Delhi District Court
State vs Arjun Singh Sc No.143/13//Fir ... on 25 September, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01: NORTH: ROHINI:DELHI
S. C. NO:143/13.
FIR NO:65/13.
PS :PRASHANT VIHAR.
U/S. 363/366/376 IPC & 4 OF POCSO ACT.
STATE
VERSUS
ARJUN SINGH S/O. NAND LAL SINGH
R/O. NIRMAN MAJDUR CAMP, HAIDERPUR,
DELHI.
PERMANENT ADDERSS:
VILLAGE - NARAINPUR, PSSAMATPUR,
DISTRICTDARBHANGA, BIHAR.
Date of Institution:30.05.2013.
Date of Argument :25.09.2013
Date of Decision :25.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 04.02.2013 complainant Sta w/o. Vijay Paswan R/o. H.No.106, Tikona Park, Village Badli, Delhi had come in the PS and recorded her statement to SI Mohit Prakash that, "she has been residing at the abovesaid address alongwith her family members and doing the job of maid servant in the kothis. On 31.01.2013, she alongwith her STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 1 OF 7 2 daughter 'P' (name of the prosecutrix withheld hereinafter her name be referred as 'P') had gone to do work in House No.102 at Prashant Vihar at 9am and at about 2pm she and her daughter were taking lunch in the park of Fblock, Prashant Vihar and after taking lunch she had gone to take water in the temple and when she returned back from the temple then prosecutrix 'P' not met there. She further raised her suspicion upon one boy namely Vipin residing at CA Block, Ekta Camp, Pitampura, Delhi had enticed her daughter".
Thereafter SI Mohit Prakash had recorded the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. During investigation, SI Mohit Prakash searched the accused Vipin and prosecutrix 'P' and send the missing report to the concerned branch and during investigation Vipin was interrogated and he had denied that, he had not kidnapped the prosecutrix, however, he had seen the prosecutrix on 31.01.2013 with Arjun. On 12.02.2013 SI Mohit Prakash apprehended the prosecutrix and accused Arjun Singh and prosecutrix was sent for her medicolegal examination at BSA Hospital and accused Arjun was also sent for his medical examination to the said hospital. IO collected the MLCs of the accused as well as prosecutrix and exhibits which were handed over STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 2 OF 7 3 by the doctor and deposited the same in the malkhana. Accused was sent to JC. During investigation, it came to know that accused Arjun Singh had married with the prosecutrix and kept her in his jhuggi and established physical relationship with prosecutrix. Therefore, Sections 366A/342/376 IPC were added in the FIR.
Statement of the prosecutrix 'P' u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. got recorded and further she was produced before CWC and per the order of the CWC she was handed over to her parents. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to WSI Savitri and during investigation prosecutrix had stated that she is illiterate and had never gone to school. On 18.03.2013 age determination bone test was conducted and that of accused was conducted on 28.3.2013. Thereafter Section 4 of POCSO Act added in the FIR and exhibits were sent to FSL for Expert Report, thereafter WSI Savitri was transferred and case was entrusted to WSI Rita. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed under Section 363/366A/342/376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act through SHO.
2. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, it was assigned to this court. STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 3 OF 7 4
3. Vide order dated 08.07.2013, charges for offence u/s.
363/366/376 IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act framed against accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined three witness i.e. PW1/Prosecutrix 'P' (name withheld hereinafter her name be referred as 'P'). PW2 Smt. Sita, mother of the prosecutrix and PW3 WSI Reeta is the IO and investigation of this case was assigned to her on 25.4.2013, she collected the case file from the read of PS Prashant Vihar and comply the objection raised by prosecution department and prepared the challan and filed in the court through SHO later on.
5. PW1 'P' had deposed during her examination that, her mother was working as maid servant in the kothi of F and D Block, Prashant Vihar. She does not remember the date and month but it was this year in summer season, one day one boy had kidnapped her from F Block, Prashant Vihar from the kothi where her mother was working, but she does not know the address of said kothi. Said person had taken her to Bihar at his native village and committed sexual intercourse forcefully with her without her consent. She was kept in his house for two days and thereafter said person STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 4 OF 7 5 brought her to Delhi and kept her in the Haiderpur jhuggis for two days. Thereafter said person ran away. She herself reached at Japani park where police found her and taken her in custody. Police had interrogated her and recorded her statement. She was taken to BSA Hospital with her mother, but she and her mother refused for internal medical examination because she was having mensuration cycle and endorsement was also made in this respect at point A on MLC Ex.PW1/A. She was also taken before ld. MM for her statement and ld. MM had recorded her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/B. She does not remember her exact date of birth but she stated that she was 15 years old at the time of incident. She could not identify the accused who had kidnapped her. Thereafter ld. Addl. PP for the State has declared her hostile and cross examined her at length but nothing incriminating having come up against the accused. She was not cross examined by ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW2 Smt. Sita has stated that, her daughter 'P' aged about 15 years had gone to temple for bringing water on 30.01.2013 and she could not return to the house. She had made a complaint to the police on 04.02.13. Police recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. Later on her daughter was recovered from Japanese Park on STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 5 OF 7 6 12.2.2013. She went alongwith her daughter for medical examination to BSA Hospital but, she refused for her internal examination, as she was undergoing mensuration cycle. An endorsement was also made in this respect. She does not know the boy who had kidnapped her daughter. Thereafter, she was declared hostile and cross examined at length, but nothing incriminating has come out against the accused.
7. PW1 is the only material witness in this case because she is the person who was kidnapped and raped and she categorically stated that accused had not kidnapped or raped her. She has categorically stated that accused has not kidnapped her or raped her despite the cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State. No other person had seen the accused while committing kidnapping PW1, PW2 has also not stated that accused had kidnaped her daughger in her complaint Ex.PW1/A she has suspected one Vipin has kidnapped her daughter. Hence, in these circumstances in my view prosecution has failed to prove that accused has kidnapped the prosecutrix or commit rape with her or committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
8. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 6 OF 7 7 accused is acquitted from all the offences he has been charged. Accused is in JC, he be released from JC forthwith if not required in any other case. The articles, if any, seized in the personal search of the accused persons be released to him. Original documents, if any, be released and endorsement, if any, be canceled. Case property, if any, is confiscated to the State.
9. However, accused is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety each of like amount in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. within one week, thereafter file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SANJEEV KUMAR)
ON 25.09.2013. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 (NORTH)
ROHINI:DELHI.
STATE VS ARJUN SINGH SC NO.143/13//FIR NO.65/13//U/S.363/366/376 IPC & 4 POCSO ACT //PSPRASHANT VIHAR PAGE 7 OF 7