Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Singh @ Sonu S/O Subhash. on 30 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 167/13
Unique Case ID No..02405R0210332013.
State Vs. Jai Singh @ Sonu S/o Subhash.
R/o Village & PO Pondwala Khurd,
PS Chhawla, New Delhi.
Date of Institution :26.07.2013.
FIR No.99/13 dated 09.04.2013.
U/s. 365/343/376/34 IPC.
P.S. Chhawla.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 26.7.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 30.7.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused had been chargesheeted by the Police for the offences u/s 328/343/365/376/506 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the family of the prosecutrix namely 'X' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her identity) and the family of the accused reside in neighbourhood to each other. About a year before the registration of the FIR in this case, there had been some altercation between the two families for which reason, the accused had issued threats to the prosecutrix that he would kidnap her. The marriage of the prosecutrix had been fixed for 13.3.2013. As a matter of revenge, the accused had made a call to her would be in-laws also SC No.167/13 Page 1 of 27 threatening them that he would kidnap the prosecutrix and would shoot at her husband. On 8.3.2013 at about 10.30 am or 11 am, when the prosecutrix was going to fetch tailored clothes, accused alongwith his friend came near her in a Maruti 800 car bearing No.HR-26-2561. When she stopped, accused took out a handkerchief from his pocket and put the same upon her face. On account of smell emanating from the handkerchief, she felt giddy and then became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found her hands tied and a cloth thrust in her mouth, as a result of which she could not raise alarm. Thereafter the accused and his friend took her to the house of an acquaintance in Sohna and his friend left from there. Thereafter accused showed her a pistol and three bullets and threatened her that he would kill her father and her brother. The accused kept on raping her continuously for three days after tying her hands and feet. The prosecutrix was intensely terrified and could not think what to do. The friend of the accused again came to that room on 11.3.2013 and told the accused that the owner of the house is about to reach there. Therefore, both put the prosecutrix in a van and made her unconscious again. They threw her out near Goyla More in front of Balaji Hospital. She somehow reached inside the hospital. Many persons gathered around her and after making inquiries from her, made call to her family. Her family members reached her and in the meanwhile police also reached there. She was taken to the Police Station. However, no case was registered on that day as the prosecutrix gave in writing that she had voluntarily eloped with the accused. Since her parents were not willing to take her back home, she was lodged in Nirmal Chhaya, the next day.
SC No.167/13 Page 2 of 273. It is further case of the prosecution that on 9.4.2013, a written complaint of the prosecutrix 'X' was received in the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered u/s 365/343/376 IPC and the investigation was entrusted to SI Saroj Bala. She summoned the prosecutrix and took her to RTRM Hospital Jaffarpur for medical examination. The exhibits given by the doctor were seized by her. She also produced the prosecutrix before concerned Ld. Magistrate who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of that statement, Section 328 IPC was added to the FIR. Accused evaded his arrest for a long time and accordingly process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was got issued against him. However, after dismissal of his anticipatory bail applications by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court, the accused surrendered before the ld. MM and was accordingly arrested by the IO. He made a confessional statement to the IO admitting his guilt. He also showed to the IO, the room in the house of Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav in Ward NO.5, Shiv Colony, Sohna, Gurgaon where he had kept the prosecutrix confined and had been raping her. IO prepared the site plan of the said spot. The Maruti Car No..HR26-2561 in which the prosecutrix had been kidnapped was seized by the IO at the instance of the accused. The accused was got medically examined in RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur. Exhibits handed over by the doctor were seized by the IO. All the exhibits were later on sent by the IO to FSL for forensic examination. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and submitted before the court of concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.
4. On committal of case to the court of sessions, charges u/s 328 IPC, u/s 365 IPC, u/s 323 IPC, u/s 376 IPC and u/s 506 IPC SC No.167/13 Page 3 of 27 were framed against the accused on 05.08.2013. The accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses to establish the charges against the accused. Ld. APP also tendered in evidence the FSL result Ex.PA and Ex.PB.
5. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 5.4.2014 wherein, he denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. According to him, the prosecutrix was in love with him and used to tell him that she cannot live with any other person. He further stated that the prosecutrix had made a call to him on 7.3.2013 asking him to meet her in the market when she would visit the market for purchase of make up articles and accordingly they met in the morning. She told her him that he should arrange a room where they can spend some time.Then they went to Sohna together and arranged a room in the house of Ram Avtar and came back. On 08.03.2013 she again called him and asked him to meet her on the road outside the village. Accordingly they met and she voluntarily accompanied him to the aforesaid room at Sohna Road where they remained till 11.3.2013. On 11.3.2013 they came to Gurgaon by a bus and from there, they reached Rajiv Chowk by Metro train from where they again took another metro train upto Dwarka. From Metro station they reached Goyla Dairy by a taxi and the prosecutrix suggested him that she would get herself admitted in the hospital so that her family members would come and take her back. He further stated that in Sohna, they had gone together to the market to fetch clothes for her and she had got her clothes stitched from a lady residing in the neighbourhood.
SC No.167/13 Page 4 of 276. The accused examined three witnesses in his defence. DW-1 is a lady who was residing in front of the house of Ramavtar in Shiv Colony, Sohna, Haryana. DW2 is constable Rohtash who was duty officer in PS Chhawla on 8.3.2013. DW3 is the wife of the accused.
7. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW7. She deposed that she knew the accused from his childhood as he resides in their neighbourhood. Her marriage was to be solemnized with one Deepak on 13.3.2013. On 8.3.2013, she left her home at about 10.30 am or 11 am for bringing stitched clothes from the nearby tailor. On the way she met her uncle (chacha) Babli and he handed over to her her original documents, which she had given to him for attestation purpose, and Rs. 5000/- in cash. she had also taken about Rs. 220/- from her home. Thereafter she met accused Jai Singh. One of his friends was standing at a distance near a white colour maruti car. She had noted the registration number of the car as HR26-2561. The accused signalled her to come near him. She went near him and he asked her where she was going and engaged her in talks. He was having his hands in his pant pockets. In the meantime, he took out a handkerchief from his pant pocket and put the same on her face whereafter she felt giddy and became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in a room and her hands as well as her feet were tied with a rope. A cloth had been SC No.167/13 Page 5 of 27 thrust in her mouth. The accused and his friend were also present in the room and were talking to each other. The friend of the accused asked him what is to be done with her and the accused replied that she has to be kept here at Sohna. From their conversation, she came to know that the place was in Sohna. Thereafter the friend of accused left the room. The accused showed a revolver and three bullets to her and threatened her that in case she narrated the incident to anybody, he would kill her father and her brother. The accused kept her confined in that room for four days i.e. upto 11.3.2013 and during that period, he committed rape upon her on all the four days. The accused had removed the cloth from her mouth. She had requested the accused many a times to leave her as her marriage was to be solemnized on 13.3.2013 but he did not listen her and did not leave her. The accused had two mobile phones with him and he used to talk to his family members.
9. She further deposed that on 11.3.2013, the same friend of the accused again came to that room and told the accused that the owner of the house is about to come there. He asked the accused to take her somewhere else. The accused again made her unconscious by putting his handkerchief on her face. However, she did not lose her consciousness fully. The accused and his friend put her in a Maruti Van and dropped her in front of Balaji Hospital near Goyla More and they left. Many persons gathered at the spot and they took her to the Balaji Hospital. The doctors made inquiries from her and she narrated the whole incident to them. They made a call to her family members. Her father, Her uncle and two or three villagers reached hospital. The SC No.167/13 Page 6 of 27 elder brother of the accused namely Mahinder was already present in the hospital, when she was brought there by the public persons. The doctor called Police to the hospital. It was about 9.30 or 10 pm at that time. From hospital she was brought to the police station by the police officials. One police official named Vikas told her family members that she had to be kept in the police station as inquiries have to be made from her as a missing complaint had been lodged and asked them to leave. Accordingly, her family members left for home and she was kept in the police station for the night. After her family members left the police station, said Vikas made a call to the family members of the accused. The father, brother and wife of the accused reached the police station. Vikas told her that the wife of the accused has lodged a complaint against her and it would be better for her to settle the matter with the accused's family or otherwise she would be in trouble. Vikas made her to write an application on his dictation and she signed the same as per his directions. He had made her to write in the application that she had gone with the accused voluntarily.
10. She further deposed that next day i.e. on 12.3.2013, the police official Vikas told her that she will be taken to hospital for medical examination and that she should not give her consent for the same. Thereafter he took her to RTRM Hospital and there she did not give consent for her medical examination, as directed by him. From hospital, said Vikas took her to Nirmal Chhaya and lodged her there. She remained in Nirmal Chhaya till 5th April, 2013. she had submitted a written application to the Incharge Nirmal Chhaya for recording of her fresh statement and for her fresh medical examination but no action was taken on the same.
SC No.167/13 Page 7 of 27After release from Nirmal Chhya on 5.4.2013, she went to the house of her maternal uncle and started residing there. She appeared before a lady Magistrate in Dwarka Court on 8.4.2013 as she had filed an application and apprised the ld. Magistrate about the conduct of Vikas and that she was compelled to make a false statement. She had also submitted a written complaint to the SHO PS Chhawla which is Ex. PW7/A. It is on the basis of the said complaint that FIR was registered and investigation started. She had also sent a written complaint directly to Commissioner Police, Delhi, which is Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter she was again taken by police officials to RTRM Hospital and her medical examination was conducted. Police officials also produced her before a lady Magistrate who recorded her statement which is Ex.PW7/C.
11. In the cross examination, she deposed that there are 6 or 7 houses between her house and the shop of tailor Munisha where she had gone to fetch her stitched clothes on the date of incident. She must have walked upto about ten feet towards her house when the accused called her from behind. According to him, she knew that there had been a quarrel between her family and the family of the accused but still she went upto the accused when he called her. She met him in front of the house of Ghutal. The friend of the accused was standing at a distance of 10 to 12 feet from him. She became unconscious after she was made to sit in a car. Police had not asked her to point out the spot from where she was abducted and the room in which she was confined by the accused. Nobody except the accused visited that room during those four days of her confinement. Whenever accused used to go out of the room, he used to thrust the cloth into her mouth and SC No.167/13 Page 8 of 27 used to remove it after he returned. The accused had kept her hands tied by a rope on her back on all the three days of her confinement. He also tied her lower legs between her ankle and knee. Before going out of the room, the accused used to give her a small tablet and she used to fall asleep after consuming the tablet. She did not know whether the room was on the ground floor or on the first floor. During her period of confinement at Sohna, she changed her clothes once and had worn a Suit Salwar provided to her by the accused. It was a white shirt and maroon coloured Pajami.
12. She further deposed that she was semi conscious when the accused dropped her in front of the hospital. She was having a polythene bag in her hand containing documents and cash. She did not mention about the same in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC. She deposed that her family members had come to meet her in Nirmal Chhaya four or five times and first time they had come on 14th or 15th March, 2013. She could not tell the date when she had submitted the complaint to Incharge, Nirmal Chhaya. On that day, her father also had come there and she had given a copy of the complaint to her father to be submitted in the police station. She was shown a small notebook by the cross examining counsel and she admitted that it is her notebook and it contains writing in her hand. The same is Ex.PW1/D2. Upon reaching Balaji Hospital, she felt that her hands and feet were swollen but she did not say so to the doctor. She did not know the registration number of the van from which she was dropped by the accused near the hospital. She did not tell the people, who took her inside the hospital, that she had been kidnapped and raped.
SC No.167/13 Page 9 of 2713. She further deposed that after she was kidnapped by the accused on 08.3.2013, she regained consciousness in the room at Sohna. After her release from Nirmal Chhaya on 05.4.2013, she went to the house of her maternal uncle. She came to the court for the first time on 08.4.2013 and submitted a complaint to the lady Magistrate. She deposed that she had not written the complaint Ex.PW1/A voluntarily. SI Vikas Yadav had forced her to write the same. She further denied each and every suggestion put to her by the Ld. Counsel for the accused including that she was in love with the accused and had eloped with him voluntarily.
14. PW-10 is Shri Tek Chand, the uncle of prosecutrix. He deposed that the accused too is related to him and is his cousin. According to him the relations between the family of the prosecutrix and accused's family were strained on account of some dispute. He further deposed that the marriage of the prosecutrix was fixed for 13.3.2013 and the accused was aware about the same. Accused did not want the marriage ceremony to pass off peacefully. Accused had made call to the would be groom of the prosecutrix asking him not to go for the said marriage as the prosecutrix is not having good character. He had called accused, his brother and his parents to his house on two occasions and counselled them not to create hurdles in the marriage. All of them had assured him that they would not intervene in the marriage function. He further deposed that he suffered a heart attack on 2.3.2013 and had to be hospitalized. He was discharged from the hospital on 6.3.2013 but was on bed rest. Prosecutrix's SC No.167/13 Page 10 of 27 father came to him on 9.3.2013 and informed him that prosecutrix had gone missing from the market. They passed on the information to the would be groom Deepak. The family of Deepak told them that they have made all the arrangements of marriage and if the marriage does not take place, they will face humiliation and ridicule in public. They further told that to give any other girl in the family in marriage to Deepak. Accordingly, the marriage of his daughter Sonia was performed with Deepak on 13.3.2013. He further deposed that on 11.3.2013 at about 9.30 pm he had received a phone call from police official named Umesh from PS Chhawla saying that his niece i.e. the prosecutrix is in Balaji Hospital. Accordingly he alongwith prosecutrix's father alongwith some other relatives reached Balaji Hospital and found her sitting on a bench inside the hospital. She was in terrorised state. Police officials were also present in the hospital. She was brought to the police station. She was detained in the police station for further enquiry and they returned home. After about 6 or 7 days of the marriage function when he alongwith prosecutrix's father and other brothers went to Nirmal Chhaya to meet her, she handed over a hand written letter to her father stating what had happened to her. They handed over the said letter to SHO. In answer to a leading question put to him by ld. APP with the permission of the court, he admitted that they had requested the police officials to delay in further action in this case till the marriage of his daughter with Deepak is over as they apprehended that the accused may create a ruckus in the marriage function.
15. In the cross examination he deposed that he did not tell police officials that his son-in-law Deepak had recorded the SC No.167/13 Page 11 of 27 threatening calls received by him from the accused. According to him no family member of the accused was present in the hospital when they reached there. He did not meet police officials after 12.3.2013. Prosecutrix had narrated the incident of kidnapping and rape to him at home after her release from Nirmal chhaya. He had not talked to prosecurix before that.
16. The father of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW11. He deposed that the marriage of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix was fixed for 13.3.2013 with one Deepak of village Jahangirpur. However, on 08.3.2013 the prosecutrix left home for market at 10.30 a.m. to fetch tailored clothes but did not return therefrom. They could not trace her despite search. He alongwith his relative went to police station at about 10 p.m. and lodged a missing report. He further deposed that on 11.3.2013 his brother Tek Chand received a phone call about 9.30 p.m. that the prosecutrix is in Balaji Hospital. Accordingly they reached Balaji Hospital and found the prosecutrix there. Some police officials had already reached there. Prosecutrix was in an intensely depressed state and was feeling giddy. Police officials took them to the police station. Prosecutrix was detained in the police station for inquiry purpose and they were asked to go home. They reached the police station again on 12.3.2013 and were told that the prosecutrix has been taken to hospital for medical examination. He further deposed that meanwhile upon the insistence of would be in-laws of the prosecutrix they solemnized marriage of Tek Chand's daughter Sonia with deepak on 13.3.2013. About 2 or 3 days after the marriage, he alongwith Tek Chand and some other relatives went to meet the prosecutrix in Nirmal Chhaya. Prosecutrix told him SC No.167/13 Page 12 of 27 that while she was in market, accused Jai Singh met her, made her unconsciousness, kidnapped her and raped her. She further told him that she was not in complete senses when the police officials met her and she gave statement as per what SI Vikas had told her. He had gone to meet the prosecutrix in Nirmal Chhaya on 26 th or 27th March, 2013 and on that day, prosecutrix handed over to him a written complaint which he then submitted to the SHO. He further deposed that the prosecutrix was released from Nirmal Chhaya on 05.4.2013 and they brought her home. They went to the police station alongwith prosecutrix on 06.4.2013 and told the SHO that her statement has not been recorded properly. Prosecutrix submitted a written complaint with the SHO on 08.4.2013 and its copy also was delivered at the office of LG. He also deposed that Deepak had told him that he had received telephonic calls from accused Jai Singh @ Sonu telling him not to go for the marriage of the prosecutrix and in case he does so, accused will kill him as well as the prosecutrix. Deepak also told him that he has recorded the threatening calls of the accused. He further deposed that for about one and a half years before the date of incident, they had strained relations with the family of the accused as there was a dispute between them on the right of way and the accused kidnapped and raped the prosecutrix on account of vengeance. He deposed that they did not want immediate action against them from police as they wanted to save our honour and dignity so that the marriage of Sonia is solemnized peacefully with Deepak.
17. In cross examination, he deposed that Deepak had told him about the threatening calls one month before the date of SC No.167/13 Page 13 of 27 marriage and he had informed the police officials verbally that Deepak had recorded threatening calls received from the accused. He denied that about one year before the date of incident, he had seen his daughter with the accused at Chhawla bus stand and he had scolded her or that his daughter used to meet the accused regularly. He further deposed that on 08.4.2013 they had reached the police station at about 2 p.m. Prosecutrix wrote the complaint in the police station itself and it took her about one hour to do the same. They remained in the police station till 4 p.m. They had not submitted any complaint to the SHO between 08.3.2013 and 08.4.2013. He deposed that he had gone to meet the prosecutrix in Nirmal Chhaya for 16th or 17th March, 2013 and on that day the prosecutrix narrated the incident to him. He denied the suggestion given to him.
18. PW14 Mrs. Rinku Thakur was employed as Staff Nurse in Balaji Hospital in March, 2013. She did not remember the exact date and month of the incident. She deposed that she was on night duty and reached the hospital on that day at about 8 p.m. She saw a girl sitting on a bench inside the hospital near the entrance. She asked her whether she wants to have a check up from the doctor but the girl replied in negative. The girl told her that her parents are about to come there. She left to resume her duties. When she again came to that place after about two hours, the girl was not there. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, she denied that when she saw the girl sitting on the bench continuously for about one and a half hours, she had gone to nearby police picket and informed the Constable on duty about the girl. In the cross SC No.167/13 Page 14 of 27 examination conducted on behalf of the accused, she deposed that the girl was all alone and the girl did not make any phone call in her presence. The girl also did not make any request to her to make a phone call. The girl did not demand anything from her to eat. She remained with that girl for just two or three minutes. She did not notice whether the condition of the girl was normal or otherwise.
19. PW3 is Sh. Ram Avtar Yadav, a resident of Shiv Colony, near Shiv Mandir, Ward No.5, Sohna City, Gurgaon, Haryana. He deposed that on 8th or 9th March, 2013 accused Jai Singh alongwith his wife 'X' had come to him seeking a room on rent. Accused told him that he is running a mechanic shop at Sohna Road. He asked the accused about his identity documents and accused told him that he would provide the identity proof on the next day. He showed them one room set on the first floor and they agreed to take the same on rent. He further deposed that the next day they again came to his house but he was not present there at that time. He came in the evening and found that the wife of the accused was present in the room. Accused also came there after some time. They were having only one bag and one mat with them. They told him that their household goods are in the previous rented room which has been locked by the landlord and they would get their goods the next day. They remained in his house for three nights but since the accused did not handover to him the identity documents, he became suspicious and asked him to vacate the house. Accordingly, they vacated his house. In the cross examination, he deposed that the accused had not tied the hands and feet of his wife and no force was exerted by the accused upon SC No.167/13 Page 15 of 27 her wife 'X' during those three days. When they remained in his house, the accused had not tied up his wife at any point of time. He further deposed that a couple and their daughter was residing as tenant in another room on the first floor. A lady named Manbhari is residing in the house adjacent to his house and she is engaged in stitching of old clothes. He further deposed that accused and his wife used to go to the market and the accused had brought eatables from the market which they cooked in his kitchen. Accused had also brought utensils from the market and they had gone to market together. He had not seen the accused's wife and the wife of another tenant talking to each other or going to market together.
20. According to PW4 Sh. Harnarain, he had purchased the white colour Maruti car no.HR-26AL-2561 from one Ram Kumar, he did not remember the date and month of purchase. About one year thereafter, he sold the same to his nephew Naresh. However, he had not transferred the said car in his own name and it continued to remain registered in the name of Ram Kumar. He proved the photocopy of the affidavit executed by Naresh at the time of purchase of the car as Ex.PW4/A.
21. Naresh Kumar has been examined as PW5. He has deposed that he had purchased Maruti car no.HR-26AL-2561 from his uncle Harnarain on 01.2.2013. Harnarain had handed over to him the original RC of the car as well as the original Form Nos.29 and 30 as also the affidavit of Ram Kumar. He proved the photocopies of these documents as Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. He admitted his signatures at points A & B SC No.167/13 Page 16 of 27 on the affidavit Ex.PW4/A executed by him at the time of purchase of car from Harnarain. He further deposed that he is engaged in sale of inverters and batteries. A person named Pawan used to work at his shop. According to him, accused Jai Singh is a relative of Pawan and used to come to his shop occasionally to meet Pawan. He deposed that after about one month after the purchase of car by him, the accused came to his shop and at about 8 p.m. to meet Pawan but Pawan was not present in the shop at that time. Accused told him that some relatives have come to his home and he requires the car for a night. On the request of the accused and upon insistence of Pawan, he gave the car to the accused for one night. Accused left in the said car at about 9 p.m. and brought back the car to his shop the next day at about 1 p.m. He was not present in the shop at that time. Pawan made a call to him saying that accused has brought back the car. He returned to the shop at about 2.30 p.m. and saw the car parked in front of the shop. In the evening, Pawan informed him that the accused had kidnapped a girl in the said car. He further deposed that the police had come to him after about two months and seized the aforesaid car alongwith its original RC vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. He had later on got the said car released on Superdari. He was declared hostile by Ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, he denied that accused had returned the car to him after two days.
22. SI Vikas Yadav has been examined as PW1. He deposed that on the night intervening between 08.3.2013 and 09.3.2013 at about 11 p.m., when he was on night emergency duty in P.S. Chhawla, Sri Krishan, the father of the prosecutrix, came to the police station and told him that his daughter namely SC No.167/13 Page 17 of 27 'X' has gone missing during the day time. He passed on the information to Duty Officer, who recorded the same as DD No.88B. He started inquiries upon the said DD. He uploaded the information about the girl on Zipnet and passed on the information to NCRB, CBI, Doordarshan and also flashed W.T. messages all over India. He made efforts to search the missing girl, could not find him. He further deposed that father of the girl had laid suspicion on a boy named Jai Singh and also conveyed the mobile number of Jai Singh to him. On 12.3.2013, the Duty Officer informed him that the missing girl 'X' is present in Balaji Hospital, Deenpur More, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Accordingly, he alongwith lady Const. Om Prabha reached Balaji Hospital, found 'X' present there. He informed the parents of 'X' and they also reached Balaji Hospital also. He made inquiries from the girl and the girl handed over to him a written application Ex.PW1/A. The parents of the girl refused to take her alongwith them and they left the hospital. Thereafter he again contacted the parents of the girl but they told him that she has died for them and they are not interested in taking her back. Accordingly, he brought the girl to the police station. The girl 'X' was taken to RTRM Hospital by lady Const. Mamta for medical examination but she did not give her consent for gynaecological examination. Thereafter, the girl was lodged in Nirmal Chhaya. He deposed that the girl was having photocopy of her admission card in Xth class examination and her Marksheet of Xth class with her which she handed over to him. In the cross examination, he deposed that the prosecutrix was carrying a plastic bag with her but he did not know its contents. The bag was checked by the officials of Nirmal Chhaya in his presence and it was found containing three or four clothes, original certificates and SC No.167/13 Page 18 of 27 some cash. He deposed that when he made calls to the parents of the prosecutrix, her father, one male person and one lady had reached the hospital.
23. Now the case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that the accused kidnapped the prosecutrix from near her residence on 08.3.2013 after administering some substance to her, took her to Sohna, Gurgaon, where he kept her captive in a room in the house of PW3 till 11.3.2013 and during that period had been committing rape upon her. The defence raised by the accused is that the prosecutix was in love with him and she had accompanied him voluntarily to Sohna, stayed with him there in the room of PW3 willingly.
24. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix, the accused had left her in front of Balaji Hospital, near Goyla More, on 11.3.2013 and she was taken inside the hospital by public persons, who had gathered there. PW14 is the first person, according to the prosecutrix, who had seen the prosecutrix inside Balaji Hospital on 11.3.2013 after she had been dropped there by the accused. It is evident from her testimony that the prosecutrix did not tell her anything as to what she had suffered. Though it is the case of the prosecution that PW14 had informed the nearby police picket about the presence of the prosecutrix in the hospital yet she did not support the case of the prosecution in this regard.
25. PW12 was posted as Constable in P.S. Chhawla and was on picket duty at Deenpur Chowk on 11.3.2013 from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. He has deposed that at about 9.20 p.m. Ms. Rinku, a nurse SC No.167/13 Page 19 of 27 from Balaji Hospital (PW14) came to him and told him that a girl is sitting in Balaji Hospital for the last one and a half hours. He accompanied PW14 to the hospital and saw the girl sitting on a stool near the Reception and she seemed to be in a terrorized state. The girl disclosed her name as 'X' belonging to Pandwala Village and did not tell them anything else as to what had happened to her. He sent the information to the police station, pursuant to which SI Vikas (PW1) reached the hospital and he handed over the girl 'X' to him. Thus PW12 was the second person who met the prosecutrix after she had been freed from captivity by the accused but she did not tell him too anything as to what had happened to her.
26. According to PW1, when he met the prosecutrix in the hospital, she handed over to him a written application Ex.PW1/A wherein she had mentioned that she had been roaming about from 08.3.2013 to 11.3.2013 and has come to know that her family members have lodged a missing report and that she had disappeared from her house voluntarily, for which nobody is responsible. She further mentioned that she being 20 years old, can go wherever she wants and therefore the case should be closed. PW1 had informed the parents of the prosecutrix, who came to Balaji Hospital but refused to take prosecutrix home saying that she has died for them.
27. The contents of Ex.PW1/A and the testimony of PW1 lead credence to the alibi raised by the accused that the prosecutrix had accompanied him voluntarily. However, the prosecutrix has deposed in her testimony that PW1 had forced her SC No.167/13 Page 20 of 27 to write the document Ex.PW1/A and she did not do so voluntarily. The conduct of the prosecutrix and her family members, which will be discussed herein-after, falsify her contention and make the deposition of PW1 trustworthy.
28. Prosecutrix has mentioned in her deposition that her family members reached the police station on 11.3.2013 when she was taken there by PW1 but they were asked to go home and accordingly they left leaving her behind in the police station for some inquiry. PW10 and PW11, the uncle and father of the prosecutrix, have also deposed that upon reaching police station alongwith prosecutrix and PW1 on 11.3.2013, police officials detained the prosecutrix for inquiries and they all returned home. It is significant to note her that PW10 has stated that the prosecutrix was in a terrorized state and PW11 has stated that the prosecutrix was in an intensely depressed state and was feeling giddy. I find it against the natural conduct of these two witnesses that they left the prosecutrix in the police station alone even after finding her in terrorized and depressed state and did not find it necessary to remain with her to provide her some support. They simply returned home on the asking of police officials and had a good sleep. It is not that they requested the police officials to permit them to remain in the police station for the support of prosecutrix and the police officials did not permit them to do so. They even did not try to talk to the prosecutrix and ask her where was she for the last three nights and what had befallen her. They simply left her to the mercy of the police officials. They did not tell the police officials that they would take the prosecutrix home and would bring her again the next date for requisite inquiry. Even on SC No.167/13 Page 21 of 27 the next day also they did not make any effort to bring the prosecutrix home. They did not object as to why the prosecutrix is being sent to Nirmal Chhaya when they are prepared to take her back home. The said conduct of PW10 & PW11 indicates that they were probably aware that the prosecutrix has eloped voluntarily with somebody, may be the accused and they were intensely annoyed with her and hence were not prepared to take her back home. This shows that whatever has been deposed by PW1 is true and correct.
29. It is further deposed by PW10 that they made a call to the father of Deepak on 09.3.2013, with whom the prosecutrix was to get married on 13.3.2013, apprising him about the unfortunate incident of disappearance of the prosecutrix. Both PW10 & PW11 have deposed that the family members of Deepak told them that they cannot postpone the marriage as they have already made all the arrangements and requested them to marry some other girl in their family with Deepak on the date already fixed i.e. 13.3.2013 and accordingly it was decided that marriage of Sonia, daughter of PW10, would be solemnized with Deepak on 13.3.2013. It is very intriguing that when the prosecutrix was recovered on 11.3.2013, why her family members did not solemnize her marriage with Deepak as already scheduled and why they still went on to marry Sonia with Deepak. The prosecutrix was willing to go home. Police officials also wanted her to go home alongwith her family members. There was no impediment from any quarter for PW10 & PW11 to bring the prosecutrix home on 11.3.2013 and to solemnize her marriage with Deepak on 13.3.2013. However, they did not do so deliberately which only is indicative of the fact that SC No.167/13 Page 22 of 27 they must have become aware about the intimate relations of prosecutrix with accused, which was a reason for their disinclination and disinterest towards the prosecutrix and they had made up their mind to abdicate her.
30. PW11 has further deposed that he alongwith PW10 and other relations met the prosecutrix in Nirmal Chhaya about two or three days after the marriage of Sonia. Thus they appear to have met her on 15th or 16th March, 2014. PW11 says that on this visit, the prosecutrix told him that she was kidnapped and raped by the accused. However strangely, he appears to have ignored comfortably what the prosecutrix had told her and did not try to report the matter to police. PW11 though admits that he had visited Nirmal Chhaya alongwith PW10 but does not say that the prosecutrix told them about her kidnap and rape. He deposed that the prosecutrix told him about her kidnap and rape at home after her release from Nirmal Chhaya.
31. PW11 has further deposed that on his subsequent visit to Nirmal Chhaya on 26th or 27th March, 2013 the prosecutrix handed over to him a written complaint which he then handed over to SHO. However, there is nothing in the testimony of the PW11 to suggest that he had insisted upon the SHO or any other senior police officer to take action upon the complaint. That complaint has not seen the light of the day. That has not been brought to the notice of this court. It is further manifest from the testimony of prosecutrix and her father PW11 that she was released from Nirmal Chhaya on 5th April, 2013. They went to the police station the next day i.e. 06.4.2013 but the prosecutrix SC No.167/13 Page 23 of 27 neither submitted any complaint there nor made any statement. Ultimately, the complaint appears to have been filed in the police station on 09.4.2013. In my opinion, the delay in filing the complaint, atleast from 05.4.2013 to 09.4.2013, has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution which makes the prosecution case intensely doubtful.
32. The testimony of PW3 too demolishes the prosecution case completely. As per his testimony, the prosecutrix alongwith accused had visited his house on two consecutive dates and they declared to him that they are husband and wife. On first visit, they sought a room on rent in his house and after having a look on the room, agreed to take the same on rent. They again came to his house the next day and started occupying the room on the first floor of his house. They spent three nights in the room and as the accused did not handover to him his identity documents, he became suspicious and asked him to vacate the house. The testimony of this witness totally dislodges the kidnap and forcible confinement version as given by the prosecutrix. It is evident that the prosecutrix had visited the house of this witness not only on the date of incident i.e. 08.3.2013 but on the previous day also when they had seen the room in his house and found it to their liking. The deposition of this witness shows that the prosecutrix and the accused were staying in his house peacefully as husband and wife. The accused had, at no point of time, employed any force upon the prosecutrix or tied her hands or legs, as deposed by her. His testimony further shows that the accused and the prosecutrix used to go to the market together and had brought certain utensils as well as eatables from the market. Thus the SC No.167/13 Page 24 of 27 testimony of PW3 totally falsifies the prosecution case and supports the version given by the accused in his statement u/s.313 Cr.PC.
33. The deposition of DW1 is also very material and relevant to note here. She resides in the house just opposite to the house of PW3. She has deposed that the accused alongwith a girl had stayed in the house of PW3 for four days and one day the girl had come to her house and gave her daughter in law the Kurta for alteration which she had bought from a Mall. There is nothing in her cross examination to disbelieve her. Even PW3 has admitted in his cross examination that DW1 resides in his neighbourhood and is engaged in stitching of old clothes. Her testimony also shows that the accused had taken the prosecutrix to a Mall where he had bought a readymade Kurta for her. Thus runs counter to the deposition of prosecutrix, who has deposed that the accused had kept her confined in a room for four days while keeping her hands and legs tied by a rope and he did not permit her to go out of the room during that period.
34. The testimony of the prosecutrix that on 11.3.2013, the friend of the accused again came to that room and told the accused that the owner of the house is about to come there and asked the accused to take her somewhere else, is falsified by the deposition of PW3, already noted herein-above.
35. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was having her original certificates and some cash with her in a bag when she was found on 11.3.2013. She has deposed that the certificates and the cash SC No.167/13 Page 25 of 27 had been given to her by her uncle Babli on 08.3.2013 when she had left her house for bringing stitched clothes from a nearby tailor. However, the prosecution has not examined her uncle Babli in this regard. There is no evidence on record to corroborate her version. This indicates that she had herself taken the certificates and cash from her house as she was prepared to stay alongwith accused for a longer time and may be for solemnizing marriage with him also.
36. The prosecutrix is alleged to have been kidnapped from a gali near her house in the broad day light i.e. at about 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. According to the IO (PW15), the spot of kidnapping is a live place and many public persons pass by that spot during day time. I, therefore, find it difficult to believe that the prosecutrix could have been kidnapped from such a live spot in broad day light in the manner as deposed by her. The prosecutrix has further deposed that she had regained consciousness in the room at Sohna. This version is not supported by any evidence on record but is contradicted by PW3.
37. Thus, it is evident that the version given by the prosecutrix is neither credible nor trustworthy. It does not find support or corroboration from any other evidence on record including the medical evidence. Her version is contradicted by own witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW1 and PW3 as also by DW1. It would be doing violence with the rules of criminal justice to place any trust upon the testimony of prosecutrix. The version given by the accused in his statement u/s.313 Cr.PC appears to be true and correct.
SC No.167/13 Page 26 of 2738. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 30.7.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.167/13 Page 27 of 27