Delhi District Court
State vs . Miket Ranpara on 30 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT (SOUTH EAST) SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI Unique Case ID No. 02406R0130392014 SC No. : 222/14 FIR No. : 106/2013 U/s. : 366/376/292/323/506 IPC PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ................... Complainant Versus Miket Ranpara S/o Sh. Kuman Kumar R/o Flat No. 102, Jaldhara Apartment, Bal Mukund Society, Nirmal Convent School Road, Rajkot, Gujrat. .........................Accused Date of Institution : 05.11.2014 Judgment reserved for orders on : 30.09.2015 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2015 J U D G M E N T
1. The facts giving rise to the present case in brief are as under:
On 20.04.2013, Anil Kumar, father of the prosecutrix came at the Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and lodged FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 1 of 11 missing report of his daughter. He alleged that he has come to know that his daughter has been abducted by the accused ( who is already married) with an intention to marry her. He also alleged that his daughter has taken with her Rs.2,65,000/ in cash and jewellery.
The case was registered vide FIR No. 106/13 u/s 365/366 IPC. Search of the prosecutrix was made. The call details of the prosecutrix and the accused were put on surveillance. The prosecutrix and the accused were traced from Gujrat on 25.11.2013. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that while working in IGT, Gurgaon, she came in contact with the accused. He was also working there. Gradually they became friends. They got married in a temple on 26.01.2013. They established physical relations with each other. She left the job on 01.02.2013. On 08.03.2013, her father came to know of their relations. Her father met the accused and his first wife Juhi at her uncle's house where accused denied his marriage with her and said that he would shift at Rajkot with his wife Juhi. They did not have any talk from 10.03.2015 to 17.03.2015. On 17.03.2015, she got an email of the accused where he expressed his love for her and desire to live with her. However, she asked him to first take divorce from his wife and FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 2 of 11 thereafter, they would live together. The accused then said that it would take time to get divorce. On 19.04.2013, she left her house and gave her bag to the friend of the accused. On 20.04.2013, at about 2 a.m, she met his friend at Dhaula Kuan from where she boarded a bus for Jaipur. At about 6.30 a.m, she reached Jaipur and proceeded for Ajmer where she met the accused. On the same night, they reached Ahmadabad and shifted at Gandhi Nagar. She alleged that the accused used to abuse her on petty issues. He used to beat her. He also pressurized her for making her obscene MMS. Whenever she objected, he gave her beatings. He used to administer liqour and beat her. She alleged that accused has her MMS on his mobile and laptop.
2. Accused was arrested. His laptop and mobile phone were seized. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr P C was got recorded. Accused was medically examined at Batra Hospital. The prosecutrix was also taken to the hospital but she refused her internal examination. The certificate of registration of marriage dated 15.12.2009 between the accused and his wife Juhi was also collected. After the investigation, the accused was sent for trial for the offences punishable u/s 365/366/506/292/376 IPC.
FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 3 of 11
3. After complying with the requirements contemplated u/s 207 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to this Court.
4. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 24.11.2014, prima facie case was made out against the accused and the charge u/s 366/376/292/323/506 IPC was framed.
5. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and her father Anil Kumar as PW2.
PW1 has stated that in December, 2012, while she was working with IGT, Gurgaon, she met the accused as he was also working there. Gradually they became friends and started meeting each other. After seeing the photograph of the accused with a lady on his Facebook ID, she confronted him. He told her that she is his wife and that he is already married. Later, her father came to know of their friendship. In March, 2013, her father called the accused and his wife at the house of her uncle. Her father told her that he has asked the accused not to talk to her. Thereafter, the wife of the accused shifted to Rajkot. She continued talking to him till April, 2013. She stated that one day, she left her house at about 12 mid night, boarded a bus from Dhaula Kuan and went to Jaipur where she met the accused. They both went FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 4 of 11 to Gandhi Nagar and started living there. She stated that she had left her father's house on her own and she was never forced by the accused. She stated that during the period she stayed with the accused, he established physical relations with her and those were with her consent and free will.
She stated that her father had lodged her missing report. After 20.11.2013, the police recovered them from Ahmadabad. They stayed in a hotel at Ahmadabad where she gave a written complaint Ex. PW 1/A to the police on which her father also appended his signatures. On the next day, she gave another statement Ex. PW 1/B to the police. She and the accused were brought to Delhi. Her statement Ex. PW 1/C u/s 164 Cr PC was recorded. She has stated that during her relations with the accused, he had promised to marry her after getting divorce from his wife but he did not give any time. She never reminded the accused to take divorce from his wife. She stated that during her relations with the accused, she knew that accused was taking her obscene photos and also making her obscene videos. She stated that the accused never exploited nor extorted her. He never showed her obscene photographs to anyone and nor made it public. She had seen some of the videos and FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 5 of 11 photographs on the laptop of the accused. She also proved the greeting card Ex. PW1/E which was given to her by the accused.
She was declared hostile. On being crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP, she denied that during her stay with the accused, he used to abuse and beat her on small issues. She stated that accused never forced her to permit him to make her obscene videos.
On being crossexamined by the counsel for the accused, she admitted that she had access to the laptop containing her photographs and videos as it used to remain with her. She admitted that accused never carried his laptop with him to his office and it always remained in her possession. She admitted that during her stay with the accused, the accused had gone for training for a period of one month and during that period she was alone. She admitted that she had given her statement u/s 164 Cr P C voluntarily and without any force. She stated that the physical relations between her and the accused were with her consent.
PW2 has stated that his daughter/prosecutrix on 20.04.2013 had left the house in whee hours, so he lodged FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 6 of 11 her missing report Ex. PW 2/A. About one and a half months prior to her missing, he came to know of her relations with the accused. He had called the accused with his wife to his brother's house to confront him as to why he is having relations with his daughter when he is already married. The accused then told him that he would marry her after getting divorce from his wife. He stated that in November, he alongwith the police officials went to Ahmadabad in search of the accused and the prosecutrix and recovered them from there. They brought both of them to Delhi. The laptop and mobile of the accused were also seized at Ahmadabad. On 27.11.2013, he handed over one greeting card Ex. PW 1/E to the police which was given by the accused to the prosecutrix.
6. Section 375 defines rape. It reads as:
"Rape A man is said to commit "rape"
if he
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other persons; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 7 of 11
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do with him or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra or a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions: First against her will.
Secondly Without her consent.
Thirdly ..................
Fourthly ..................
Fifthly . ..................
Sixthly ..................
Seventhly ...................
Explanation 1. ......................... Explanation 2. Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the women by words, gestures or any form of verbal or noverbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.
Exception 1 ..............
Exception 2 .............."
7. The essence of rape is absence of consent. Consent means an intelligent, positive concurrence of the woman. A woman is said to consent, only when she freely agrees to FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 8 of 11 submit herself, while in free and unconstrained possession of her physical or moral power to act in a manner she wanted. Submissions under the influence of fear or terror or false promise is not consent.
8. The prosecutrix in her testimony has given her age as 23 years. In her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr P C, she has given her age as 22 years. During investigation, her Passport was taken as per which, she was born on 20.11.1991. The missing report was lodged on 20.04.2013. Thus, the prosecutrix was about 22 years of age at the time of incident, major and capable of giving consent.
9. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that she knew from before that accused was married. She had gone to Jaipur of her own. She had accompanied the accused from Jaipur to Gandhi Nagar/Ahmadabad where they lived together. They had established physical relations with each other with her consent. She had also consented of making her obscene videos by the accused during their relations. Her testimony also reveals that the said videos were not made public by the accused as the laptop used to remain with the prosecutrix. Her father/PW2 did not like their relations. He had once called the accused and his wife and asked them as to why he has been having relations FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 9 of 11 with his daughter when he is already married. He came to know from his daughter that she did not take any cash with her. PW1 has denied that accused had pressurized her to give consent to establish physical relations with him. She did not utter a single word that that accused used to beat or threaten her. She has categorically stated that the laptop used to remain with her for whole of the day when accused used to go to his office. In her statement u/s 164 CrPC, she has stated that the relations between her and the accused were with her consent.
10. In the present case, star witness was the prosecutrix as prosecution machinery came into motion on her complaint. She did not support the prosecution case in any manner & completely turned hostile.
11. Considering the fact that prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case in any manner, I found no purpose to examine the remaining witnesses as their testimony even if unrebuted could not become the basis of the conviction of the accused. The prosecution evidence was accordingly closed as examination of other formal witnesses would have been a dead formality.
12. Since the prosecutrix has not narrated any incriminating fact against the accused, so his statement under section 313 FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 10 of 11 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.
13. Considering the testimony of PW1, who has categorically stated that she had left her house of her own sweet will to live with the accused at Ahmadabad and the accused never elicited her consent on the false promise of marriage and that he had established physical relations with her with her consent and that the accused never made her obscene videos or photographs public and that he never threatened her nor beat her, I am of the view that prosecution case is not proved against the accused for the offences punishable under section 366/376 & 292/323/506 IPC. I therefore, acquit the accused Miket Ranapara of the offences punishable under section 366/376 & 292/323/506 IPC. His bail bond is cancelled, surety is discharged. He is however, directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one surety in the like amount, in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C. The case property be returned to the rightful owner after deleting any obscene matter from the laptop and mobile phone after the expiry of period of appeal or revision.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 30.09.2015 (Sanjiv Jain) ASJSpl. FTC / South East Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 106/13 State Vs. Miket Ranpara PS : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Page No. 11 of 11