Delhi District Court
Sc No. 219/13 State vs Umesh Verma Page No. 1 Of 6 on 19 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 : SE
DESIGNATED JUDGE: TADA/POTA/MCOCA/POCSO: SAKET
COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY : MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE ID NO. 02406R0353482013
SESSIONS CASE NO. 219/13
FIR NO. 165/13
POLICE STATION : LODHI COLONY
UNDER SECTION : 363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
UMESH VERMA
S/O SH. KAMAL VERMA
R/O BEGA BOND, DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.12.2013.
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 19.08.2014.
DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2014.
J U D G M E N T
Case of Prosecution:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.10.2013 complainant Smt. Promila W/o Late Sh. Suraj Yadav R/o Rain Basera near Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi lodged a missing complaint of her daughter namely 'K' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) aged about 16 years to the police. She stated that on 15.10.2013 at about 8.30 PM her daughter 'K' left the house without SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 1 of 6 disclosing anything to anybody. She searched her but she could not be found. She made suspicion upon one person namely Umesh to have taken her daughter with whom her daughter 'K' used to talk. On the statement of complainant, case was registered. Missing information of prosecutrix was uploaded on Zip Net and WT message was got flashed. Investigation of the case was then handed over to W/SI Sunita. During investigation, on 07.11.2013 secret informer gave information that accused Umesh is working as Guard in the Metro at Sector12, R.K. Puram. On this information, SI Sunita along with police staff and complainant reached there and at pointing out of complainant, accused was questioned by the IO who then stated that he took the prosecutrix and made physical relations with her and now 'K'/prosecutrix is living with him at Madrasi Jhuggi, Sector12 , R.K. Puram. At the instance of accused, prosecutrix 'K' was recovered and accused was arrested. Both accused and prosecutrix were medically examined from AIIMS Hospital where prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded and was got counselled through CWC as well as Prayas, NGO. Prosecutrix was handed over to her mother by the order of CWC, Chairperson. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 363/376 IPC & 4 POCSO Act was filed against the accused in the court. Charge against the accused:
2. Prima facie case under section 363 IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC was made out against the accused.SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 2 of 6
Charge under Section 363 IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined:
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses in all. The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:
4. PW1 is W/Ct. Guddi who had deposed that on 07.11.2013 on the instructions of IO, she reached AIIMS Hospital where IO handed over prosecutrix 'K', she got the prosecutrix medically examined in the presence of the mother of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix refused to undergo the gyane test. Thereafter they came back to the police station where IO recorded her statement.
5. PW2 is Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary who deposed that on 07.11.2013 at about 6.15 PM patient/accused was brought to Forensic Medicine by Ct. Krishan Mohan and he medically examined him/accused and thereafter prepared detailed MLC Ex.PW2/A. Upon examination he opined that there is nothing to suggest that the person examined was incapable to perform sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.
During the course of medical examination, he collected the blood in gauze, underwear (dark blue), penile swab with control which were preserved, sealed, signed and handed over to the police along with sample seal.
6. PW3 is Dr. Juhi Bharti who deposed that on 07.11.2013 at about 5.30 PM patient/prosecutrix 'K' was brought to the casualty of SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 3 of 6 AIIMS Hospital by W/Ct. Guddi however, the prosecutrix refused for her gynaecological examination. She prepared the detailed MLC Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 is Ct. Krishan Mohan who deposed that on 07.11.2013 on the information of secret informer, he along with IO and the complainant Promila Devi reached at Sector12, R.K. Puram at the metro side where at the pointing out of secret informer, accused Umesh was apprehended. IO interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/B. Accused made disclosure statement vide disclosure memo Ex.PW4/C and on that disclosure statement they recovered the prosecutrix. IO got both accused and prosecutrix medically examined. After medical examination, doctor handed over three pullandas sealed with the seal of hospital along with the sample seal to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. IO sent the prosecutrix to NGO, Prayas and recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. He stated that he was entrusted the process of prosecutrix 'K'. He visited the place where he came to know that prosecutrix no longer stays there. He recorded the statement of caretaker of Rain Basera namely Rajni Ex.PW4/E and one other inhabitant namely Zubeda Begum Ex.PW4/F. He stated that his detailed report Ex.PW4/G has been filed in the court.
8. During the examination of prosecution witnesses, Prosecutrix 'K' and her mother Smt. Promila could not be served despite issuing summons through IO. Both the prosecution witnesses were also summoned on their native address through IO/SI Sunita but both were not traceable at the mentioned address. IO/SI Sunita had appeared in the court and gave her statement that summons of both the prosecution SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 4 of 6 witnesses were sent for execution in Delhi as well as in Bihar but the witnesses are not traceable despite best efforts. IO submits that she has no objection if the proceedings were dropped.
Conclusion:
9. Perusal of the file reveals that PW Promila and prosecutrix 'K' are the only material witnesses of this case. Apart from them, remaining witnesses are the formal witnesses including PW Jalaluddin, owner of the jhuggi where the accused and the prosecutrix allegedly stayed together projecting themselves as husband and wife. In the absence of the statements of star witness prosecutrix 'K' and the complainant Promila, the statement of Jalaluddin cannot prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, even if, the statement of remaining witnesses are recorded, it cannot bring home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it is futile to record the statement of remaining witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution evidence stands closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused is dispensed with.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances, accused is acquitted of the offence under section 363 IPC, 4 POCSO Act and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC.
11. In view of the Section 437A of Cr.P.C, 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 SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 5 of 6 of revision/appeal, if any.
12. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.08.2014.
( RENU BHATNAGAR ) DESIGNATED JUDGE TADA/POTA/MCOCA ASJ SE01/NEW DELHI SC No. 219/13 State Vs Umesh Verma Page No. 6 of 6