Delhi District Court
State vs Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 1 Of 11 ::- on 10 February, 2015
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 03/2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014
State
versus
Mr.Tanvir Ahmed @ Dabloo ,
Son of Mr. Zabuddin
Resident of A-38, Som Bazar, Vikas Nagar,
Ranhola, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 833/2014
Police Station Ranhola
Under sections 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 15.12.2014
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this : 12.01.2015.
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 10.02.2015.
Date of judgment : 10.02.2015.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed is on bail with counsel,
Mr.Riyazuddin and Mr. Zainul Abideen.
Prosecutrix is present.
Ms. Shubhra Mehndiratta, counsel for DCW.
IO/SI Savita is present.
***********************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014
FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola
Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 1 of 11 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there."...........Kurt Cobain **************************************************************
1. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for the offence under section 325, 323, 308, 452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 21.02.2012 at unknown time and place accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity)under the false promise to marry her and thereafter accused had physical relations with her several times till June, 2014 under a false promise to marry her. Between October, 2011 and June, 2014 accused had taken money from the prosecutrix ranging between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5000/- on the pretext of buying books and had taken a laptop, mobile, bracelet and ring from her which were not returned to her and cheated her. In July, 2014 when the prosecutrix asked accused to marry her, he threatened her against making any complaint or report to the police otherwise he would kill her and her family.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Mr.Tanvir Ahmed was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.12.2014 and after its committal, the case has Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 2 of 11 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 12.01.2015.
3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 31.01.2015, charge for offence under sections 376 read with section 417, 420 and 506 of the IPC was framed against the accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she had met accused Tanvir Ahmed for the first time on 28.10.2012 as he was living in her neighbourhood and he had visited her shop at A-42, Som Bazar, VikasNagar, Ranhola to buy some cosmetic. Gradually, they developed friendship and they started meeting each other. She had physical relations with the accused with her free consent. She had proposed to accused and he had rejected her Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 3 of 11 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
proposal due to which she was very upset and talked to her friends about it. Some of them suggested her to lodge a complaint against the accused. SheI do not remember the name of the friend who had suggested her to make a complaint against the accused. She stated that due to wrong advise and at the instance of her well wishers and friends, she had gone to Police Station Ranhola and made a complaint ( Ex. PW1/A) against the accused. She had written the complaint herself and give it to the police. The complaint ( Ex. PW1/A) was drafted by her at the instance of her well wishers and friends due to some misunderstanding between her and accused. She further stated that she was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital for her medical examination. She was produced before Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for her statement under section 164 Cr.PC (Ex. PW1/B) and her statement was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She voluntarily stated that she had made this statement at the instance of her well wishers, on their wrong advise. She further stated that the accused has not committed any offence. Accused has not raped her on a false promise of marriage. She submitted that she had physical relations with accused with her free consent. She do not have any grievance against the accused since he has not committed any offence. She pray that the accused may be acquitted.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
8 In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, the prosecutrix has denied the suggestion that the accused had physical relations with her on a false assurance of marriage (witness is confronted Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 4 of 11 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
with the complaint Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded.) She further denied the suggestion that she had made the complaint before the police on her own and not at the instance of her well wishers/friends. She admitted that she had stated before learned Metropolitan Magistrate as she was pressurized by the well wishers to depose in the manner in which she has made a complaint before the police. She denied the suggestion that she has given statement before Ld. MM voluntarily and with her free consent and not at the instance of my well wishers. She admitted that she had told the facts to the doctor at the time of her medical examination. She voluntarily stated that whatever she had stated to the doctor it was at the instance of her well wishers and friends. She denied the suggestion that she has given statement before doctor voluntarily and with her free consent and not at the instance of her well wishers. She has denied the suggestion that on 21.11.2012 accused committed rape upon her under the false promise to marry her and thereafter he had physical relations with her several times till June, 2014. She has denied the suggestion that between October, 2011 and June, 2014 accused had taken money ranging between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5000/- from her on the pretext of buying books and he had also taken a laptop, mobile, bracelet and ring from her, which were not returned to her. She has further denied the suggestion that in July, 2014 when she asked the accused to marry her, he threatened her to kill, if she made any complaint to the police. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as she has settled the matter with the accused.
9. She has also been cross examined on behalf of accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed and she has admitted that the accused has not committed any Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 5 of 11 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
offence and has not raped her on the false pretext of marriage. She stated that accused has never taken any article or money from her. She has admitted that accused had physical relations with her with her free consent. She has admitted that the accused is innocent. She has again prayed that the accused may be acquitted.
10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused or that he had cheated her by taken money ranging between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5000/- and articles i.e. Laptop, mobile,bracelet and ring from her. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and nor deposed anything incriminating against the accused Mr.Tanvir Ahmed. She has deposed that she had physical relations with the accused with her free consent. She has deposed that the accused is innocent and has also prayed that he may be acquitted. She has even prayed for his acquittal.
11. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused and has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, has not supported the prosecution case and are hostile.
Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 6 of 11 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C the accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
13. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr.Tanvir Ahmed has committed rape upon the prosecutrix on 21.02.2012 at unknown time and place under the false promise of marriage and thereafter he had Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 7 of 11 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
physical relations with prosecutrix several times till June, 2014 under a false promise to marry. Between October, 2011 and June, 2014 accused had taken money from the prosecutrix ranging between Rs. 500 to Rs. 5000/- on the pretext of buying books and had taken a laptop, mobile, bracelet and ring from her which were not returned to her and cheated her. In July, 2014 when the prosecutrix asked to marry her, accused threatened her against making any complaint or report to the police otherwise he would kill her and her family.
17. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
18. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed is guilty of the charged offence under sections 376, 417, 420 and 506 of the IPC. There is no material on record to show that accused Mr.Tan- vir Ahmed has committed rape upon the prosecutrix on 21.02.2012 at un- known time and place under the false promise of marriage and thereafter he had physical relations with prosecutrix several times till June, 2014 under a false promise to marry. Between October, 2011 and June, 2014 accused had taken money from the prosecutrix ranging between Rs. 500 to Rs. 5000/- on the pretext of buying books and had taken a laptop, mobile, bracelet and ring from her which were not returned to her and cheated her. In July, 2014 when Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 8 of 11 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
the prosecutrix asked to marry her, accused threatened her against making any complaint or report to the police otherwise he would kill her and her family.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prose- cution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prose- cution has failed to establish the offence of rape, cheating or threaten to kill her and her family. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improba- ble that such an incident ever took place. She has categorically deposed that she had physical relations with the accused with her free consent. She has even prayed for his acquittal.
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed for the offence under sections 376, 417, 420 and 506 of the IPC.
21. Consequently, accused Mr. Tanvir Ahmed is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under sections 376, 417, 420 and 506 of the IPC.
22. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
23. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 9 of 11 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
24. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
25. Here, I would also like to mention that in recent times a new expression is being used for a rape victim i.e. a rape survivor. The prosecutrix, a woman or a girl who is alive, who has levelled allegations of rape by a man is now called a rape survivor. In the present case, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape, after trial, as the prosecutrix retracted and turned hostile. In the circumstances, such a person, an acquitted accused, who has remained in custody for a considerable period during inquiry, investigation and trial and who has been acquitted honourably after the prosecutrix has deposed that he has not raped her and she had physical relations with him with her free consent, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor? This leaves us with much to ponder about the present day situation of the veracity of the rape cases.
26. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
27. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 10 of 11 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 10th day of February, 2015. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 03 of 2015.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0676052014 FIR No. 833/2014, Police Station Ranhola Under section 325, 323, 308, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Tanvir Ahmed -:: Page 11 of 11 ::-