Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Chauhan on 25 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 632/18
State
Versus
ANIL CHAUHAN
S/o. Sh. Ram Swaroop,
R/o Mohalla Rante Pote Village,
Jakholi Jila, Sonepat, Haryana.
FIR No. : 1156/16
Police Station : S.P. Badli
Under Section : 328/376/406/506 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court: 22.09.2018
Date on which Judgment reserved : 05.02.2020
Date on which Judgment announced: 25.02.2020
Present: Shri V.K. Negi, ld. Additional PP for State.
Sh. Yatharth Sinha, ld. counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been forwarded to face trial for misappropriating Rs. 17 lacs and raping a lady with whom he came State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 1 of 9 into contact when she rang him up wrongly.
2. Prosecution case is that the victim, in the process of ringing up her friend Seema, got connected with the phone of the accused and thereafter, he started calling her regularly and introduced himself as Anil who was working as commission agent of dhania (coriander) in Azadpur vegetable market. He came to know about her a lot on phone and started visiting her house since June 2016. During conversation, she told him that she had sold a plot in Rs. 12.5 lacs and had a cash of Rs. 7 - 8 lacs. He allured her to become a partner in a factory of sole of shoes which he was going to install in Sonepat shortly. Believing him, she gave him a cash of Rs. 12.5 lacs in July 2016 but he did not execute the agreement on one or the other pretext. One evening, while sitting in her house, when the accused tried to open liquor bottle, she opposed to which he replied that he would not serve her liquor and that she should take only cold drink. After consuming the cold drink served by him, she started feeling dizziness and became unconscious. After regaining consciousness, she felt that she had been raped. When she tried to inform police on 100 number, he misbehaved with her, snatched her mobile phone and showed a video in his camera in which he was doing sex with her. He threatened on the strength of that video to defame her. She got scared and thereafter, accused got Rs. 5 lacs from her with a threat that he would show the indecent video to her children. He again came to her house on 08.11.2016, consumed State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 2 of 9 liquor and raped her forcibly and further asked to give Rs. 5 lacs more for which she expressed inability. He insisted for money saying that she should either sell kidney or earn from prostitution, but she should give him money, otherwise, he would upload her indecent video on facebook.
3. Charge under section 328/376(2)(n)/506 IPC was framed against the accused on 01.05.2019 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined three witnesses.
5. As PW1, the prosecutrix deposed that she came into contact with accused when she accidently dialed his mobile phone number in the process of calling her friend. One day, he came to her house and consumed alcohol with her husband. She was not feeling well and went to another room to sleep and when she woke up, she found her clothes in improper condition. When she asked him on phone if he had done any wrong act with her, his reply was in negative. She next deposed that accused took Rs. 12 lacs from her for investment in his factory, but he did not execute any agreement in that regard and when she insisted for the same, he flatly refused to have received any money from her. She next deposed that the accused again came to her house another day, showed her obscene video in his mobile phone in which neither her nor face of the accused was visible. He threatened State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 3 of 9 that if she again demanded money from him, he would make the video viral. There was a quarrel between them due to which her friends advised her to go to Tis Hazari Courts and get a complaint typed for recovery of money from the accused. When she reached the court, she came across an advocate to whom she narrated the whole matter. He got typed a complaint which she gave to the police.
In crossexamination by ld. additional PP, the victim deposed that she did not go through complaint Ex.PW1/A before signing the same. She admitted it correct that there were allegations of repeated rape in complaint, whereas no such act was committed by the accused. She next deposed that her advocate told her that allegation of rape was to be levelled against the accused mandatorily as only by that allegation, she would get money from the accused very soon. In further crossexamination, she admitted it correct that the IO had served her several notices U/s 91 Cr.P.C. which were replied by her vide replies Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D5 which were in her handwriting. In next crossexamination, she deposed that the accused was not appearing in the video shown to her by him.
6. PW2 WSI Neetu Sindhu deposed that she got the statement of the victim recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. in Rohini Courts on 19.11.2016.
PW3 IO WSI Sushila deposed that she got the victim medically examined in Dr. BSA Hospital on 18.11.2016, but she refused for internal medical examination. She got her counseled, State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 4 of 9 prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and got the case FIR Ex.PX10 registered. She next deposed that she visited the crime scene next day, inspected the same on the pointing out of the victim and prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B. She next deposed that the accused joined investigation on 22.02.2017 and he was medically examined and his potency test was got conducted on 25.02.2017. His Nokia mobile phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and the same was sent to FSL which gave report Ex.PX6. She collected certified copies of CDRs of mobile no. 7292038805 of victim and that of accused's mobile no. 9999449364.
In crossexamination, the IO deposed that as per FSL result Ex.PX6, no pornographic material was retrieved from the mobile phone of accused. No money was recovered from the house of the accused.
7. On 30.09.2019, accused admitted following documents / statements / proceedings U/s 294 Cr.P.C.: S. Name of the documents Admitted Denied Exhibits No.
1. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of one Yes - Ex.PX1 Raj Singh, the landlord.
2. Sale Deed produced by PW Yes - Ex.PX2 Sumitra executed between her and PW1 (prosecutrix)
3. CDR of Mobile number Yes - Ex.PX3 999949364 & 7292038805 of (Collectively Vodafone alongwith CAF. ) State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 5 of 9
4. Proceedings under section 164 Yes - Ex.PX4 Cr.P.C. dated 19.11.2016 recorded & by Ms. Richa Manchanda, ld. MM Ex.PX5
5. FSL Report bearing number Yes - Ex.PX6 2017/CFU2389, dated 25.08.2017
6. My Potency Test conducted by Dr. Yes - Ex.PX7 Mukesh Kumar, BSA Hospital vide report.
7. My MLC No.2429/17, dated Yes - Ex.PX8 25.02.2017 prepared by Dr. Ravikant Bhaskar.
8. MLC No. 411/16, dt.18.11.16 of Yes - Ex.PX9 victim prepared by PW Dr. Shweta Mittal, BSA Hospital.
9. FIR No.1156/16 recorded by HC Yes - Ex.PX10 Jai Kumar (duty officer)
10. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Ct. Yes - Ex.PX11 Vinod, who got deposited the exhibits in FSL, Rohini.
11. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of HC Yes - Ex.PX12. Pawan, who went to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original to IO.
12. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Yes - Ex.PX13.
W/Ct. Soniya, who went to the
hospital alongwith victim and got
conducted her medical
examination.
13. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of HC Yes - Ex.PX14
Jagat, who was working as
MHC(M) on 31.03.2017.
14. Copy of DD NO.78B and 76B, dt. Yes - Ex.PX15
18.11.2016, recorded by IO W/SI &
Sushila. Ex.PX16
State Vs Anil Chauhan
S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 6 of 9
On 23.01.2020, accused admitted following documents / statements / proceedings U/s 294 Cr.P.C.: S. Name of the documents Admitted Denied Exhibits No.
1. Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Yes - Ex.PX14 of Mamta Sharma, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix.
8. Under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied every incriminating material put to him. He submitted that he was carrying on the business of vegetable trading at Azadpur Mandi. The prosecutrix approached him in the month of June for job, but he had no vacancy. He further submitted that she kept on calling her for the same and one day she started threatening her on phone that if he did not provide her job, she would get him arrested in a false case of sexual harassment and rape. He further submitted that he came to know about the present FIR when the IO approached him regarding investigation in the present case.
9. Not a single witness was examined in defence.
10. Ld. defence counsel argued that it is a case of no evidence as the prosecutrix deposed that the accused did not rape her and that neither accused nor she was appearing in the video shown to her by the accused. No money was recovered from his possession. So, the State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 7 of 9 allegation of section 406 IPC remained unsubstantiated. As per FSL report, no pornographic material was retrieved from the mobile phone of the accused.
11. As per examinationinchief and lengthy cross examination of the victim, the accused did not rape her. She is consistent on the point that the accused took Rs. 12 lacs from her threatening to show her indecent video to her children and to upload the same on social networking site. But she deposed in cross examination by ld. additional PP that the said video was neither bearing her photo nor that of the accused. So, there was no occasion for her to get threatened due to that video and to give Rs. 12 lacs to the accused under that threat.
In crossexamination by the accused, she deposed it correct that she had slept not due to consumption of cold drink but due to the fact that she was not feeling well. She next deposed that when she woke up, her husband was also present there. In next cross examination, she admitted it correct that the accused never established any kind of physical relation with her and that only purpose of filing of the present case was to recover Rs. 12 lacs from him as advised by her previous counsel.
No money was recovered from the possession of the accused to corroborate the allegation of the victim regarding section 406 IPC.
State Vs Anil Chauhan S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 8 of 9 The mobile phone of the accused was sent to FSL which could not retrieve any indecent pornographic material from it.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove charges against the accused. Hence, the accused is acquitted of the offence he was charged with.
13. The personal and surety bonds of the accused are hereby canceled. Surety is hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document(s) of soundness of surety, be cancelled and the document be returned to surety.
14. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., the accused has furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted 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.
Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2020.02.25
GREWAL 15:46:17 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 25th February 2020 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs Anil Chauhan
S.C. No. 632/18 // FIR No. 1156/16 // PS S.P. Badli pages 9 of 9