Delhi District Court
State vs . Nitin Kumar on 16 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI
DELHI
Sessions Case No : 492/17
State Vs. Nitin Kumar
S/o Sh. Harish Kumar
R/o H. No. G5/77, First Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No :779/2016
Police Station :K. N. K. Marg
Under Sections :328/376/506 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 18.08.2017
Date on which Judgment reserved : 16.09.2017
Date on which Judgment announced : 16.09.2017
J U D G M E N T
1.In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that two years prior to, 24.9.16 at unknown time, in the birthday party of his friend namely, Ritik, in a house at Sector17, Rohini, he administered some stupefying substance to the prosecutrix and thereafter, committed rape upon her without her consent.
2. It was also alleged that on unknown date, time and place he criminally intimidated the prosecutrix to kill her.
3. A charge in respect of offences under Section 328/376/506 State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 1 IPC was framed against the accused on 5.9.2017 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses.
5. PW1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she along with her parents has been residing at Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. In the year 2016, she used to give tuitions to the children. Nitin was residing in her gali. She started talking with Nitin and friendship developed between her and Nitin. She wanted to marry with Nitin but her parents were against the marriage, as she belonged to Jain Family and Nitin was belonging to Thakur Family. But, she married with Nitin Kumar on 20.9.2016 in a Temple at Sector16, Rohini. She told the facts to her parents, who scolded her and took her to the PS, where police obtained signature on the written papers. She does not know anything about that case. Accused Nitin Kumar is present in the court.
6. She has further deposed that she was taken to BSA Hospital, where police officer talked the doctors and she was medically examined. She refused for her internal examination.
7. She has identified her signature on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/A.
8. She has further deposed that on 5.1.17, she got married with Nitin Kumar in the presence of family members of Nitin, Sumit and Ajay in Arya Samaj Mandir, Harit Vihar, Delhi. The marriage certificate is Ex. PW 1/B, which bears her signature at point 'A' and the signature of Nitin Kumar at point B. She has been residing with Nitin happily.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 2
9. Since, proseuctrix has not supported the prosecution case, she has been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, wherein she has admitted her signature on her statement Ex. PW 1/C, but has volunteered that same was not read over to her. She has deposed that IO obtained her signature on that statement.
10. She has deposed that she had not stated to police in her statement that accused Nitin followed her and asked her to make him friend and that on 18.9.16, she received a threatening call on her mobile no. 9211083210 from mobile no. 9205436421 and that she also received a whatsapp message of threat and vulgar language and that she suspected that the said whatsapp was sent by accused Nitin.
11. She has further deposed that she had not stated in her statement Ex. PW 1/C that 24.9.16, she told all the facts to her parents and that she along with her parents went to the house of accused to make him understand and that then Nitin became angry and threatened her and her parents to leave his house immediately, otherwise, they would be killed.
12. She has denied that she has married with the accused after registration of the case or that no marriage between her and accused was organized before registration of the case in a temple. She has denied that she is deposing falsely, as she married with accused and residing with him happily.
13. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused she has State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 3 admitted that she deposed in the court without any pressure, tutoring and undue influence. She has further admitted that she had given the statement Ex. PW 1/A before Ld. MM on the asking of the Police official and NGOs. She has admitted that she has married with accused on 20.9.2016. She has further admitted that she did not attend the birthday party organized in Sector17, hence there is no question of consuming any stupefying substance by her.
14. PW2 Anil Jain is the father of prosecutrix. He has deposed that he along with his wife, daughter and younger son has been residing at G5/64, Sector16, Rohini. His daughter had married with accused on 20.9.16 in a temple. On 24.9.2016, his daughter/prosecutrix told him that she was in love with Nitin and wanted to marry with him according to Hindu Rites and Customs. He made his daughter understand that Nitin belonged to Thakur family and they belong to Jain/ Baniya Family. So, he did not allow her, to marry with Nitin. But, his daughter insisted to marry with accused Nitin. His daughter told him about her marriage with Nitin. On that, he scolded her and took her to PS K. N. K. Marg, where IO obtained her signature on the paper. Later on, he got married his daughter with Nitin. On 5.1.2017 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Harit Vihar, Delhi. Accused Nitin is present in the Court.
15. Since, father of the prosecutrix has also not supported the prosecution case, he has been crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, wherein he has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police. When the statement Mark 2/A was read over to the witness, he denied of State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 4 having made such statement to the police. He has deposed that he had not stated to police in his statement Mark PW 2/A that on 24.9.16 in the morning time, his daughter/prosecutrix told him that Nitin S/o Harish, who was residing at G5/77, Sector16, Rohini followed his daughter and used the filthy language and harassed her.
16. He has further deposed that he had not stated in his statement that on 18.9.16, he received an obscene message on his mobile no. . 9211083210 from mobile no. 9205436420 and suspected that the said message was sent by accused Nitin and that due to that reason, he along with his wife and daughter went to the house of accused to make his understand and that when he tried to make him understand, accused became angry and asked them to leave the house immediately, otherwise, they would be killed and that accused and his family members did not give any response and they went to PS, where his daughter got lodged the complaint. He has denied that he is deposing falsely, as his daughter has married with accused.
17. PW3 Kamla Jain, who is the mother of prosecutrix has deposed on the same lines as that of PW2 and therefore, her testimony is not discussed here to avoid repetition.
18. In crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP she has deposed that her statement was not recorded by police. She has also denied of having given the statement Mark PW 3/A to police.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 5
19. The recording of statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, was dispensed with as nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused.
20. I have heard arguments from ld counsel for accused, who has prayed for acquittal of the accused by submitting that prosecutrix and her parents have not supported the prosecution story.
21. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that prosecutrix and PW2 & PW3 had initially supported the prosecution story but, later on, they have been won over by the accused.
22. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
23. In Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cri. LJ 1471 (DB) (Punj), it was held that:
"The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record. Even if there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole the prosecution may be true but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 6 accused can be convicted."
24. In the present case, out of three witnesses PW1 is the star witness of case, being the prosecutrix. However, she has not supported the prosecution story either in examinationinchief or crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP. She has categorically deposed that accused was residing in her gali. She started talking with him and friendship developed between them. She wanted to marry with accused but her parents were against the marriage, as she belonged to Jain Family and accused was from a Thakur Family. But she married with Nitin Kumar in a temple on 20.9.16. She told that facts to her parents, who scolded and they took her to the PS, where police obtained her signature on the written papers. She does not know anything about that case.
25. In crossexamination by Ld. Addl.PP she has deposed that the statement Ex. PW 1/C bearing her signature was not read over to her and IO obtained her signature on the statement. She has denied all the contents of her statement Ex. PW 1/C, when the same were put to her by Ld. Addl. PP.
26. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused she has admitted that she had given the statement, Ex. PW 1/A before Ld. MM on the asking of the Police official and NGOs.
27. The other material witnesses ie. PW2, Anil Jain and PW3, Kamla Jain, who are the father and mother of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution story and deposed that their statement were not recorded by the police. They have denied all the contents of State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 7 their statements mark PW 2/A and Mark PW 3/A respectively, when the same were put to them.
28. Since, the star witness of the case and her parents have not supported the prosecution story, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Accordingly, accused Nitin Kumar is acquitted of the offence, he was charged with.
30. However, in terms of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC, the accused has furnished the fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted for a period of six months with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against the judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Bimla Kumari) on this 16th September, 2017 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North) Rohini Courts : Delhi State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR no. 779/2016, PS K. N. K. Marg Page No. 8