Delhi District Court
State vs . Shailender Soni on 28 May, 2015
1
FIR No. 121/13
PS - Begum Pur
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 12/14
Unique ID No. : 02404R0324282013
State Vs. Shailender Soni
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal Swarankar
R/o D - 103. DDA Flats,
Bindapur, Delhi.
FIR No. : 121/13
Police Station : Begum Pur
Under Sections : 376/366/417/506 IPC
Date of committal to session Court : 09/01/2014
Date on which judgment reserved : 16/05/2015
Date on which judgment announced : 28/05/2015
J U D G M E N T
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is as under : 1 of 46 2 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur That on 18/04/2013 SI Manju was present in the PS Begum Pur. Prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) D/o Sh. Puran Kumar, R/o A502, Jain Nagar, Delhi came to the PS and made the statement which is to the effect that, she lives at the above address with her parents and brother. She has studied B.SC (honour). When in the year 2007, she used to study in 11th class in Indraprastha Senior Secondary Convent School then her introduction took place with biology teacher Shailender Soni. She had taken tuition from him of the science subject in 12th class then physical relations were established between them and Shailender had assured to perform the marriage with her. The said relations between them continued during her studies in B.Sc. She completed her B.Sc in 2012. She had told about her friendship to her parents about three years back but had hidden the fact of her physical relation. My parents had gone to his house at Bansi, District Sidharath Nagar, U.P, where his father Pyare Lal Sarvancal and Shailender Soni made a demand of Rs. 10 lacs in cash, articles and jewellery by saying that he is a government teacher but her father was not having this much competency (Mere Papa Ki Itni Hasiyat Nahi Thi) and her father came back. On 06/04/2013, Shailender on the false pretext of marriage after 2 of 46 3 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur inducing her took her to Haridwar, where he established physical relations with her by saying that tomorrow he will perform the marriage with her, but he did not perform the marriage and told her that his marriage has already been fixed somewhere and there ways are now separate (Hamare Rasthe Alag Alag Hain). Shailender Soni on the false pretext of marriage had established physical relations with her and later on had also threatened her to kill. Appropriate legal action be taken against him. On the basis of statement, finding that offences U/s 376/366/417/506 IPC appears to have been committed, the case was got registered. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted from MHC Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and the sealed exhibits handed over by the doctor after her medical examination were taken into Police possession and were deposited in the Malkhana. On 19/04/2013, prosecutrix came to the PS and produced one orange colour Chunni to SI Manju which was taken into police possession and was deposited in the Malkhana. On 23/04/2013 statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. On 25/04/2013, the sealed exhibits were sent to the FSL Rohini. Search for the accused Shailender Soni was made, but all in vain. Proceedings regarding NBW and the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was 3 of 46 4 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur done against him. Accused Shailender Soni was released on anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and he was interrogated and formally arrested. On 25/09/2013, the marriage certificate and the photo co marriage of accused Shailender Soni and of the prosecutrix had obtained and the statement of mother of prosecutrix u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Upon completion of the necessary further investigation challan for the offences u/s 366/376/506/417 IPC was prepared against accused Shailender Soni and was sent to the Court for trial.
2. Since the offences under sections 366/376 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, after compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Session under section 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of session and after hearing on charge, prima facie a case under section 366/417/376/506 IPC was made out against the accused Shailender Soni. The charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the accused to 4 of 46 5 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined 10 witnesses. PW1 - HC Babu Lal, PW2 - HC Ram Kumar, PW3 - Prosecutrix (name withheld), PW4 - Dr. Aditi Aggarwal, SR. Obs. & Gynae, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi 110084, PW5 - Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, Delhi, PW6 - Sh. Ajay Nagar, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani, PW8 - Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW9 - Puran Kumar and PW10 - W/SI Manju.
5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under : PW1 - HC Babu Lal, who deposed that on 18/04/2013, he was posted as Duty Officer in PS Begum Pur and was on duty from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. On that day, at about 8:10 p.m., W/SI Manju handed over him a Tehrir and on the basis of which and on his instructions, the present FIR No. 121/13 was got registered from the Computer Operator u/s 376/366/417/506 IPC and after registration of 5 of 46 6 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur FIR, he handed over the another copy of computerized FIR and original rukka to Constable Vikas for handing over the same to W/SI Manju at the spot for further investigation. He has brought the original FIR register. Copy of the same is Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point 'A'. He made endorsement on the rukka and the same is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point 'X'. He has also brought the roznamancha and the copy of DD No. 39A is Ex. PW1/C (OSR).
PW2 - HC Ram Kumar, who deposed that on 19/04/2013, he was posted as MHC(M) in PS Begum Pur. On that day, W/SI Manju Yadav deposited one sealed pullinda and one sample seal sealed with the seal of 'SGMH GNCT DELHI' in the Malkhana. He made entry at Serial No. 259 in Register No. 19. On the same day one chunni of the prosecutrix (name withheld) in sealed pullinda sealed with the seal of 'RKK' (was received) and he made entry below the above entry at Serial No. 259. The copy of the above entry is Ex. PW2/A (OSR). On 25/04/2013, the above sealed pullindas alongwith a sample seal were handed over to W/SI Manju Yadav for depositing the same in the FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 64/21/13. After depositing the same in FSL, she 6 of 46 7 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur deposited the acknowledgment receipt of the pullinda by FSL official with him. He has made entry at Point 'A' on Ex. PW2/A. He has brought the Register No. 21. The copy of relevant entry of Register No. 21 is Ex. PW2/B (OSR). Copy of the acknowledgment receipt is Ex. PW2/C (OSR). Sealed pullindas remained intact during his custody.
PW3 - Prosecutrix (name withheld) is the victim who deposed regarding the incident and proved her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/A, statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B, seizure memo of orange chunni Ex. PW3/C, copy of the marriage certificate Ex. PW3/D and the photograph of marriage Ex. PW3/E and deposed regarding the investigational aspects which she joined.
She resiled from her previous statement and was also cross examined by the Learned Addl. PP for the State.
PW4 - Dr. Aditi Aggarwal, SR. Obs. & Gynae, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi - 110084, who deposed that on 18/04/2013 she was working as SR. Obs. & Gynae at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. On that day, at about 9:40 p.m. one patient/prosecutrix (name 7 of 46 8 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur withheld) D/o Sh. Puran Kumar, Age 22 Years, was brought by W/SI Manju Yadav with alleged history of sexual assault. After conducting the preliminary medical examination of the said patient the concerned Doctor referred her for gynaecological examination and further management. She has examined the patient and she gave the history that she was having regular sexual relationship with her teacher Shailender Soni with her consent since 2008 when she was in the School and she further stated that the last episode of sexual intercourse with her had taken place at his residence at Binda Pur on 12/04/2013. This man was also giving her assurance for marriage but he is not marrying her she wants to register a case against him. Her examination is from Portion 'X' to 'X1' on the MLC Ex. PW4/A bearing her signature at Point 'A' and the examination report of the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) is collectively Ex. PW4/B (running into four pages), bearing her signature at Point 'A'.
PW5 - Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, Delhi, who deposed that on 18/04/2013, he was working as CMO in SGM Hospital. On that day, one prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Sh. Puran Kumar, aged 8 of 46 9 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur about 22 years, female was brought for medical examination as victim of sexual assault. She was medically examined by him vide MLC No. 6394 already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point 'B' and referred for SR Gynae.
PW6 - Sh. Ajay Nagar, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, who deposed that on 23/04/2013, he was posted as MM in Rohini Court. On that day, an application for recording statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Pooran Kumar, Aged about 22 Years, R/o A502, Jain Nagar, Delhi 22, and was marked to me. Application is now Ex. PW6/A. IO W/SI Manju Yadav produced victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) and identified her and he recorded her statement in this regard. IO was asked to leave the Chamber. He had put certain preliminary questions to the victim and after satisfying himself that she is making the statement voluntarily he proceeded to record her statement. His proceedings in this regard Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at Points 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' and bearing signature of victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) at Point 'A'. Statement of victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) recorded by him is already Ex.
9 of 46 10 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur PW3/C bearing his signature at Points 'E', 'F,' 'G' & 'H' and signature of victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) at Points 'I', 'J', 'K' & 'L'. After recording the statement he issued the certificate regarding its correctness and the same is Ex. PW6/C bearing his signature at Point 'M'. Ahlmad was directed to give the copy of the same on proper receipt and directed to send the proceedings to the concerned MM in sealed cover vide his order Ex. PW6/D bearing his signature at Point 'N'. Such copy of statement was supplied to the IO on her application now Ex. PW6/E. PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani is the mother of the prosecutrix, who deposed that she has two children, one is daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and the other is son Vishal. Her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) has completed the B.Sc. in the year, 2012. Now her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) got married to accused Shailender Soni present in the Court (correctly identified). She is residing happily with him. Now prosecutrix (name withheld) has one daughter from accused Shailender. She does not want to say anything else. Police did not record her statement in the present case.
10 of 46 11 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur PW8 - Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved the biological and serological reports Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B respectively signed by her at points 'A'.
PW9 - Puran Kumar is the father of the prosecutrix, who deposed that he has two children, one is daughter named prosecutrix (name withheld) and one son Vishal. His daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) is graduate. He fixed the marriage of his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) with Dalip and the marriage was to be performed on 13/05/2013, however, in the month of April, 2013, prosecutrix (name withheld) left his house without informing anyone and returned to his house after 5/6 days. She informed him that she had gone with Shailender Soni. Accused Shailender Soni is present in the Court (correctly identified). She told him that she wanted to marry with accused Shailender Soni. He contacted father of accused Shailender Soni, however, he didn't give any reply so his daughter lodged complaint in PS Begum Pur, however, later on during the Court proceedings the parents of accused Shailender Soni consented to perform marriage of 11 of 46 12 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur their son with his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld). The marriage of accused Shailender Soni and Deepika was performed in Santan Dharam Temple, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi, on 01/08/2013. The copy of marriage certificate is already Mark PY bearing his signature at Point 'C'. Accused Shailender Soni is now his soninlaw. He does not want to say anything else. His statement was not recorded by the Police in this case.
PW10 - W/SI Manju, who deposed that on 18/04/2013, she was posted as SI at PS - Begum Pur. On that day, prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her parents came to PS. Prosecutrix (name withheld) informed her that one person namely Shailender Soni committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. Prosecutrix (name withheld) gave a detailed statement which was recorded by her. Her statement is already Ex. PW3/A. She made endorsement Ex. PW10/A and handed over the tehrir to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Then she alongwith her staff, prosecutrix (name withheld) and her parents went to SGM Hospital. She got conducted the medical examination of prosecutrix. After the medical examination Doctor handed over one 12 of 46 13 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur sealed parcel alongwith sample seal which were taken into Police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B bearing her signature at Point 'A'. Then prosecutrix was discharged from investigation on that day. In the morning of 19/04/2013, prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her mother came to PS and produced one dupatta of orange colour which was allegedly used at the time of commission of offence. She prepared a parcel of this dupatta and sealed it with the seal and taken into Police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW3/C bearing her signature at Point 'B'. She produced the prosecutrix (name withheld) in the Court where her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Learned MM. She made search of the accused Shailender Soni. She gave information about the present case in the School situated at Janak Puri where accused Shailender Soni was working as teacher. Accused could not be traced at that time so she obtained NBW from the Court. She also got issued the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Shailender Soni. In the meantime, accused Shailender Soni applied for anticipatory bail before Hon'ble High Court. Both the parties were called by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and during the proceedings accused Shailender Soni and prosecutrix had stated that they were ready to perform marriage and he was granted 13 of 46 14 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court after the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) with accused Shailender Soni which was performed on 01/08/2013.
On 18/09/2013, accused Shailender Soni was formally arrested in the present case at PS Begum Pur vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/C bearing her signature at Point 'A'. The sealed exhibits of the prosecutrix were deposited in the FSL. She seized the photograph of marriage of prosecutrix with accused Shailender Soni and also seized the marriage certificate vide memo already Ex. PW3/D bearing her signature at Point 'B'. She recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing investigation chargesheet has been filed before the Court. Accused Shailender Soni is present in the Court (correctly identified). She can identify the case property i.e chunni/dupatta, if shown to her. (The identity of the chunni/dupatta is not disputed and the same is Ex. P1).
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of evidence.
14 of 46 15 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur
6. Statement of accused Shailender Soni was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Shailender Soni did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
7. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution and the prosecution has failed the prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and prayed for the acquittal of the accused on the charge levelled against him.
8. While the Learned Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not affect the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. I have heard Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. M. P. Singh, Learned Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.
15 of 46 16 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur
10. The charge for the offences punishable u/s 366/417/376/506 IPC against the accused Shailender Soni is that on 06/04/2013, at Begum Pur, he abducted prosecutrix (name withheld), Age about 22 years from her house situated at A - 502, Jain Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS - Begum Pur, with intent that she may be forced to illicit intercourse and took her to Haridwar by dishonestly inducing her on the false promise of marriage and there at Haridwar he committed rape upon prosecutrix (name withheld) against her will and without her consent and criminally intimidated her to kill.
11. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX 16 of 46 17 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur
12. PW3 - Prosecutrix during her examinationinchief has stated that her date of birth is 30/10/1990.
Moreover, the said factum of age of PW3 - prosecutrix has also not been disputed by accused Shailender Soni. Nor any evidence to the contrary has been produced or proved on the record on behalf of the accused.
In the circumstances, it stands established on the record that the date of birth of PW3 - prosecutrix is 30/10/1990.
As the date of alleged incident is 06/04/2013 and the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 30/10/1990, on simple arithmetical calculation, the age of the prosecutrix comes to 22 years, 05 months and 06 days as on the date of alleged incident on 06/04/2013.
In the circumstances, it stands proved on record that PW3 - prosecutrix was aged 22 years, 05 months and 06 days as on the date of incident on 06/04/2013.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX 17 of 46 18 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur
13. PW4 - Dr. Aditi Aggarwal, SR. Obs. & Gynae, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi - 110084 has deposed that on 18/04/2013 she was working as SR. Obs. & Gynae at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. On that day, at about 9:40 p.m. one patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Sh. Puran Kumar, Age 22 Years, was brought by W/SI Manju Yadav with alleged history of sexual assault. After conducting the preliminary medical examination of the said patient the concerned Doctor referred her for gynaecological examination and further management. She has examined the patient and she gave the history that she was having regular sexual relationship with her teacher Shailender Soni with her consent since 2008 when she was in the School and she further stated that the last episode of sexual intercourse with her had taken place at his residence at Binda Pur on 12/04/2013. This man was also giving her assurance for marriage but he is not marrying her she wants to register a case against him. Her examination is from Portion 'X' to 'X1' on the MLC Ex. PW4/A bearing her signature at Point 'A' and the examination report of the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) is collectively Ex. PW4/B (running into four pages), bearing her signature at Point 'A'.
18 of 46 19 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur PW5 - Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 18/04/2013, she was working as CMO in SGM Hospital. On that day, one prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Sh. Puran Kumar, aged about 22 years, female was brought for medical examination as victim of sexual assault. She was medically examined by him vide MLC No. 6394 already Ex. PW4/A bearing his signature at point 'B' and referred for SR Gynae.
Despite grant of opportunity, PW4 - Dr. Aditi Aggarwal and PW5 - Dr. Brijesh Singh were not crossexamined on behalf of the accused.
In view of above and in the circumstances, the medical/gynaecological examination vide MLC Ex. PW4/A, examination of PW3 - prosecutrix stands proved on the record. BIOLOGICAL AND SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE 19 of 46 20 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur
14. PW8 - Ms. Manisha Upadhyaya, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved the biological and serological reports Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B respectively signed by her at points 'A'.
As per biological report Ex. PW8/A the description of articles contained in parcel and result of analysis reads as under : DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel '1' : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal of "SGMH GNCT DELHI" containing exhibits '1a', '1b', '1c', '1d', '1e' each kept in separate sealed envelopes of "SGMH GNCT DELHI". Exhibit '1a' : Dirty brownish Cotton wool swabs on two separate sticks kept in two separate tubes marked as vaginal swab(2).
Exhibit '1b' : Few nail clippings marked as nail cutting (c). Exhibit '1c' : Cotton wool swabs on sticks kept in two separate tubes marked as Nail Scrappings (2).
Exhibit '1d' : Dark brown foul smelling liquid kept in a tube marked as Blood sample EDTA (2).
Exhibit '1e' : Gauze cloth piece having dirty brown srains marked as blood plain sample (1) (Dried gauge).
20 of 46 21 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur Parcel '3' : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "RKK" containing exhibit '3'.
Exhibit '3' : One dupatta having dirty stains.
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1. Blood was detected on exhibits '1a', '1d' & '1e'.
2. Blood could not be detected on exhibits '1b', '1c' & '3'.
3. Human semen was detected on exhibit '3'.
4. Semen could not be detected on exhibits '1a', '1b' & '1c'.
5. Report of serological analysis in original is attached herewith. NOTE :
1. Regarding query No. '2' report in original from DNA unit will be furnished separately.
2. Remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of 'FSL MU DELHI'.
The serological report Ex. PW8/B reads as under: Exhibits Species of origin ABO Grouping/Remarks Blood Stains: '1a' Cotton wool swab Human No Reaction** '1d' Blood sample No Reaction* '1e' gauze cloth piece Human 'AB' Group 21 of 46 22 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur Semen Stains: '3' Dupatta No Reaction** * Origin specifix antigens degenerated.
** Group specific antigens degenerated.
As per the biological report Ex. PW8/A, with regard to the description of the articles contained in the parcels, it is noticed that Parcel No. 1 belongs to the prosecutrix which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B, dated 1819/04/2013 and Parcel No. 2 also belongs to the prosecutrix which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C, dated 19/04/2013.
On careful perusal and analysis of the biological and serological evidence on record, it clearly shows that blood was detected on exhibit '1a' (Vaginal swab of the prosecutrix), exhibit '1d' (Blood sample EDTA of the prosecutrix) and exhibit '1e' (Blood plain sample (Dried gauge) of the prosecutrix); blood could not be detected on exhibit '1b' (Nail cutting of the prosecutrix), exhibit '1c' (Nail Scrappings of the prosecutrix) and exhibit '3' (Dupatta of the prosecutrix); Human 22 of 46 23 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur semen was detected on exhibit '3' (Dupatta of the prosecutrix) and semen could not be detected on exhibit '1a' (Vaginal swab of the prosecutrix), exhibit '1b' (Nail cutting of the prosecutrix) and exhibit '1c' (Nail Scrappings of the prosecutrix). As per the serological report Ex. PW8/B, exhibit '1a' (Vaginal swab of the prosecutrix) gave species of origin as 'Human' and 'no reaction' for ABO Grouping, exhibit '1d' (Blood sample EDTA of the prosecutrix) gave 'no reaction' for species of origin and gave 'AB Group' under ABO Grouping, exhibit '1e' (Blood plain sample (Dried gauge) of the prosecutrix) gave species of origin as 'Human' and 'AB Group' under ABO Grouping and exhibit '3' (Dupatta of the prosecutrix) gave 'no reaction' under ABO Grouping.
15. Now let the testimony of PW3 Prosecutrix be perused and analysed.
PW3 Prosecutrix, in her examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "In the year 2007, I was living with my parents at H. No. A 23 of 46 24 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur 502, Jain Nagar, Delhi. At that time, I was studying in 12th class in Inder Prasath Sr. Sec. Convent School, Begum Pur, Delhi. I used to take tuition for Biology subject from Shailender Soni (Presently who is my husband). After sometime, we started liking each other and love affairs developed between us. During this period no physical relations were established between us. After passing 12th I took the admission in B.Sc. Ist Year and completed my graduation about 2/3 years ago. During the period I was during (doing) my graduation physical relations were established between me and Shailender of my will and consent. I had disclosed about my love affairs with Shailender to my parents and after knowing about the same they (my parents) had gone to the native Village Bansi, Distt. Sidharth Nagar, U.P. of Shailender to talk to his parents for the marriage. Thereafter, parents of Shailender (now my inlaws) had also come to our house. Initially the proposal of our marriage did not find favour with my family as well as that of Shailender. At that time I was in the final year of my graduation. We (myself and Shailender) continued to remain in conversation. Thereafter, my family started looking for a suitable bridegroom for me and the family of Shailender had also started looking for a suitable bride for him. My engagement had been fixed and was performed (Ho Gai Thi) with some other boy and my marriage date was also fixed for 13/05/2013. Prior to this date of marriage, on 06/04/2013 myself and Shailender decided to perform the marriage by running away and accordingly, on 06/04/2013 myself and Shailender had gone to Haridwar and had returned on the next day on 07/04/2013. At Haridwar the physical relations were established between me and Shailender with my consent and will. On 07/04/2013 after returning from Haridwar I stayed in PG (Paying Guest) accommodation at Chanakya Place while Shailender had gone to his house. On 13/04/2013, I had returned back to my house. I told my family members 24 of 46 25 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur that I do not want to perform marriage which has been fixed by them and after much persuasion they (my family members) agreed with me. During this period there was too much misunderstanding between my family and that of the family of Shailender and there was no communication as such between the two. I was very perturb and I did not want to lodge any complaint but at the instance of the persons who used to meet me (Merai Sai Milte Thai), at the instance of my parents and of the Police I made a complaint to the Police on 18/04/2013. Police recorded my statement Ex. PW3/A bearing my signature at Point 'A'. My medical examination was got conducted by the Police. My statement was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of 'AN' lying on the judicial file is opened and from which the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is taken out. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is taken out and shown to the witness. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is Ex. PW3/B bearing my signature at Points 'A'.
I had also given my cloths i.e chunni to the Police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C bearing my signature at Point 'A'. The colour of the chunni was orange. I can identify the chunni, if shown to me. My date of birth is 30/10/1990.
I had married with accused Shailender Soni on 01/08/2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi. The copy of the marriage certificate is Mark 'PX' which is bearing my signature at Point 'A' and of accused Shailender Soni at Point 'B'. I had also given the copy of the Marriage Certificate as well as the photograph of my marriage with accused Shailender to the IO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D bearing my signature at Point 'A'. The photograph is Ex. PW3/E."
25 of 46 26 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur From the aforesaid narration of PW3 - prosecutrix, it is clear that in the year 2007, she was living with her parents at H. No. A 502, Jain Nagar, Delhi. At that time, she was studying in 12 th class in Inder Prasath Sr. Sec. Convent School, Begum Pur, Delhi. She used to take tuition for Biology subject from Shailender Soni (Presently who is her husband). After sometime, they started liking each other and love affairs developed between them. During this period no physical relations were established between them. After passing 12th she took the admission in B.Sc. Ist Year and completed her graduation about 2/3 years ago. During the period she was doing her graduation physical relations were established between her and Shailender of her will and consent. She had disclosed about her love affairs with Shailender to her parents and after knowing about the same they (her parents) had gone to the native Village Bansi, Distt. Sidharth Nagar, U.P. of Shailender to talk to his parents for the marriage. Thereafter, parents of Shailender (now my inlaws) had also come to their house. Initially the proposal of their marriage did not find favour with her family as well as that of Shailender. At that time she was in the final year of her graduation. They (herself 26 of 46 27 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur and Shailender) continued to remain in conversation. Thereafter, her family started looking for a suitable bridegroom for her and the family of Shailender had also started looking for a suitable bride for him. Her engagement had been fixed and was performed (Ho Gai Thi) with some other boy and her marriage date was also fixed for 13/05/2013. Prior to this date of marriage, on 06/04/2013 herself and Shailender decided to perform the marriage by running away and accordingly, on 06/04/2013 herself and Shailender had gone to Haridwar and had returned on the next day on 07/04/2013. At Haridwar the physical relations were established between her and Shailender with her consent and will. On 07/04/2013 after returning from Haridwar her stayed in PG (Paying Guest) accommodation at Chanakya Place while Shailender had gone to his house. On 13/04/2013, she had returned back to her house. She told her family members that she does not want to perform marriage which has been fixed by them and after much persuasion they (her family members) agreed with her. During this period there was too much misunderstanding between her family and that of the family of Shailender and there was no communication as such between the two. She was very perturb and she did not want to lodge any complaint but at 27 of 46 28 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur the instance of the persons who used to meet her (Merai Sai Milte Thai), at the instance of her parents and of the Police she made a complaint to the Police on 18/04/2013. Police recorded her statement Ex. PW3/A bearing her signature at Point 'A'. Her medical examination was got conducted by the Police. Her statement was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She correctly identified her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B bearing her signature at Points 'A'. She had also given her cloths i.e chunni to the Police which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/C bearing her signature at Point 'A'. The colour of the chunni was orange. She correctly identified the chunni. Her date of birth is 30/10/1990. She had married with accused Shailender Soni on 01/08/2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi. The copy of the marriage certificate is Mark 'PX' which is bearing her signature at Point 'A' and of accused Shailender Soni at Point 'B'. She had also given the copy of the Marriage Certificate as well as the photograph of her marriage with accused Shailender to the IO, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D bearing her signature at Point 'A'. The photograph is Ex. PW3/E. PW3 - Prosecutrix was also crossexamined by the 28 of 46 29 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur Learned Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement which is reproduced and reads as under : "I am not aware that when my parents had gone with my marriage proposal to the parents of accused Shailender Soni, they (parents of Shailender Soni) had demanded Rs. 10,00,000/ cash and jewellery articles and it was not within the capacity of my parents, hence, the proposal for marriage was declined."
During her further crossexamination by the Learned Addl. PP for the State of even date (after lunch) PW3 - Prosecutrix has deposed that : "I have not stated to the police that my parents had gone at Village Bansi, Distt. Sidharth Nagar, U.P. with my marriage proposal to the parents of accused Shailender Soni, they (parents of Shailender Soni) had demanded Rs. 10,00,000/ cash and jewellery articles and it was not within the capacity of my parents, hence, the proposal for marriage was declined. (Confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/A, where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that my parents had gone at Village Bansi, Distt. Sidharth Nagar, U.P. with my marriage proposal to the parents of accused Shailender Soni, they (parents of Shailender Soni) had demanded Rs. 10,00,000/ cash and jewellery articles and it was not within the capacity of my parents, hence, the proposal for marriage was declined.
I have not stated to the police in my statement that on 06/04/2013 Shailender had taken me to Haridwar and promising me to 29 of 46 30 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur marry with me and there he had developed sexual relationship with me saying that he will be marrying with me in the next month but he had not married with me and stated that his marriage has been settled with some other person. (Confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/A, where it is so recorded). I have not stated to the Police that accused has made sexual relationship with me with the promise to marry with me and he had threatened me to kill later on (Confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/A, where it is so recorded). Accused Shailender Soni is present in the court today (correctly identified). It is wrong to suggest that accused Shailender established physical relationship with me at Haridwar on the pretext of promise of marrying me before my marriage has been taken place with him on 01/08/2013. It is wrong to suggest that after establishing relationship with me at Haridwar he had threatened me not to disclose the fact of our relationship to any person.
I do not remember whether I have stated before Metropolitan Magistrate in my statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. that during my tuition with accused, our sexual relationship have been established and then I have stated to accused that I will disclose this fact to my mother then accused stated not to tell to any one and assure me that after clearing 12th class he would have marry me. (Confronted with the statement Ex. PW3/B, where it is so recorded). I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that when I entered into the Shivaji College then accused Shailender talk to his parents and on his assurance I have sent my parents to the house of accused at Village Bansi, U.P. and there the parents of accused had demanded Rupees Ten Lacs cash, twenty five gold rings, 85 pairs of clothes and some other articles but on this my parents refused for their proposal and stated that it was not in their capacity and then accused father came to Delhi and again demanded the same things (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex. PW3/B 30 of 46 31 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that after the refusal of the proposal accused Shailender provoked me that our parents do not want to marry us and put forward a proposal of marrying me in the temple after clearing my final year exams. (Confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that my engagement has fixed with Dilip Kumar on 25/11/2013 and when accused come to know about this, then he came to our village at Jain Nagar and threatened me to kidnap me from the mandap and stated that my marriage would not have taken place. (Confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that my engagement has fixed with Dilip Kumar on 25/11/2013 and when accused come to know about this, then he came to our village at Jain Nagar and threatened me to kidnap me from the mandap and stated that my marriage would not have taken place. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that even after that accused keep on talking to my father and sometimes he feel sorry and stated that I will not talk to my parents on phone and when he visited my house after my engagement, he asked for giving him photographs (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that some day before marriage i.e. on 06/04/2013 he telephoned and asking for giving him photographs and called me at Park, Sector 22, Rohini and also threatened me to telephoned my fatherinlaw Panchu Ram and to my Fiancy (Fiance) Dilip whose number he was having with him and 31 of 46 32 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur asked me to accompany him as he would have marry with me and taken me to Haridwar and kept me in a hotel there and on the next day, we returned to Delhi and when my brother phoned to accused Shailender and my father complained to him. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that even after returning to Delhi accused had kept me in a room at Chanakya Puri on the pretext of promise to marry with me (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that accused has forced me and a letter was drafted in regard that accused has no involvement in regard to my missing from my house and accused further stated that I should withdraw my complaint and also forced me in this regard. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that on 13/04/2013, I returned to the house with accused Shailender and accused has stated to my father about the defamation caused to him. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that I have disclosed the fact of involvement of accused Shailender in the matter of missing then my father called him at his house and asked him to marry with me then Shailender has disclosed that he has also engaged with someone else and refused the marriage proposal of my father to marry with me and my marriage which happened on 13/05/2013 have been struck off. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that due to broken of the marriage there was a great insult of my father in the 32 of 46 33 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur locality people. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
It is correct that I have lodged the FIR No. 18/04/2013 before Police.
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that after my FIR police person has asked me that whether anyone has enticed me and taken me somewhere against my wishes and in reply I have stated that I was taken by accused Shailender after enticing me. (confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
I have not stated in my statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., that accused has established physical relations with me at Haridwar on 12/04/2013 after promise to marry with me. (Confronted from statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B where it is so recorded).
It is correct that I have married with accused and is residing in the house of accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused has married and is living with me so that he may be exonerated from this case. I have registered the case because of prevailing circumstances at that time and due to noncommunication and improper communication between my family and that of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have been won over by the accused or that I am deposing falsely because now I am being the wife of the accused or to save my matrimonial life. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
PW3 - Prosecutrix was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity given.
33 of 46 34 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur On analysing the entire testimony of PW3 - prosecutrix it is clearly indicated that she has specifically deposed that after passing 12th she took the admission in B.Sc. Ist Year and completed her graduation about 2/3 years ago. During the period she was doing her graduation physical relations were established between her and Shailender of her will and consent. During her crossexamination by Learned Addl. PP for the State she specifically deposed that, "It is correct that I have married with accused and is residing in the house of accused". She negated the suggestions put to her by the Learned Addl. PP for the State that her parents had gone at Village Bansi, Distt. Sidharth Nagar, U.P. with her marriage proposal to the parents of accused Shailender Soni, they (parents of Shailender Soni) had demanded Rs. 10,00,000/ cash and jewellery articles and it was not within the capacity of her parents, hence, the proposal for marriage was declined or that accused Shailender established physical relationship with her at Haridwar on the pretext of promise of marrying her before her marriage has been taken place with him on 01/08/2013 or that after establishing relationship with her at Haridwar he had threatened her not to disclose the fact of their 34 of 46 35 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur relationship to any person or that accused has married and is living with her so that he may be exonerated from this case or that she has been won over by the accused or that she is deposing falsely because now she is being the wife of the accused or to save her matrimonial life or that she is deposing falsely.
As discussed hereinbefore, PW3 - prosecutrix has been found to be aged around 22 years, from the testimony of PW3 - prosecutrix, nothing is being indicated that on 06/04/2013, at Begum Pur, accused Shailender Soni abducted PW3 - prosecutrix, from her house situated at A - 502, Jain Nagar, Delhi, with intent that she may be forced to illicit intercourse or that he took her to Haridwar by dishonestly inducing her on the false promise of marriage or that there at Haridwar he committed rape upon PW3 - prosecutrix against her will and without her consent or that he also criminally intimidated her to kill.
Now, let the testimonies of PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani, mother of the prosecutrix and PW9 - Puran Kumar, father of the prosecutrix be perused and analysed.
35 of 46 36 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani, is the mother of the prosecutrix, who in her examinationinchief has deposed that, she has two children, one is daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and the other is son Vishal. Her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) has completed the B.Sc. in the year, 2012. Now her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) got married to accused Shailender Soni present in the Court (correctly identified). She is residing happily with him. Now Deepika has one daughter from accused Shailender. She do not want to say anything else. Police did not record her statement in the present case.
PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani was also crossexamined by the Learned Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement which is reproduced and reads as under : "It is correct that when my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) was studying, she had developed friendship with accused Shailender Soni. It is further correct that she wanted to marry to accused Shailender Soni. It is correct that I and my husband visited the house of accused Shailender Soni for the proposal of marriage of my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) with accused Shailender Soni. However, due to some reasons the marriage of my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) could not be performed with accused Shailender Soni at that time. It is wrong to suggest that father of accused Shailender Soni 36 of 46 37 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur had raised demand of Rs. 10,00,000/ with the other jewellery and dowry articles and for this reason the marriage could not be performed. It is correct that I and my husband had fixed the marriage of my daughter Deepika with some other boy. Vol. after the engagement of Deepika with other boy, accused Shailender Soni and his family gave consent to the marriage of my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) with Shailender Soni. It is wrong to suggest that on 06/04/2013 my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) left the house without telling anyone as to where she was going. It is wrong to suggest that on 13/04/2013 when my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) returned she informed that accused Shailender Soni was making physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage since five years and now he refused. It is wrong to suggest that I gave statement to Police in the present case.
At this stage, the statement Mark PW7/PX is read over to the witness to which she denies having made any such statement to the Police.
It is wrong to suggest that accused Shailender Soni made physical relations with my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) on the pretext of marriage or that he gave threats to her when she requested him to perform marriage with her. It is wrong to suggest that now my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) has married to accused Shailender and for this reason I am making a favourable statement to accused. It is wrong to suggest that I want to save accused Shailender Soni, who is now my soninlaw (damad) and for this reason I am giving a false statement. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani was not crossexamined on 37 of 46 38 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
On careful perusal and analysis of the testimony of PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani, mother of the prosecutrix, it is found that nothing material has come out in her testimony so as to advance the case of the prosecution on the core spectrum of the crime. She negated the suggestions, as were put to her by the Learned Addl. PP, that father of accused Shailender Soni had raised demand of Rs. 10,00,000/ with the other jewellery and dowry articles and for this reason the marriage could not be performed or that on 06/04/2013 her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) left the house without telling anyone as to where she was going or that on 13/04/2013 when her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) returned she informed that accused Shailender Soni was making physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage since five years and now he refused or that she gave statement to Police in the present case or that accused Shailender Soni made physical relations with her daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) on the pretext of marriage or that he gave threats to her when she requested him to perform marriage with her or that now her daughter/prosecutrix (name 38 of 46 39 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur withheld) has married to accused Shailender and for this reason she is making a favourable statement to accused or that she want to save accused Shailender Soni, who is now her soninlaw (damad) and for this reason she is giving a false statement or that she is deposing falsely.
PW9 - Puran Kumar, is the father of the prosecutrix, who in his examinationinchief has deposed that, he has two children, one is daughter named prosecutrix (name withheld) and one son Vishal. His daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) is graduate. He fixed the marriage of his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) with Dalip and the marriage was to be performed on 13/05/2013, however, in the month of April, 2013 prosecutrix (name withheld) left his house without informing anyone and returned to his house after 5/6 days. She informed him that she had gone with Shailender Soni. Accused Shailender Soni is present in the court (correctly identified). She told him that she wanted to marry with accused Shailender Soni. He contacted father of accused Shailender Soni, however, he didn't give any reply so his daughter lodged complaint in PS Begum Pur, however, later on during the Court proceedings the parents of accused Shailender Soni 39 of 46 40 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur consented to perform marriage of their son with his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld). The marriage of accused Shailender Soni and prosecutrix (name withheld) was performed in Santan Dharam Temple, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi, on 01/08/2013. The copy of Marriage Certificate is already Mark PY bearing his signature at Point 'C'. Accused Shailender Soni is now his soninlaw. He does not want to say anything else. His statement was not recorded by the Police in this case.
PW9 - Puran Kumar was also crossexamined by the Learned Addl. PP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement which is reproduced and reads as under : "My daughter Deepika informed me about her friendship with accused Shailender Soni prior to April, 2013. She also informed me that she wanted to marry with accused Shailender Soni. When I visited the house of accused Shailender Soni with the proposal of marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) with accused Shailender Soni then his parents and accused Shailender Soni did not raise any demand of cash of Rs. 10 lacs and jewellery for all the family members. It is wrong to suggest that when I visited the house of accused Shailender Soni with the proposal of marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) with accused Shailender Soni then his parents and accused Shailender Soni raised any demand of cash of Rs. 10 lacs and jewellery for all the family members. It is wrong to suggest that initially the marriage of prosecutrix (name 40 of 46 41 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur withheld) and Shailender Soni could not be performed due to the demand of dowry by accused and his parents. It is wrong to suggest that the marriage of accused Shailender Soni and Deepika could not be performed due to the demands of dowry raised by accused Shailender Soni and his parents. It is correct that I fixed the marriage of my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) with other boy. It is wrong to suggest that the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) was fixed with other boy due to the demand of dowry made by accused Shailender Soni and his parents. It is wrong to suggest that the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) which was fixed at another place (Dosari Jagah) was to be performed on 13/04/2013. Vol. it was to be performed on 13/05/2013. My daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) did not inform me that accused Shailender Soni had made physical relations with her several times on the pretext of marriage and later on he refused to perform marriage. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) informed me that accused Shailender Soni had made physical relations with her several times on the pretext of marriage and later on he refused to perform marriage. It is wrong to suggest that after coming to know about the physical relations made by accused with my daughter I requested accused Shailender Soni to perform marriage but he refused and threatened me that if I made complaint against him then he would get me killed. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter filed complaint against accused Shailender Soni because he exploited her by making physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Vol. I am not aware if there were any physical relations between my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and accused Shailender Soni prior to their marriage. It is wrong to suggest that I was very well aware about the fact that there were any physical relations between my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and accused Shailender Soni prior 41 of 46 42 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur to their marriage.
At this stage, the statement dated 18/04/2013 Mark PW9/PX read over to the witness, who denies of having made any such statement to the Police. It is wrong to suggest that I had made the statement Mark PW9/PX to Police or that denying the fact about the making of statement in order to save accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am concealing true and material facts as I have been won over by accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am making a statement favouring accused as now he is my soninlaw and I want to save him from this case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
PW9 - Puran Kumar was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.
On careful perusal and analysis of the testimony of PW9 - Puran Kumar, father of the prosecutrix, it is found that nothing material has come out in his testimony so as to advance the case of the prosecution on the core spectrum of the crime. He negated the suggestions, as were put to him by the Learned Addl. PP, that when he visited the house of accused Shailender Soni with the proposal of marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) with accused Shailender Soni then his parents and accused Shailender Soni raised any demand of cash 42 of 46 43 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur of Rs. 10 lacs and jewellery for all the family members or that initially the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) and Shailender Soni could not be performed due to the demand of dowry by accused and his parents or that the marriage of accused Shailender Soni and prosecutrix (name withheld) could not be performed due to the demands of dowry raised by accused Shailender Soni and his parents or that the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) was fixed with other boy due to the demand of dowry made by accused Shailender Soni and his parents or that the marriage of prosecutrix (name withheld) which was fixed at another place (Dosari Jagah) was to be performed on 13/04/2013. Vol. it was to be performed on 13/05/2013 or that his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) informed him that accused Shailender Soni had made physical relations with her several times on the pretext of marriage and later on he refused to perform marriage or that after coming to know about the physical relations made by accused with his daughter he requested accused Shailender Soni to perform marriage but he refused and threatened him that if he (PW9) made complaint against him then he would get him (PW9) killed or that his daughter filed complaint against accused Shailender Soni because he exploited her by making physical 43 of 46 44 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Vol. I am not aware if there were any physical relations between my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and accused Shailender Soni prior to their marriage or that he was very well aware about the fact that there were any physical relations between his daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) and accused Shailender Soni prior to their marriage or that he had made the statement Mark PW9/PX to Police or that denying the fact about the making of statement in order to save accused or that he is concealing true and material facts as he has been won over by accused or that he is making a statement favouring accused as now he (accused) is his soninlaw and he wants to save him from this case or that he is deposing falsely.
16. In view of above and in the circumstances, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Shailender Soni. The hostility of PW3 - prosecutrix and that of PW7 - Smt. Usha Rani, her mother and PW9 - Sh. Puran Kumar, her father has knocked out the bottom of the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on record to indicate that on 06/04/2013, at Begum Pur, accused Shailender Soni abducted PW3 - prosecutrix, aged around 22 44 of 46 45 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur years from her house situated at A - 502, Jain Nagar, Delhi, with intent that she may be forced to illicit intercourse or that he took her to Haridwar by dishonestly inducing her on the false promise of marriage or that there at Haridwar he committed rape upon PW3 - prosecutrix against her will and without her consent or that he also criminally intimidated her to kill.
I accordingly, acquit accused Shailender Soni for the offences punishable u/s 366/417/376/506 IPC.
17. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of accused Shailender Soni in the commission of offences punishable u/s 366/417/376/506 IPC, is concerned, the same is not sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused Shailender Soni beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is a room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused Shailender Soni. I, therefore, acquit accused Shailender Soni for the offences punishable u/s 366/417/376/506 IPC after giving him the benefit of doubt. Accused Shailender Soni is 45 of 46 46 FIR No. 121/13 PS - Begum Pur on bail. However, u/s 437A Cr.P.C. the bail bond of accused Shailender Soni shall remain in force for six months and he to appear before the Hon'ble Higher Court as and when such Court issues Notice in respect of any Petition filed against this judgment.
Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on 28th Day of May, 2015 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 46 of 46