Delhi District Court
Sc No: 496/13 State vs . Rajender & Others on 31 August, 2015
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 25/14
FIR No. 496/13
Police Station Narela
Under Section 342/354-A/354-B/366 IPC & 9,10
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
& 8 POCSO Act
ID No. 02404R0-103832014
State
Versus
1) Rajender
S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram
2) Sunehri Devi
W/o Sh. Chandgi Ram
Accused no. 1 & 2 Both R/o
H. No. 2153,
Pana Paposian Narela,Delhi.
3 )Sumitra @ Sunita Devi
W/o Kukeshwar
R/o Kabli Road Chabil Bagh,
near State Bank, Dehradun
Uttrakhand. ...........Accused persons
Judgment 1 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
Date of institution 23.01.2014
Judgment reserved on 31.08.2015
Judgment Pronounced on 31.08.2015
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rajender is facing prosecution in the present case on allegations that he wrongfully confined and sexual assaulted the prosecutrix R and also marrying her knowing that she has not attained the age of 18 years.
2. Accused Sunehri (mother of accused Rajender) is facing prosecution in the present case on allegations that she caused mental and physical suffering on the prosecutrix. Accused Sunita @ Sumitra (mother of the prosecutrix) is facing prosecution in the present case on allegations that she married her daughter (prosecutrix R) to the accused Rajender knowing fully well that she has not attained the age of 18 years.
Judgment 2 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
3. The factual matrix of the case are that on 25.07.2012 on the receipt of DD no. 8-A., in respect of complaint a girl aged about 15-16 years that she has been abducted from Dehradun, IO WASI Premlata and Ct. Raj Bala reached Pooja Medicos near Petrol Pump, Sector-9 Narela and met prosecutrix R. IO recorded the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she alleged that she is resident of Dehradun and just four days before, her mother got married her to accused Rajender at Dehradun. Thereafter, on 23.07.2013, she along with her mother, brother and accused Rajender came to Delhi in the house of accused. On 24.07.2013, the mother of prosecutrix told her that if she finds Rajender to be a good person then she could stay with him otherwise she can come back to Dehradun. The mother & brother of prosecutrix then left the house of the accused without informing her. Thereafter, accused Rajender gave beatings to the prosecutrix upon which prosecutrix escaped from the house of accused but somehow the accused Rajender managed to bring her back. The prosecutrix further Judgment 3 of 8 SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others alleged that accused Rajender even did not offer her food and tried to remove her clothes and commit sexual assault upon her. The prosecutrix then came out side the house in a street where a public person called at 100. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the police in which she alleged that the accused Rajender confined her in his house. He has forcibly married her & also tried to commit sexual assault on her.
4. The statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she made allegations against the mother of accused Rajender as well. Her ossification test was got conducted wherein her age was found to be between 16 to 18 yrs.
5. Accused persons were arrested. The charge for the offence punishable u/s 354-A/354-B IPC , u/s 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,2006 & u/s 8 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act was framed against the accused Rajender. The charge for the offence u/s 10, 11 Prohibition of Child Judgment 4 of 8 SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others Marriage Act,2006 was framed against accused Sunita @ Sumitra. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was framed against accused Sunehri.
6. Prosecution has examined 2 witnesses.
7. PW1 is the victim, a resident of Dehradun. She deposed that about 2 years back, she came to Delhi with her mother. Accused Rajender and Sunheri are known to their family and she does not wish to say anything else about this case. The prosecutrix was declared hostile to the case of the prosecution. Although she admitted her thumb impressions on her complaint Ex. PW1/A but she denied that she got married to accused Rajender by her mother. She also admitted her thumb impressions on her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/E however, she denied to have married the accused or being sexually assaulted by him. She also denied that accused Sunheri gave beatings to her or maltreated her.
Judgment 5 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
8. PW2 Sandeep called at 100 after noticing prosecutrix in a street. He denied to have been told by the prosecutrix about her ill treatment by the accused persons.
9. Prosecutrix is the most material witness. She did not support the case of the prosecution, hence recording of PE was closed. No evidence has come against the accused persons, therefore, recording of their statement under provisions of 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
10. I have heard Ld Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl PP on behalf of the State.
11. Age of the prosecutrix: As per the ossification test of the prosecutrix, she was found to be between 16 to 18 years. Defence has not disputed the age of the prosecutrix, as such, the prosecutrix is held to be a 'Child' within the meaning of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Juvenile Justice Act and under POCSO Act.
Judgment 6 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
12. Testimony of prosecutrix : PW1 prosecutrix is the complainant and the victim. However, she has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically denied that she was forcibly married to the accused Rajender or the accused Rajender sexually assaulted her. She also denied that her mother accused Sunita @ Sumitra forcibly married her to accused Rajender. The prosecutrix also denied that accused Sunheri subjected her to mental/physical sufferings.
13. Although, the prosecutrix was medically examined but she refused for her internal examination. Her MLC on record mentions that she was brought to the Hospital with no history of sexual assault. There is also no evidence on record to establish the allegation that a marriage was solemnized between accused Rajender and the prosecutrix.
Judgment 7 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
14. Keeping in view the fact that the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, the allegations against the accused persons stands not proved. In these circumstances, the accused persons stands acquitted for the offences they were charged with. Bail bonds furnished by them are discharged. They are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- with surety in the like amount under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on Day of 31st August, 2015.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
31.08.2015
Judgment 8 of 8
SC No: 496/13 State Vs. Rajender & Others
State Vs Rajender & Ors.
FIR No. 496/13
PS Narela
SC No. 25/14
31.08.2015
Present: Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
All three accused persons on bail with counsel PW-2 examined and discharged. No other PW is present. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, hence recording of PE is closed.
No incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused. Hence, recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed with.
Vide separate judgment, the accused persons stands acquitted for the offences they were charged with. Bail bonds furnished by them are discharged. They are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- with surety in the like amount under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Bonds furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
31.08.2015
Judgment 9 of 8