidnapped her. On these facts FIR was got registered. During investigation, prosecutrix X was found with accused. Accused was arrested. charge-sheet was filed in the court against the present accused.
3 Cognizance of the offences was taken. Accused was provided with the copies of the charge sheet and documents. After hearing the arguments on charge, charge under Section 4 POCSO Act and in alternative u/sec.376 IPC read with Sec.363 IPC was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 To prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses.
5 PW1 Prosecutrix X deposed that she knew accused as she was her neighbour. On 09.08.2015, accused met her near the house of accused. She along with accused went to Gurgaon. Till 10.00 p.m., she could not return to her house. She became afraid and thus went to the house of accused Vijay at his native village at Gurgaon. She remained at the house for four days. No physical relation took place between her and accused Vijay. She further deposed that she went with the accused on her own. Parents and family members of prosecutrix X reached Gurgaon and brought State Vs. Vijay Kumar 3 her. She was medically examined vide MLC Ex.P-4. She was sent to Nirmal Chhaya. On 17.08.2015, she came to the court of Ld. MM from Nirmal Chhaya and her statement Ex.PW1/A u/sec.164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
As she was not deposing in terms of her statement in investigation, she was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State. However, she had not supported the case of the prosecution.
6 PW2 Father of prosecutrix X deposed that he is labour by profession. Prosecutrix X left the home on 09.08.2015 and did not returned back till 10.08.2015. He lodged missing report Ex.PW2/A. He along with police officials went to the native village of accused Vijay and got the prosecutrix recovered.
7 PW3 WSI Asha Rani deposed that on 19.08.2015 she was posted at PS Sagar Pur. ASI Lal Bahadur produced the accused. The investigation of the case was handed over to her. She interrogated the accused. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. Accused was sent for his medical examination to DDU Hospital with Ct. Dharam Raj. Ct. Dharam Raj got the medical examination done and handed over her the copy of MLC Ex.P-5. On 14.09.2015, she handed over the case file to MHCR as she went for long leave.
8 PW4 Ct. Dharam Raj deposed that on 19.08.2015 he State Vs. Vijay Kumar 4 was posted at PS Sagar Pur. He took the accused for medical examination.
9 PW5 HC Rakesh deposed that on 13.08.2015 he was posted at PS Sagar Pur. He along with Ct. Rishi Pal and Wct. Sarita went to Sultanpur, UP. On inquiry from the village Sultanpur, UP, it was found that accused as well as victim remained there for two days and then left for Delhi. On 15.08.2015 victim and accused were apprehended at New Delhi Railway Station.
10 PW6 ASI Lal Bahadur deposed that on 10.08.2015 after receipt of DD no. 9A he along with Ct. Surinder went to the spot i.e. near Pir Baba Majar, Kailashpuri Chowk. On inquiry, it was revealed that father of the prosecutrix had gone to the police station. The father of the prosecutrix gave complaint Ex.PW2/A. He made endorsement Ex.PW6/A. Duty Officer get the FIR registered and handed over to him computer copy of FIR Ex.P-1, certificate u/sec.65-B IEA Ex.P-2 and original rukka. He translated the wireless message regarding missing of prosecutrix and got obtained the photograph of victim.
On 15.08.2015 HC Rakesh produced the accused and victim before him. Victim was sent to DDU hospital with Ct. Ruchika. She was medically examined vide MLC Ex.P-4. She refused to undergo internal medical examination. Victim was sent State Vs. Vijay Kumar 5 to Nirmal Chhaya.
On 17.08.2015, he moved the application Ex.PW4/A for getting recorded the statement of prosecutrix/victim u/sec.164 Cr.P.C. He moved an application Ex.PW4/C for getting the copy of statement u/sec.164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the investigation was marked to WSI Asha Rani.
11 PW7 Inspector Saroj Bala deposed that on 03.09.2015 she was posted at PS Sagar Pur. On that day, case file was handed over to her. She completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.
12 Following documents were admitted by accused/counsel for accused u/sec.294 Cr. P.C. and were read as evidence:-
Serial Description of Number Admitted Remarks Exhibit/s No. document/s of pages /denied by court, if any
1. Copy of FIR 2 Admitted To be Ex. P-1 read in evidence
2. Certificate u/s 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-2 65B of Indian read in Evidence Act evidence issued by DO
3. MLC of victim 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-3 prepared by Dr. read in Adhikari evidence State Vs. Vijay Kumar 6
4. Report of Dr. 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-4 Deepika, Sr. read in Resident, evidence Department of Obs. And Gyne belonging to victim
5. MLC and potency 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-5 test of accused read in conducted by Dr. evidence Nishit
6. Proceedings u/s 4 Admitted To be Ex. P-6 164 Cr.P.C read in conducted by Ms. evidence Gomati Manocha, the then, Ld. MM
7. Admission form of 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-7 victim submitted read in by her in evidence Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya No.2, Sagarpur showing date of birth of the victim as 10.03.2000
8. School leaving 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-8 certificate of the read in victim evidence
9. Admission and 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-9 withdrawal read in register of MCD evidence primary School
10. Affidavit sworn by 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-10 State Vs. Vijay Kumar 7 mother of victim in read in MC Primary evidence School
11. Statement of 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-11 W/Ct. Ruchita read in evidence
12. Statement of 1 Admitted To be Ex. P-12 W/Ct. Meera read in evidence 13 On account of the admission/denial of documents, following witnesses were dropped by the prosecution:-
1. Dr. Deepika As her report is already exhibited as Ex. P-4
2. Dr. Adhikari As her report is already exhibited as Ex. P-3
3. Ms. Gomati Manocha As her proceedings are already exhibited as Ex. P-6
4. HC Virender As his report is already exhibited as Ex. P-1 and Ex.
P-2
5. Dr. Nishit As his report is already exhibited as Ex. P-5
6. Principal, SKV No.2, As the record is already Sagarpur exhibited as Ex. P-7, Ex.P-8
7. Principal, MC Primary As the record is already school, Sagarpur exhibited as Ex. P-9 and Ex.P-10
8. W/Ct. Ruchita As her statement has already State Vs. Vijay Kumar 8 been admitted by the accused as Ex. P-11
9. W/Ct. Meera As her statement has already been admitted by the accused as Ex. P-12 14 After the closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. In this statement all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
15 I have gone through the record, evidence and submissions forwarded by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. My observations are as under:-
16 In this case it is not disputed by the prosecution as well as the accused that the age of prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on 09.08.2015. So in these circumstances provisions of POCSO Act are attracted.
17 As far as the testimony of prosecutrix is concerned, she had stated that she had herself gone to the house of accused on 09.08.2015 and remained there for four days. Similarly, she had deposed that no physical relations ever took place between her and accused. She was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State but she had denied all the questions/suggestions put to her.
State Vs. Vijay Kumar 9 18 In these circumstances, prosecution failed to prove the facts of kidnapping of prosecutrix by the accused. Similarly, prosecution failed to prove that any physical relation took place between accused and the prosecutrix.
19 So accused Vijay Kumar is acquitted for the offences u/sec.363 IPC, Sec.376 IPC and Sec.4 POCSO Act.
20 Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. furnished and accepted for six months.
21 Copy of order be given dasti to prosecution.
22 Earlier Bail Bond stands discharged. Surety discharged. Documents, if any, be released to rightful claimant, as per procedure.
23 File be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED In the open Court (RAKESH PANDIT) today i.e. 07.09.2016 ASJ-01/New Delhi District Patiala House Courts/New Delhi State Vs. Vijay Kumar 10 SC No.9248/2016 State Vs. Vijay Kumar FIR No. 616/15 PS : Sagar Pur U/sec. 363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act'12 07.09.2016 Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar Ld. APP for State.
Sh. Asim Ali LAC for Accused.
Accused present on bail.
Vide separate order announced and dictated in open court, accused Vijay Kumar is acquitted for the offences u/sec.376 IPC read with Sec.363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act'12.
Bail Bond u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. furnished and accepted fro six months.
Copy of order be given dasti to prosecution.
Earlier Bail Bond stands discharged. Surety discharged. Documents, if any, be released to rightful claimant, as per procedure.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi District 07.09.2016 State Vs. Vijay Kumar