Delhi District Court
State vs Tajuddin @ Taju on 30 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST,
NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0021602015
SC No. 17/15 Date of assignment : 27.01.2015
FIR No. 1703/14 Date on which arguments
PS. Seemapuri were heard : 30.03.2015
U/S. 109 r/w sec.376 (2)(n)/ Date of judgment : 30.03.2015
506/377 IPC & u/s 9 ITP Act
State Versus Tajuddin @ Taju
S/o late Khan Mohmad
R/o Jhuggi No. E-59/207, Kalander
Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution as disclosed in the chargesheet is that on 29.11.2014, the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint at PS Seemapuri wherein she made following allegations:-
(a) Prosecutrix was married with the accused Tajjuddin on 17.08.1999. She had three children i.e. two sons and one daughter out of this wedlock. Accused kept SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 1 of 11 the prosecutrix in a proper manner in the matrimonial home for about seven or eight years. Thereafter the accused developed habit of drinking liquor and gambling.
He made the prosecutrix indulge in prostitution to which the prosecutrix used to object.
(b) In December, 2012, husband of the prosecutrix brought an unknown person and asked the prosecutrix to make physical relations with that person. Accused also brought an acid bottle and threatened the prosecutrix that if she will not make physical relations with that person, he will throw acid on the prosecutrix and her daughter. Accused pressurised the prosecutrix to maintain physical relations with that person. Accused also took Rs. 2000/- from that person. Thereafter the accused used to bring different persons at night and compelled the prosecutrix to make physical relations with those persons. Due to fear, the prosecutrix did not state anything to any person for the sake of her children and reputation in society. The prosecutrix has also alleged that the accused used to perform sex in natural and unnatural manner against her will. Prosecutrix requested that action be taken against her husband and the unknown persons.
2. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR No. 1703/14 under sections 376/377/109/506/34 IPC and under SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 2 of 11 section 9 of ITP Act was got registered against the accused at police station Seemapuri. After registration of the case, the prosecutrix was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded on 11.12.2014. During investigation, accused Tajuddin was arrested and he disclosed the name of two persons as Naushad and Gabru who made physical relations with his wife for money at his instance. Search was made for those persons but they could not be traced out.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under sections 376/377/109/34/506 IPC was filed against the accused.
4. Since the major offence in this case was triable by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 20.01.2015, the learned M.M. committed this case to the Court of Sessions and on allocation, it was assigned to this court.
5. Vide order dated 09.03.2015, a charge under sections 506/377 IPC and under section 109 read with section 376(2)(n) IPC and also under section 9 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 3 of 11
6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined one witness i.e. the prosecutrix as PW1.
7. PW1 (prosecutrix) has not supported the case of the prosecution on material particulars. She deposed that she got married with accused Tajuddin on 17.8.1999 and she has three children out of this wedlock. She further deposed that after marriage accused kept her in proper manner for about seven or eight years and he used to give his earnings to her for household expenses. She further deposed that after that the accused stopped giving her money for household expenses. Prosecutrix further deposed that she was facing financial crisis during that period to maintain herself and her children. Thus, on 28.11.2014 she went to the police station Seemapuri for lodging a complaint against the accused. At that time the police officials asked her to prepare a complaint of her own. Thus on 29.11.2014 she went to a typist and got prepared a complaint against the accused. She further deposed that she signed the said complaint without going through the contents of the same. Thereafter she reached the police station and handed over the said complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police. Prosecutrix further deposed that after registration of the case, police officials told her that a SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 4 of 11 case of rape by other persons at the instance of her husband and also for committing sex in unnatural manner by the accused has been registered against the accused. The prosecutrix further deposed that at that time she informed the police that nothing had happened with her and asked them as to why such case has been registered against her husband. She further deposed that she informed the police that she only wanted to lodge a complaint against the accused for her harassment and causing cruelty on her for not maintaining her and her children. The prosecutrix was taken to GTB Hospital where she was got medically examined. After some days, she was taken to the court for recording of her statement by the learned MM. This witness further deposed that before recording of her statement, the police officials asked her to repeat the same allegations as made in her complaint. She has further deposed that she made her statement Ex.PW1/D before the learned MM at the instance of police officials which was not true. Prosecutrix deposed that accused never committed unnatural sex with her nor she was sexually exploited or raped by other persons at the instance of accused. She deposed that accused never made her indulge in prostitution. She also deposed that accused never threatened to pour acid on her or her daughter.
SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 5 of 11
8. Since the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution on material aspects, she was cross examined by the learned Addl. PP for the State. During her cross examination also, the prosecutrix has denied that the accused had pressurised her to indulge in prostitution. She has also denied that in December, 2012 accused had brought an unknown person at home and he threatened the prosecutrix that if she will not establish physical relations with that person, he would throw acid on her and her daughter. Prosecutrix has also denied that the accused used to bring other persons at his house and used to compel the prosecutrix to make physical relations with those persons. She also denied that she was beaten and turned out from the matrimonial home by the accused and thereafter he performed second marriage with some other girl. Prosecutrix maintained that accused never beat her and he did not perform second marriage. Prosecutrix has denied that she has been won over by the accused persons.
9. During her cross examination on behalf of accused, she deposed that she and accused made physical relations with each other with her free will and consent as accused is her husband. Prosecutrix has also deposed that SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 6 of 11 she wants to live with accused and their children. She also deposed that she has no grievance against the accused.
10. In the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW1), no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused to show that he had committed the charged offences.
11. Perusal of chargesheet and material attached with the chargesheet would show that the remaining prosecution witnesses were the police officials who were involved in the investigation of this case, the doctors who had medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused and the learned MM who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. None of these witnesses have personal knowledge about the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the accused. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution, no useful purpose would have been served in examining the remaining witnesses. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
12. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 7 of 11 and perused the record.
13. The accused is facing trial for the commission of offences punishable under sections 109 IPC read with sections 376(2)(n) IPC and under sections 506/377 IPC and also under section 9 ITP Act.
14. As far as the offence punishable under section 109 IPC read with section 376(2) (n) IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix during her deposition has denied that the accused compelled her to make physical relations with other persons. She further deposed that after their marriage, the accused kept her properly for about seven or eight years and also used to give his earnings to her. She has also deposed that thereafter accused stopped giving her money for household expenses and some disputes arose between them. Prosecutrix further deposed that she was facing financial crisis to maintain herself and her children. Prosecutrix has deposed that she was never sexually exploited or raped by other persons at the instance of accused. Thus, no incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence punishable under section 109 IPC read with section 376(2)(n) IPC. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 8 of 11 section 109 IPC read with section 376(2)(n) IPC.
15. Insofar as offence under section 506 IPC for extending threat to the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecutrix in her evidence has denied that the accused threatened her to throw acid on her and her daughter if she will not make physical relations with the other persons brought by the accused. The prosecutrix has maintained that accused never threatened her in any manner. In the statement of the prosecutrix no, incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 506 IPC. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 506 IPC also.
16. As far as offence punishable under section 377 IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix deposed that she and the accused made physical relations with each other as per her free will and consent as accused is her husband and she has three children from this wedlock. She has denied that the accused committed unnatural sex with her. During her cross examination on behalf of accused also, this witness maintained that the accused did not perform unnatural sex or anal intercourse with her. MLC Ex.PW1/B dated 29.11.2014 of prosecutrix records that the alleged incident SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 9 of 11 of unnatural sex was six months back. There is no evidence to substantiate the allegation of unnatural sex by the accused as is otherwise apparent from the MLC Ex. PW1/B of the prosecutrix and the medical opinion dated 23.12.2014 of the doctor of GTB Hospital in this regard. Thus, no incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 377 IPC. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 377 IPC also.
17. As far as offence punishable under section 9 ITP Act is concerned, the prosecutrix deposed that the accused never compelled her to make physical relations with other persons. Even during cross examination on behalf of State also, the prosecutrix has maintained that the accused did not compel her to make physical relations with his friends. No incriminating evidence has come on record to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 9 ITP Act. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 9 ITP Act.
18. In view of above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 10 of 11 accused for the offences punishable under sections 109 IPC read with section 376(2)(n) IPC, under sections 506/377 IPC and also under section 9 ITP Act. Thus, accused Tajuddin @ Taju is acquitted of the charge of having committed offences punishable under sections 109 IPC read with section 376(2)(n IPC, under sections 506/377 IPC and also under section 9 ITP Act. It is ordered accordingly.
19. Accused is stated to be in judicial custody. He be released if not required in any other case.
20. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 30.03.2015 (SARITA BIRBAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.17/15 State vs. Tajuddin @ Taju page 11 of 11