Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Rinku S/O Virender Pal on 29 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST,
NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0055012013
SC No.176/13 Date of institution : 01.04.2013
FIR No.30/12 Date on which final
PS. Seelampur arguments were
U/S.354/384/506/376/ heard : 29.04.2014
328/366/344/365/34 Date of judgment : 29.04.2014
IPC
State versus 1. Rinku s/o Virender Pal
r/o 2130, Gali No.8, Kailash
Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
2. Bhanu Pratap S/o Ravinder
Singh, r/o B-14/44/1, North
Ghonda, Subhash Mohalla,
Lal Mandir, Bhajanpura, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution as disclosed in the chargesheet is that on 27.01.2012 the complainant (sister of the prosecutrix) came at the police station Seelampur and made a complaint to the police stating that her sister (prosecutrix) aged about 26 years got married eleven years ago at Bareilley. She has three children out of this SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 1 of 16 wedlock. The children are residing with the husband of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has been residing with her for last one year. On 05.11.2011, the prosecutrix went to market for purchasing some articles and she was standing in front of Aggarwal Sweet. She alleged that accused persons namely Bhanu Pratap and Rinku resident of Gandhi Nagar, Delhi knew the prosecutrix and they were on talking terms with the prosecutrix. The complainant stated that she has doubt that both the accused persons have kidnapped her sister (prosecutrix).
2. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered u/s 365/34 IPC and the investigation was marked to SI Fateh Singh. IO SI Fateh Singh conducted the investigation and efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the case was marked to SI Sarita for further investigation. On 28.01.2012 the complainant alongwith her sister (prosecutrix) came at the police station where statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded by the IO. Clothes of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of incident were got seized. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination at GTB Hospital on 28.01.2012. Sealed exhibits received from the hospital were seized and deposited at the malkhana.
SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 2 of 163. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned MM wherein she stated that the accused Bhanu Pratap used to stalk her. On 05.11.2011 when she was going back home after her work, accused Bhanu Pratap met her in front of Aggarwal Sweets. He misbehaved with the prosecutrix and asked her to accompany him otherwise he would kill her. Accused Bhanu Pratap snatched purse and mobile phone of the prosecutrix and he called co-accused Rinku who came in a car. Accused Bhanu Pratap put an handkerchief on the mouth of the proseuctrix and made her inhale something, on which she became unconscious. Accused persons kidnapped her in a car and when she regained her consciousness, she found herself in a room where both the accused persons were present. Accused Rinku committed rape on her many times. Prosecutrix was able to make a call to her sister and she disclosed about her whereabouts. On 26.01.2012, sister of the prosecutrix reached the spot and the prosecutrix came back to her home alongwith her sister. Accused Bhanu Pratap was arrested and he was also got medically examined. Accused Rinku was granted anticipatory bail on 10.03.2012 by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 376/365/344/328/34 IPC was filed against both the SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 3 of 16 accused persons.
5. Since the major offence in the present case are triable by the court of Session, vide order dated 26.03.2013, learned M.M. committed this case to the court of Sessions and on allocation, this case was assigned to this court.
6. Vide order dated 17.08.2013 my learned predecessor framed a charge u/s 328/366/365/344/34 IPC against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In addition, a charge u/s 354/384/506 IPC against accused Bhanu Pratap and a charge u/s 376 IPC against accused Rinku was also framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e. PW1 sister of prosecutrix, PW2 daughter of sister of prosecutrix, PW3 prosecutrix, PW4 Dr. Mumtaz Nisar Khan, PW5 HC Madan Mohan, PW6 Ct. Raj Bala and PW7 W/SI Sarita.
8. After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 4 of 16 falsely implicated. Accused persons stated that they do not want to lead any evidence in his defence.
9. Out of prosecution witnesses, PW1-sister of prosecutrix, PW2-daughter of sister of prosecutrix and PW3-prosecutrix are the material witnesses of this case whose testimonies shall be discussed at a later stage. PW4 is the doctor who examined the prosecutrix while PW5 to PW7 are the police officials.
10. PW4 Dr. Mumtaz Nisar Khan deposed that on 28.01.2012 she was working at GTB hospital as a Junior Resident ( J.R.). On that day, the prosecutrix aged 26 years was brought in the hospital by W/SI Sarita for medical examination with the alleged history of being missing from home since 05.11.2011 till 28.01.2012. During clinical examination, no marks of fresh external injury were noted. She proved her MLC as Ex.PW4/A and continuation sheet as E. PW4/B.
11. PW5 HC Madan Mohan is the duty officer who recorded the FIR of this case and proved the same as Ex.PW5/A.
12. PW6 Ct. Raj Bala deposed that she accompanied SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 5 of 16 the prosecutrix for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned MM and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by learned MM.
13. PW7 W/SI Sarita deposed that on 28.01.2012 she was posted at police station Seelampur. On that day, the investigation of the present case was handed over to her. The complainant, daughter of the complainant alongwith the prosecutrix came to the police station and the then IO got recorded the statement of the complainant and the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from GTB Hospital. Her clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW3/D. The sealed exhibits received from the hospital were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. Accused Bhanu Pratap was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B. Disclosure statement Ex.PW7/B of accused Bhanu Pratap was recorded. Pointing out memo Ex.PW7/C was prepared on the pointing out of the accused. Thereafter the case file was handed over to SI Nilesh Kumar who obtained the PC remand of accused Bhanu Pratap. On 12.02.2012, the case file was again handed over to this witness. Accused Bhanu Pratap was medically examined and produced before the court from where he was sent to judicial custody. Accused Rinku was granted anticipatory bail by SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 6 of 16 Hon'ble Delhi High Court and he was formally arrested in this case. Accused persons were got medically examined and sealed exhibits were sent to FSL.
14. I have heard arguments addressed by Ms. Madhu Arora, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh.R.K. Kochar, Advocate for accused Bhanu Pratap and Sh.Naveen Jain, Advocate for accused Rinku and perused the record.
15. As noted above, PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the material witnesses. However, these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution on material aspects as would become clear hereinafter.
16. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW3. This witness has not stated anything incriminating either in her examination in chief or her cross examination. PW3 in her examination in chief deposed that on 06.11.2011 she alongwith accused Rinku went to Yamuna Nagar with her own will. She knew the accused Rinku as he was working at Gandhi Nagar where she used to work earlier. She identified the accused Rinku and deposed that they roamed together and she remained with him (accused Rinku) for about two and half months at Yamuna Nagar.
SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 7 of 16She deposed that the accused Rinku was her friend and they remained there as friends in a tenanted house. She stated that accused did not develop physical relations with her at any time. She further deposed that she did not make any statement before the police and was never threatened by the accused persons. She deposed that she was not raped by the accused Rinku. She denied that she became unconscious or intoxicated by any of the accused. She also deposed that she was not confined by any of the accused persons at any place and her articles were not snatched by the accused Bhanu Pratap. Accused Bhanu Pratap was shown to this witness but she refused to identify this accused.
17. PW3 was declared hostile and was cross examined by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the court. During cross examination also, the prosecutrix reiterated her stand as in her examination in chief. She denied that accused Bhanu Pratap facing trial in this case is the same person who met her at the market and threatened to kill her and snatched her mobile phone and purse. She denied that she is not identifying the accused as she has been won over by him. She denied that she ever stated to the police that the accused Rinku was having a handkerchief in his hand which made her SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 8 of 16 unconscious or accused Rinku wrongfully confined her or threatened to kill her. She denied that she was raped by accused Rinku. She admitted that her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded by the learned MM but she stated that the same was made by her at the instance of the police. She denied that she did not accompany the accused as per own wish.
18. During her cross examination on behalf of accused persons, this witness stated that her niece (PW3) was not with her when she left her house from Brahmpuri. She stated that no incident had taken place with her at Seelampur.
19. PW1 (sister of the prosecutrix) is the complainant. Even as per the case of prosecution she has no personal knowledge of the incident on material aspects. The statement of PW1 was got recorded on two dates i.e. 16.12.2013 and 22.04.2014. On 16.12.2013, this witness supported the case of prosecution. PW1 has deposed in her examination in chief that her sister (prosecutrix) is residing with her. The prosecutrix got married about 15 years back. She further stated that the prosecutrix stayed at her matrimonial home for about 10 years but then came back to her house 4 years back as she was being harassed SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 9 of 16 by her in laws. Three children of the prosecutrix are also residing with her. She further deposed that on 05.11.2011 the prosecutrix went to Seelampur alongwith her daughter. The daughter of the complainant came back to the house and informed her that accused Bhanu Pratap and Rinku alongwith one other person whose name she did not know, abducted the prosecutrix in a white colour vehicle. The complainant lodged a complaint with the police Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter on 27.01.2012, she received a telephone call from the prosecutrix informing her that she is at Yamuna Nagar. This witness alongwith her daughter reached Yamuna Nagar and brought the prosecutrix back. Thereafter the prosecutrix was taken to the police station, from where she was taken to GTB hospital and was got medically examined. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded before learned MM. Birth record of the prosecutrix was handed over to the IO. This witness deposed that she did not know Rinku but she had seen him prior to the date of incident as he was running a dhaba at Gandhi Nagar, She further deposed that the prosecutrix had told her that she was abducted by intoxicating her and she was raped by accused Rinku. The prosecutrix also told this witness that the accused Rinku was about to sell her for Rs. 2 lacs but she ran away from that place. She was kept in a room locked from outside.
SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 10 of 1620. However, during her cross examination conducted on behalf of accused on 22.4.2014, this witness (PW1) deposed that her daughter did not tell her about the prosecutrix and her daughter did not accompany the prosecutrix on the day of incident to the market and she was home. She also deposed that her daughter did not tell her that she had seen someone snatching the mobile and purse of the prosecutrix. This witness also deposed that her daughter does not know accused persons by name and face.
21. This witness was re-examined by the learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the court wherein she stated that on 16.12.2003 she made her statement before this court at the instance of police.
22. PW2 daughter of the complainant ( niece of the prosecutrix) during her examination in chief recorded on 16.12.2013, deposed that on 05.11.2011 she alongwith her mausi (prosecutrix) went to market of Seelampur for shopping for Eid. Suddenly the accused Bhanu Pratap reached there and started quarrelling with the prosecutrix and he snatched purse and mobile phone of the prosecutrix. During the scuffle between prosecutrix and SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 11 of 16 the accused Bhanu Pratap, she became perplexed and left the spot and informed about the incident to her family members. She deposed that she does not know what had happened with the prosecutrix thereafter.
23. However, during her cross examination recorded on 22.04.2014, this witness deposed that she did not know accused Bhanu Pratap and the name of the accused Bhanu Pratap was disclosed to her by the police. She deposed that on 05.11.2011 she did not see the accused Bhanu Pratap with the prosecutrix nor he snatched purse and mobile phone of the prosecutrix. This witness was re- examined by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the court wherein she stated that she made her statement on 16.12.2013 in the court at the instance of police.
24. In view of the evidence which has come on record, my findings are as follows:
Accused Bhanu Pratap
25. Accused Bhanu Pratap is facing trial for commission of offences punishable u/s 354/384/506 IPC and u/s 328/344/365/366/34 IPC.
SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 12 of 1626. As noted above, during her deposition, the prosecutrix (PW3) has not supported the case of the prosecution in totality. She has not even identified the accused Bhanu Pratap. She has denied that accused Bhanu Pratap snatched her mobile phone and purse at the time of incident. She has also denied that this accused abducted her alongwith co-accused Rinku
27. Although PW1 during her examination in chief deposed that her daughter told her that the accused Bhanu Pratap and Rinku alongwith one other person abducted the prosecutrix in a white colour vehicle but during cross examination she deposed that her daughter did not know the accused persons. She also stated that her daughter did not tell her anything about the prosecutrix. She further stated that her daughter even did not go with the prosecutrix and she was at home on the day of incident. Apart from the fact that the statement of this witness is inconsistent, her statement at the best is in the nature of hearsay.
28. The statement of the daughter of the complainant (PW2) is also not consistent. During her examination in chief, she deposed that on 05.11.2011 she SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 13 of 16 saw a quarrel between the prosecutrix and the accused Bhanu Pratap. She became perplexed and left the spot and informed the incident to her family members. However, during cross examination, this witness stated that she does not know accused Bhanu Pratap. She deposed that the name of accused Bhanu Pratap was disclosed to her by police and she did not see this accused snatching purse and mobile phone of the prosecutrix.
29. The statements of PW1 and PW2 are not consistent. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 is at best in the nature of hearsay. PW2 in her examination has only deposed that she saw some scuffle between the prosecutrix and this accused. But even this portion of deposition is contrary to her subsequent deposition dated 16.12.2013. PW2 in her cross examination stated that on the day of incident she (PW2) did not go to the market alongwith PW 3 ( prosecutrix). Moreover, the statement of these witnesses can have no significance in view of the statement of PW3. Thus, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused Bhanu Pratap with the alleged offences punishable u/s 354/384/506 IPC and u/s 328/344/365/366/34 IPC. Thus, he is liable to be acquitted for these offences.
SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 14 of 16Accused Rinku
30. Again there is no incriminating evidence against this accused in the deposition of the prosecutrix. In fact she has deposed that this accused did not kidnap her, nor had physical relations with her nor threatened her. She has also deposed that she went to Yamuna Nagar of her own will.
31. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are inconsistent while in their examination in chief, these witnesses to some extent supported the case of prosecution, in their cross examination they made statements contrary to the statements in examination in chief. PW1 has no personal knowledge of the matter. Statement of PW2 has no significance in view of statement of prosecutrix.
32. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence on record to connect this accused also with the alleged offences punishable u/s 328/344/365/366/34 IPC and u/s 376 IPC. Thus, he is also acquitted for these offences.
33. In view of above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 15 of 16 accused persons for the charged offences. Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 354/384/506 IPC and u/s 328/344/365/366/34 IPC. Accused Rinku is also acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 328/344/365/366/34 and u/s 376 IPC.
34. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 29.04.2014 (Sarita Birbal) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 176/13 State vs. Rinku etc Page 16 of 16