Delhi District Court
State vs . Satya Narayan Etc. on 11 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL FAST
TRACK COURT (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Sessions Case No.: 145/18
State
Versus
1). Satya Narayan
S/o Late Sh.Ram Swaroop
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
2). Manjeet Singh
S/o Late Sh.Ram Swaroop
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
3). Nitesh
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
4). Naveen
S/o Sh. Satua Narayan
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
5) Smt. Sheela
W/o Sh.Satya Narayan,
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
State Vs. Satya Narayan etc.
SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 1 of 11
6) Smt. Anita
W/o Sh.Manjeet
R/o H. No.21011, Gram Sabha Colony,
Pooth Kalan, Delhi
FIR No. : 306/2017
Police Station : Bawana
Under Sections : 376 (D)/109 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 13.03.2018
Date on which Judgment reserved : 30.01.2020
Date on which Judgment announced : 11.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Husband, brother in law (Devar), mother in law, father in law, Tai Saas and Taya Sasur have been forwarded to face trial for raping the victim.
2. The victim had married with accused Naveen on 29.01.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After some days of marriage, she suspected that he had an affair with a lady about which she told her inlaws but they started beating her. Till 31.07.2017, she had given information on 100 number thrice about beating and outraging her modesty but the matter was compromised every time. On 21.04.2017, her devar Nitesh, father in law Satya Narayan, Taya Sasur Manjeet raped her on 21.04.2017. Her husband left her on the road of parental house on 23.04.2017. She had filed a case in CAW State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 2 of 11 Cell about one month prior to giving of intimation to the police, regarding dowry demand, beating and molestation. However, nothing was told in that case regarding the present incident.
3. On 04.10.2018, charge under Section 109 IPC read with section 376 IPC, 376D IPC and 328/34 IPC was framed against all six accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined only one witness.
5. As PW1, the victim deposed all the facts stated in complaint Ex.PW1/A upon which FIR was registered. Additionally, she deposed that her husband had love affair with a girl namely Neha Baluni. Accused Satya Narayan, Manjeet and her husband put pressure upon her to wear short clothes i.e. western style clothes and they used to ask her to sit with them which she refused.
When her husband was talking on phone with his girl friend in July 2015, she objected due to which accused Satya Narayan and Sheela came there and they also supported their son Naveen. Satya Narayan tore her salwar and suit. She gave information of the incident to her father who took her to his house at about 11:00 - 12:00 p.m. She next deposed that police visited her inlaws house thrice on her calls till 31.07.2017 and made them to understand and the matter was compromised.
State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 3 of 11 In examination in chief dated 30.01.2020, she deposed that on her complaint Ex.PW1/A dated 02.08.2017, FIR was registered against accused persons. But the complaint was written by an NGO official at her instance. She only signed the complaint without going through the same. Thereafter, she was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW1/B and her statement Ex.PW1/C was also recorded. She was declared hostile and in cross examination by Ld. Additional PP, she deposed that she did not mention in complaint Ex.PW1/A that she was raped by accused persons on 21.04.2017.
6. On 30.01.2020, all four accused persons admitted following statements/documents U/s 294 Cr.P.C.: S. Name of the witness & Admitted Denied Exhibits No. proceedings conducted
1. Statement under section Yes Ex.PX1 161 Cr.P.C. of PW W/HC (statement) Sudesh who got conducted medical examination of prosecutrix at BSA Hospital
2. Statement under Section Yes Ex.PX2 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Ct. (statement) Surender who accompanied WHC Sudesh to BSA Hospital and got conducted medical examination of prosecutrix at BSA Hospital State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 4 of 11
3. DD No. 68B dated Yes Ex.PX3 01.08.2017 registered by WHC Anil
4. FIR No. 306/17 registered Yes Ex.PX4 by Duty Officer HC Chander Pal
5. Proceedings U/s 164 Yes Ex.PX5 & Cr.P.C. conducted by Ld. Ex.PX6 MM Ms. Richa Manchanda and certificate, both dated 03.08.2017
6. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Yes Ex.PX7 of MHC(M) ASI Devender, who handed over the case property to Ct. Laddu Ram vide R.C. No. 211/21/17 dt.
18.09.2017 for deposit in FSL
7. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Yes Ex.PX8 of Ct. Laddu Ram who deposited the exhibits of prosecutrix in FSL, Rohini on 18.09.2017
8. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Yes Ex.PX9 of Ct. Sombir in whose (statement), presence, accused persons Ex.PX10 namely Satya Narayan, (arrest Manjeet and Nitesh were memo of arrested, who got them Satya medically examined and Narayan), after medical Ex.PX11 examination, handed over (arrest their exhibits to the IO memo of State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 5 of 11 Manjeet), Ex.PX12 (arrest memo of Nitesh), Ex.PX13 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Satya Narayan), Ex.PX14 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Manjeet), Ex.PX15 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Nitesh).
9. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Yes Ex.PX16 of Ct. Vikas in whose (statement) presence, accused persons already namely Satya Narayan, Ex.PX10 Manjeet and Nitesh were (arrest arrested, who got them memo of medically examined and Satya after medical Narayan), examination, handed over already their exhibits to the IO Ex.PX11 State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 6 of 11 (arrest memo of Manjeet), already Ex.PX12 (arrest memo of Nitesh), already Ex.PX13 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Satya Narayan), already Ex.PX14 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Manjeet), already Ex.PX15 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Nitesh).
10. MLC No. 316/17 of the Yes History already prosecutrix prepared by Dr. mentioned Ex.PW1/B Shreya Raj in BSA by the Hospital doctor State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 7 of 11
11. Potency opinion/MLC Nos. Yes Ex.PX17, 4237/17, 4236/17 & Ex.PX18 & 4235/17 qua accused Satya Ex.PX19 Narayan, Manjeet and Nitesh respectively prepared by Dr. Yudhvir Singh of M.V. Hospital
12. Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Yes Ex.PX20 of Ct. Sri Niwas who deposited the exhibits of accused persons in FSL, Rohini on 18.11.2017 13 Proceedings carried out by Yes Ex.PX21 1st IO/PW WSI Kiran i.e. preparation of site plan and got recorded statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
14. Proceedings done by Yes Ex.PX22 WASI Sunita Rani who (rukka) and prepared rukka and took Ex.PX23 into possession the sexual (seizure assault evidence collection memo) kit and sample seal
15. Proceedings done by WSI Yes already Manju Tyagi like formal Ex.PX10 arrest of accused Satya (arrest Narayan, Manjeet and memo of Nitesh and seizure of their Satya exhibits, who recorded Narayan), statement of witnesses U/s already 161 Cr.P.C. and who filed Ex.PX11 the chargesheet (arrest memo of State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 8 of 11 Manjeet), already Ex.PX12 (arrest memo of Nitesh), already Ex.PX13 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Satya Narayan), already Ex.PX14 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Manjeet), already Ex.PX15 (seizure memo of exhibits of accused Nitesh).
16. FSL Result Yes Ex.PX24
7. Under section 313 Cr.P.C., all accused persons denied to have committed any offence.
8. No witness was examined in defence.
State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 9 of 11
9. Ld. defence counsel argued that it is a case of no evidence as prosecutrix deposed that the accused persons did not rape her on 21.04.2017. There is no other evidence.
10. As per chargesheet, case of the prosecutrix is that three accused persons namely Satya Narayan, Nitesh and Manjeet had raped victim on 21.04.2017. When she was examined in chief on 10.05.2019, she deposed that in July 2019, when she objected to talking of her husband with his girl friend on phone, there was uproar due to which accused Satya Narayan, Nitesh and Sheela came there, they supported her Naveen and accused Satya Narayan tore her salwar and suit.
Regarding rape on 21.04.2017, her specific evidence in cross examination by Ld. additional PP is that Nitesh, Satya Narayan and Manjeet had not raped her. In cross examination by accused persons, she stated that she did not tell treating doctor about any incident. In BSA hospital, she had signed some papers on the asking of the police officials and doctor without going through their contents.
11. So, due to turning of hostile of victim, there is no evidence regarding rape. Perusal of testimony of victim shows that accused Satya Narayan had torn her clothes in July 2015. But perusal of her complaint Ex.PW1/A shows that for that incident, she had lodged a separate case in CAW Cell in 2017. Moreover, the State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 10 of 11 incident of tearing of clothes by Satya Narayan is neither mentioned in complaint nor in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Additionally, the charge against accused Satya Narayan is only u/s 376 IPC for raping the victim on 21.04.2017. For the incident of tearing of clothes in July 2015, there is no charge against Satya Narayan u/s 354B IPC.
12. Accordingly, all six accused persons are acquitted of the offences they were charged with.
13. The personal and surety bonds of all the accused are hereby cancelled. Sureties are hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety(s), be cancelled and the document(s) be returned to them.
14. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused persons have furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety of the like amount, which are accepted with the directions to appear before Higher Court, in the event, they receive any notice of appeal or petition against the judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2020.02.11
GREWAL 18:07:12 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 11th February 2020 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs. Satya Narayan etc. SC No. 872/18; FIR No. 306/17, PS Bawana Page No. 11 of 11