Delhi District Court
Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) Scc 475" ... vs . State Of on 31 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
Case No. 311/2018
State V Rupesh Ranjan s/o Ramanand
Singh, r/o. H. No.D288, Nehru
Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. 300/2016
U/s 376/506 IPC
Police Station Timarpur
Assigned to Sessions 26.04.2018
Charges framed on 10.05.2018
Arguments heard on 29.08.2019
Judgment pronounced on 31.08.2019
Decision Acquittal.
Appearance : Sh. Ateeq Ahmad, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Randhir Kumar Singh, ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT:
1. That, the case of the prosecution is that, the Station House Officer of Police Station Timarpur had filed a chargesheet before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide FIR No. 300/2016 dated 25.06.2016 u/s. 376/506 IPC for the prosecution of accused Rupesh Ranjan and after compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for trial of the offences of sexual assault against the women through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC and directions of Hon'ble Supreme court in "State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1) SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 1/15 U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name and identity of prosecutrix is not being disclosed in the judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. That, in this case, criminal law was set into motion on the typed complaint of prosecutrix dated 24.06.2016 and FIR No. 300/2016 u/s 376/506 IPC was registered. In her complaint, prosecutrix has alleged that she met the accused at Nehru Vihar, Vardhman Mall in the month of October'2014 and she and accused were in preparation of UPSC examination. In 20152017 batch the prosecutrix told to the accused that her answer writing practice has been finished and she would leave to her native village. That, on 16.12.2014, accused told her that he likes and love her and he asked her not to go to her native village and he would marry with her. The prosecutrix told her that he has booked her journey ticket for native village. On that accused said to her that he will not live without her.
3. That, on dtd. 16.12.2014, the accused asked the prosecutrix to shift her luggage to his room and to stay with him and he would marry with her at the right time and he further told her that if she would leave him in Delhi he will consume poison.
4. That, on dtd. 16.12.2014, the prosecutrix shifted her luggage to the room of C55, first floor from A386, 3rd Floor, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, the accused get shifted his luggage to house No.A463, 3 rd floor by saying her that his friend from Patna used to visit his house. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started living with accused at House No. E210, top floor since 15 January'2015 and during the said period, the accused insisted her to establish Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 2/15 physical relation with her but she refused and thereafter, accused established physical relation with her without her Consent and Will on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, he started establishing physical relation with her daily.
5. That, on dtd. 14.03.2015, the prosecutrix and accused went to Patna by Garib Rath train to appear in BPSC examination where her mobile was stolen and she made complaint to the police by reaching the Police Station along with accused and accused and prosecutrix stayed in a room at Hotel Lalit, Boring Karnal Road and accused established physical relation with her. After return to Delhi from Patna, accused asked the prosecutrix to get the land transfer in his name from her mother and when the prosecutrix asked her mother to transfer the land, the mother of the prosecutrix told her to get Court marriage solemnized and then she will transfer the land in the name of the children of prosecutrix and accused.
6. That, on dtd. 09.04.2016, at about 11:15 p.m. the phone of accused was busy and on enquiry by the prosecutrix, accused just told her that he was talking with his brother and when the prosecutrix asked to accused to show his mobile phone, he refused and started beating her with danda and belts and asked her to get out from his room and thereafter, on mobile phone accused refused to marry with the prosecutrix and also threatened her that he will get the brother of the prosecutrix killed at Patna if the prosecutrix will take any action or make phone call to his father. She further alleged in the complaint that accused established physical relationship with her on pretext of marriage for about 1 ½ years and thereafter, he refused for marry with her and cheated her and requested to take legal action against him and on the basis of this Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 3/15 complaint, W/SI Mandodari got registered the case. Prosecutrix was medically examined and thereafter on dtd. 28.06.2016, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by the Ld. Lady Magistrate.
7. That, on dtd. 28.06.2016, I.O. interrogated the accused and got him medically examined from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW4/B. Investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed against the accused.
CHARGE:
8. That, on the basis of material available on record as well as the evidence, collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation, this court vide order dated 10.05.2018 framed charge against the accused Rupesh Ranjan u/s. 376 (2)(n)/506 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
9. That, in order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses including PW1 HC Sandeep Kumar, PW2 Prosecutrix 'SK', PW3 Sh. Purshottam Shastri, PW4 Dr. Vaibhav Chaudhary, PW5 Sh. Ashok Kalra, PW6 Sh. Sanjit Kumar, PW7 Dr. Ankur, PW8 Retired SI Mandodri, PW9 SI Yogesh Kumar and PW10 Ms. Ruby Nahar, Ld. MM.
PWs Name of the Nature of the Documents proved Witness witness PW1 HC Sandeep Police witness This witness has proved copy of Kumar FIR vide Ex.PW1/A. He has also issued certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding correctness of the contents of FIR vide Ex.PW1/C. Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 4/15 PW2 Prosecutrix 'SK' Complainant/ Prosecutrix being victim of the victim alleged sexual assault has testified about the incident and has testified about her complaint given to the police which is Ex.PW2/A as well as made her statement u/s 164 CrPC before Ld MM Ex.PW2/B. She has proved her MLC vide Mark A. This witness was declared hostile by ld. Addl. PP for the State and even after her cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, she has not supported the case of prosecution.
PW3 Sh. Purshottam Public Witness This witness is a purohit and on Shastri dtd. 03.07.2016, he had solemnized the marriage between one Rupesh Ranjan and prosecutrix in the temple. He has proved copy of certificate issued by him vide Ex.PW3/A. He deposed that at the time of marriage accused and prosecutrix had presented their affidavits vide Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively along with their ID.
PW4 Dr. Vaibhav Medical He has formally examined Chaudhary witness prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW4/A and thereafter, prosecutrix was referred to the department of Obs.
And Gyane for further evaluation.
He has further deposed that on dtd.
28.06.2016, accused Rupesh Ranjan was brought by Ct. Vikas in the Casualty and he formally examined him and prepared his Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 5/15 MLC vide Ex.PW4/B. PW5 Sh. Ashok Kalra Public witness He deposed that his mother was having house No.E210, Nehru Vihar, Timarpur, Delhi which he had rented out to accused Rupesh Ranjan in April 2015 and accused had stayed in the said house for 10 11 months. He further deposed that no rent agreement was executed between him and and accused and he only got police verification of the accused.
PW6 Sh. Sanjit Public witness He deposed that he is running a Kumar shop of books in Mukherji Nagar and he had known accused Rupesh and prosecutrix and they used to come at his shop for last about eight years to buy books.
He further deposed that he does not remember the date but it was in 2016, they requested him to join their marriage and took him along with them to Arya Samaj Mandir situated near Majnu ka Tila and their marriage was performed and he became witness in their marriage. He has proved his signatures on the marriage certificate vide Ex.PW3/A. He has also proved the photo of prosecutrix depicted in document Ex.PW3/C and he has also provided copy of his aadhar card to Pandit Ji and proved the copy of the same vide Ex.PW6/X. PW7 Dr. Ankur Medical This witness has conducted Witness potency test of accused f medically Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 6/15 examined the accused qua his potency test vide Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Retired SI Investigation This witness is the investigating Mandodri Officer officer. She has deposed on the lines of investigation. She has proved complaint of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW2/A and prepared rukka and got registered the FIR vide Ex.PW1/A. This witness has taken the prosecutrix to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where she was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW4/A. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix handed over her the documents regarding her marriage with accused vide Ex.PW3/A. This witness has got recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. from Ld. MM.
During the curse of investigation, this witness has got medically examined the accused vide MLC Ex.PW4/B from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and after medical examination of accused, the concerned doctor handed over sealed blood sample of accused in vial and blood sample of accused on gauze along with sample seal and she seized the same vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW8/D. During the course of investigation, on dtd. 12.07.2016, she visited Arya Samaj Mandir for verification of the abovesaid marriage certificate and she made inquiry from the concerned Pandit who Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 7/15 solemnized the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused and the abovesaid Pandit confirmed the above said marriage of prosecutrix with accused in writing vide his letter mark 'X3'.
PW9 SI Yogesh Police witness This witness has deposed that the Kumar investigation of present case was assigned to him in the month of December'2016. He received the case file and had gone through the same and he came to know from the file as per the order passed by Hon'ble High Court the further investigation was stayed as quashing of the FIR proceedings was pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
He further deposed that on dtd.
23.05.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to dismiss the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing of the FIR.
He further deposed that in the month of July 2017, he recorded the statement of Sanjeet Kumar who was the witness of the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused.
PW10 Ms. Ruby Ld. MM This witness has recorded the Nahar, statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW2/B. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
10. Since the prosecutrix in this case has not supported the prosecution case and has changed her statement. There is no other independent material evidence Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 8/15 on record. Hence, it would be futile exercise to examine other witnesses cited by the prosecution in the list of witnesses in the chargesheet. Therefore, P.E. stands closed. Since no material incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused. Hence, S.A. u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is also dispensed with.
ARGUMENTS:
11. Ld. counsel for accused argued and submitted that prosecutrix has not supported her statement made to the police as well as before the Ld. MM and make a submission that accused may kindly be acquitted in this case FIR.
12. Per Contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix made to the police as well as to the Ld. MM when her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and these both statements are corroborative and make a submission that accused is liable to be convicted.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
13. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the written complaint of prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A, present FIR was registered against the accused.
14. Before reaching at any conclusion, let the relevant sections i.e. 376 (2)(n)/506 IPC be reproduced, which is as under: Section 376 (2) (n) IPC:
(2) Whoever,
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 9/15
Section 506 IPC:
Punishment criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:
15. Having heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the accused as well as ld. Addl. PP for the State and after gone through the case file as well as evidence, this court is of the considered view that the FIR was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix on the ground that she met the accused at Nehru Vihar, Vardhman Mall in the month of October'2014 and she and accused were in preparation of UPSC examination. In 20152017 batch the prosecutrix told to the accused that her answer writing practice has been finished and she would leave to her native village. That, on 16.12.2014, accused told her that he likes and love her and he asked her not to go to her native village and he would marry with her. The prosecutrix told her that he has booked her journey ticket for native village. On that accused said to her that he will not alive without her.
16. That, on dtd. 16.12.2014, the accused asked the prosecutrix to shift her luggage to his room and to stay with him and he would marry with her at the right time and he further told her that if she would leave him in Delhi he will consume poison.
17. That, on dtd. 16.12.2014, the prosecutrix shifted her luggage to the room of Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 10/15 C55, first floor from A386, 3rd Floor, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, the accused get shifted his luggage to house No.A463, 3 rd floor by saying her that his friend from Patna used to visit his house. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started living with accused at House No. E210, top floor since 15 January'2015 and during the said period, the accused insisted her to establish physical relation with her but she refused and thereafter, accused established physical relation with her without her Consent and Will on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, he started establishing physical relation with her daily.
18. That, on dtd. 14.03.2015, the prosecutrix and accused went to Patna by Garib Rath train to appear in BPSC examination where her mobile was stolen and she made complaint to the police by reaching the Police Station along with accused and accused and prosecutrix stayed in a room at Lalit Hotel, Boring Karnal Road and accused established physical relation with her. After return to Delhi from Patna, accused asked the prosecutrix to get the land transfer in his name from her mother and when the prosecutrix asked her mother to transfer the land, the mother of the prosecutrix told her to get Court marriage solemnized and then she will transfer the land in the name of the children of prosecutrix and accused.
19. That, on dtd. 09.04.2016, at about 11:15 p.m. the phone of accused was busy and on enquiry by the prosecutrix, accused just told her that he was talking with his brother and when the prosecutrix asked to accused to show his mobile phone, he refused and started beating her with danda and belts and asked her to get out from his room and thereafter, on mobile phone accused refused to marry with the prosecutrix and also threatened her that he will get Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 11/15 the brother of the prosecutrix killed at Patna if the prosecutrix will take any action or make phone call to his father. She further alleged in the complaint that accused established physical relationship with her on pretext of marriage for about 1 ½ years and thereafter, he refused for marry with her and cheated her.
20. It is mentioned in the complaint that accused, on pretext of marriage has made physical relation with her forcibly and she also made the statement before the Ld. MM when her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded but after framing the charges u/s 376(2)(n0/506 IPC against the accused, the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box for recording her evidence and deposed that she has done M.A. from Patna, Bihar and she had been staying in Delhi since 2015. Again said, since 2014. She met the accused in October 2014 and thereafter, they fall in love with each other. She further deposed that on dtd. 16.12.2014, her parents called her back to Patna, Bihar but she did not go there and started living with the accused and they had established relationship continuously from 15.01.2015 with her consent and today they are living as a wife and husband.
Court Question: If both of you had been living as a wife and husband from 15.01.2015 what was the reason of making complaint against the accused. What you have to say?
Ans. I do not remember exact date but I had left Delhi in March 2016 to Bihar to appear in competitive exams conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission and for my academic exams also and thereafter, I was need two months stay at my parental home and accused stopped to pick up my phone calls from April 2016, therefore, I made police complaint.
Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 12/1521. On Specific Question: I put it to you that if you had stated to the Magistrate in your statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding any other allegation apart from the complaint to police. What you have to say? Ans. Accused had not deceived me on the pretext of marriage. Accused had established physical relationship with me with my consent. On Question: I put it to you that did you inform the Ld. Magistrate regarding any violence or unnatural sex done by accused with you? Ans. I had only stated to the magistrate in my statement about unnatural sex done by accused with me once. Vol. It was done with my consent.
22. The prosecutrix was turned hostile and with the permission of the court, she was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State and even after cross examination, she did not support the case of the prosecution and she admitted that she has got married with accused on 03.07.2016. In her cross examination by ld. Counsel for accused, she deposed that "It is correct that I made a complaint to the police against the accused as I got panic and frustrated because he did not pick my phone calls. Physical relations between me and accused were with my consent. It is correct that there was no occasion of unnatural sex or anal sex done by accused with me at any point of time. I do not want any action against accused as I have married with him. All the grievances have been sorted out. Accused never beaten me. It is correct that I had given false complaint against the accused in police station and thereafter, also given a false statement before the Ld. Magistrate on the advise of one lawyer who I had consulted about my dispute."
Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 13/1523. That, prosecutrix further deposed in her cross examination that "It is correct that accused had never threatened me at any point of time. It is correct that I am living happily with accused as his wife. It is correct that whatever I have stated today in the court is my correct statement and is the true facts of the case."
24. Though, the prosecution has examined I.O. of this case but testimony of the I.O. itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
25. It is pertinent to mention that perusal of the MLC carried out by the doctor of Lady Harding Medical College, the prosecutrix has not consented for her internal medical examination and there is no medical or scientific evidence against the accused to prove that the accused has made physical relation with the prosecutrix without her Consent and Will.
26. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner against the accused and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, this court has no option except to acquit the accused. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, accused Rupesh Ranjan is acquitted from the charges u/s 376 (2)(n)/506 IPC.
27. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C., accused is directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
28. Since prosecutrix has turned hostile and because of resiling of her statement, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 14/15 reasonable doubt. Therefore, there is no order to compensation to the victim/complainant.
29. Every page of this judgment is signed by me.
30. Ahlmad of this court is directed to consign the file to record room after completion of all the requisite formalities.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.08.2019.
(SATISH KUMAR) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Case No.311/2018 State Vs. Rupesh Ranjan 15/15