Delhi District Court
State vs . Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 1 Of 6 on 1 February, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Unique ID No. 02406R0300492013
SC No. : 8/2014
FIR No. : 688/2012
U/s. : 376/506 IPC
PS : Govind Puri, New Delhi.
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
........................ Complainant.
Versus
Pratik Roy Chaudhary
S/o Pulak Roy Chaudhary
R/o Flat No. 757, 2nd Floor,
Shakti Khand-4, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
.........................Accused person.
Date of Institution : 9-1-2014
Judgment reserved for orders on : 1-2-2014
Date of pronouncement : 1-2-2014.
JUDGMENT
1. On 21-12-212 the prosecutrix had filed a complaint against the accused with the SHO P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi, stating , interalia, that :
"I met the accused for the first time on 21-7-2-11 at a meeting of people of S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 1 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012 P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi
-:: 2 ::-
Bengal of Delhi and NCR group at Metro Enclave, Saket, New Delhi, where we exchanged our mobile numbers and facebook id(s).
Thereafter the accused started calling me and sending SMS(es) a lot. He proposed to marry me. My parents also liked the accused when they saw his profile on the facebook. We decided to get married in the year 2013. Thereafter our relations grew up and I even talked to the father of accused who also agreed to marry the accused with me. Accused used to address me as his wife on the facebook messages. In October, 2010 we went to Kolkata and stayed there for a day. However, on 4-11-2012 accused came to my house and raped me. On 13-11-2012 accused also made me talk to his father. However, after that accused started ignoring me and did not reply me on phone and even blocked his facebook id and had threatened me. Accordingly, I filed this complaint."
S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 2 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012
P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi
-:: 3 ::-
2. On the basis of the above complaint, FIR bearing no. 688/2012, under section 376 IPC was registered at P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi. However, during investigation the accused was arrested. On 17-2-2013 they both married. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed.
3. Since it is a Session's triable case, it was committed to this court. On 18-1-2014, a charge under 376 IPC was framed against accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Today the following two witnesses are examined :
PW1 HC Banwari Lal, on 23-12-2012, had taken the accused to AIIMS for his medical examination. The exhibits given to him along with sample seal by the doctor were seized the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW1/A. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW2 and she had deposed that she met the accused for the first time on 19-7-2012 at a meeting of group of people of Bengal at Metro Enclave, Saket, New Delhi and they exchanged their phone numbers and gradually develop friendship and had S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 3 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012 P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi
-:: 4 ::-
started chatting on facebook. Initially she refused the proposal of marriage but accused kept on insisting her. They then discussed the matter with their parents and their relations moved further. They came close to each other. She talked to the father of accused and only thereafter she accepted the marriage proposal of accused. During the Durga Pooja in October, 2012 they both went to Kolkata. On 4-11-2012 accused came to her house and they had lunch together and then they made physical relations with her consent as he assured that he would marry her soon. However, as accused delayed the marriage, she made a complaint out of anger and rage as she wanted the marriage to be solemnized at the earliest. However, she admitted that whatever happened with her, had happened only with her consent. She further deposed that now she had married with accused and both are living happily and she do not have any problem.
During cross examination PW2 denied that accused ever raped her and rather reiterated that she had filed the complaint Ex.PW2/A on account of anger and rage due to some misunderstanding between the two. She S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 4 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012 P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi
-:: 5 ::-
admitted that she had made the complaint Ex.PW2/A as also given the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, proved as Ex.PW2/B. She also admitted that on 22-12-2012 the accused was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW2/C and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW2/D. Since the prosecutrix is the only public witness in the present case and since she had married with accused and had not supported the case of the prosecution and rather had categorically deposed that she made this complaint due to anger and rage as there being misunderstanding that accused may not marry her, but nevertheless accused later in February, 2013 he had married with the prosecutrix and now that she is happily living with him. Hence, now it would be a futile exercise to examine other formal witnesses and thus I close the prosecution evidence. Since nothing incriminating had turned against the accused, so his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case especially the deposition of the prosecutrix, the accused stands acquitted of the charge under section S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 5 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012 P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi
-:: 6 ::-
376 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled ; surety discharged.
Accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e. 1-2-2014. ( Yogesh Khanna ) ASJ-Spl. FTC / Saket Courts New Delhi.
S.C. No. 8/2014 State vs. Pratik Roy Chaudhary Page No. 6 of 6 FIR No. 688/2012 P.S Govind Puri, New Delhi