Delhi District Court
State vs Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 Of 8 ::- on 22 December, 2017
-:: 8 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, WEST,
SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE POCSO ACT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
State
versus
Mr.Vikash @ Vikky
Son of Late Mr. Jagat Singh,
Resident of Vannket Brick Lining, Niranjan Pur,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
(Permanent Address :-Village and Post Office Nahari,
Police Station Rai, District Sonepat, Haryana)
First Information Report Number : 25/2011.
Police Station Ranjit Nagar .
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 14.10.2013.
Arguments concluded on : 22.12.2017.
Date of judgment : 22.12.2017.
Appearances: Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Ms. Shradha Vaid, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Accused is present on bail
Mr. R.R Jha, Amicus Curiae for accused.
Father of the prosecutrix.
**********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr.Vikash @ Vikky, the accused, has been charge sheeted by New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Police Station Ranjit Nagar for the offences under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. Accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky has been prosecuted on the allegations that on 10.02.2011, he had kidnapped the prosecutrix (who is a minor girl) from her lawful guardianship and induced the prosecutrix to perform marriage with accused or knowingly that it is likely that the prosecutrix Ms.X will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
3. The name, age and particulars of the prosecutrix are mentioned in the file and are withheld to protect her identity and she is hereinafter addressed as Ms.X, a fictitious identity given to her. Fictitious identity of Mr.Z is given to the father of the prosecutrix in order to protect the identity of the prosecutrix.
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned predecessor on 14.10.2013.
5. After hearing arguments, charge for offences under sections 363 and 366 of IPC was framed against accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky vide order dated 31.05.2017 to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (01) witness i.e Mr.Z, father of the prosecutrix as PW-1.
7. The evidence of the father Mr.Z as PW1 has also been examined in camera.
8. On 21.11.2017, accused Mr. Vikash @ Vikky has submitted that prosecutrix had married him and they had two children. The prosecutrix has since expired about two and half year ago and he shall produce her death certificate in the Court.
9. Mr.R.R Jha, Amicus Curiae for the accused has also filed an application on 22.11.2017 information regarding the unfortunate and untimely death of the prosecutrix.
10.Constable Jaldeep Singh from Police station Ranjit Nagar had submitted verification report regarding death of the prosecutrix and had filed a verified copy of death certificate of the prosecutrix wherein it is mentioned that she has died on 24.02.2015.
11.The father of the prosecutrix Mr.Z (PW1) has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he has admitted that "It is correct that I did not receive any phone call of the prosecutrix that she was being harassed or tortured by the accused while she New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
was living with him as his wife. It is correct that the prosecutrix had not told anything against the accused to me and my wife. I do not have any grievance against the accused."
12.The prosecution witness i.e the father of the prosecutrix (PW1) has not deposed an iota of evidence of accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky that he committed the offences of kidnapping, inducing the prosecutrix to marry him and forcing and seducing the prosecutrix to illicit intercourse with him.
13.In the circumstances, as the prosecutrix has since expired and her father Mr.Z (PW1), who is the complainant of this case has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused and has not deposed anything incriminating against him, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the complainant, who is father of the prosecutrix (PW1) has not supported the prosecution case.
14. The statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) of the accused Mr.Vikash @ New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Vikky is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him as the father of the prosecutrix (PW1) has also not deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
15.I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
16.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the father (PW1), who is complainant in this case, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witness, father of the prosecutrix (PW1) has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
17.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
18.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
19.If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be place upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
20.Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the witness has himself not deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
approach in the issue.
21.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky is guilty of the charged offences under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.
22.There is no material on record to show that on on 10.02.2011, accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix (who is a minor girl) from her lawful guardianship and induced the prosecutrix to perform marriage with accused or knowingly that it is likely that the prosecutrix Ms.X will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
23.From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky for the offences of kidnapping the prosecutrix, inducing the prosecutrix to marry him and forcing and seducing the prosecutrix to illicit intercourse with him. The evidence of the witness makes it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. The witness has not deposed an iota of evidence that accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky has committed any of the charged offences.
24.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr.Vikash @Vikky for the offences under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.
25.Consequently, accused Mr.Vikash @ Vikky is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of kidnapping the prosecutrix, inducing the prosecutrix to marry him and forcing and seducing the prosecutrix to illicit intercourse with him punishable under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.
COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-AOF THE CR.P.C. AND OTHER FORMALITIES
26.Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
27.Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
28.One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
29.After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 22th day of December, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge-01, West, Special Court under the POCSO Act, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************ New Sessions Case Number : 56786/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 357/2013.
First Information Report Number : 25/2011. Police Station : Ranjit Nagar.
Under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code . State versus Mr.Vikash @ Vikky. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-