Delhi District Court
Sc No: 77/13 State vs . Surender Sharma & Others on 12 August, 2015
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 77/13
FIR No. 204/10
Police Station Mahendra Park
Under Section 363/366A/372/373/
376 IPC
ID No. 02404R0-039252013
State
Versus
1. Surender Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o Village & Post Office Urlana,
PS Madhloda, Distt. Panitpat, Haryana.
2. Suman
D/o Sh. Bhagwant Singh
R/o A-494, Jhangirpuri, Delhi.
Judgment 1 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
3. Monika @ Moni
W/o Sh. Avdesh Tiwari
R/o L-1/38, Budh Vihar, Delhi.
4. Narmada Malhotra (Deceased)
D/o Sh. Deepak Malhotra
R/o H. No. 265-C, Block 4B
Pitampura, Delhi.
5. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o Village & Post Office Urlana,
PS Madhloda, District Panipat, Haryana
6. Bhupender @ Jeetu
S/o Sh. Nanku
R/o C-777, Jhangirpuri, Delhi. ......Accused persons
Date of institution 22.03.2013
Judgment reserved on 12.08.2015
Judgment Pronounced on 12.08.2015
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 2 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Surender Kumar(accused no.5) is facing trial on allegations that he kidnapped and sexually assaulting the prosecutrix A, a girl aged about 16 years against her will and consent. The accused Suman, Monika, Bhupender, Surender Sharma and Narmada (since deceased) are facing trial on the allegations that they in furtherance of their common intention induced the prosecutrix to go from her house knowing that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another man.
2. FIR in question was registered on 08.09.2010 on the written complaint of the prosecutrix alleging that she was residing in Delhi with her sister and brother in law. Her sister was in visiting terms with accused Suman (accused no.2). On 01.09.2010 at about 11 AM, the prosecutrix went to the house of Suman where a person (accused no.1, Surender Sharma) aged about 26-27 years came. Accused Suman told the prosecutrix to go along him.
Judgment 3 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
Accused Surender Sharma took her in an Auto to Karnal bye pass where one lady namely Mrs. Malhotra (accused no.4, since deceased) met them. Accused Surender Sharma and Mrs. Malhotra took her to village Urlana, Panipat in the house of one another Surender who was aged about 35 years. Accused Surender Sharma and Mrs. Malhotra both set outside the house. On that night the accused Surender committed wrong act with the prosecutrix thrice. On 02.09.2010, the said Surender Sharma and Mrs. Malhotra took back the prosecutrix to Delhi. Mrs. Malhotra de-boarded at Karnal Bye pass and went directly to her house. Surender Sharma left the prosecutrix outside the house of Suman. When the prosecutrix came back to her sister's house, her sister asked as to where she went. Then the prosecutrix disclosed the entire incident to her. On 04.09.2010, the sister of the prosecutrix, her brother in law, Suman and Surender Sharma went to village Urlana, Panipat to register the complaint but there they were told that the case would be registered at Delhi. Thereafter, they came back to Delhi and got registered the FIR at PS Subzi Mandi.
Judgment 4 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
3. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded wherein she stated that on 01.09.2010, one Jeetu (accused no.6) left her in the house of accused Suman where a person namely Surender Sharma took her to Panipat in the house of one another Surender. At the house of said Surender, a quarrel took place between both the said persons. The prosecutrix was told to go back to Delhi. As such, she came back to Delhi. The prosecutrix stated that due to a quarrel between both the said persons, the present case was got registered by her and no wrong was committed by anybody against her.
4. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested and were charge-sheeted. The charge for the offence punishable U/s 366-A/34 IPC was framed against the accused Surender Sharma, Suman, Monika. Narmada and accused Bhupender. Additionally, the charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/366/376/109 IPC was framed against accused Surender Sharma Judgment 5 of 8 SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others & Narmada Malhotra. The charge for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Surender Kumar. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the trial of the case, accused Narmada unfortunately got expired. The case against him stands abated.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 2 witnesses.
7. PW1 Monika proved the date of birth of prosecutrix as 25.11.1995 as per the documents Ex. PW1/A to C.
8. PW2 HC Rajpal deposed that on 08.09.2010, he registered the zero FIR at PS Subzi Mandi and proved the same as Ex. PW2/A. Judgment 6 of 8 SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
9. Summons of the prosecutrix were entrusted to the IO of the case but the IO stated that the whereabouts of the prosecutrix are not known. Statement of the IO was recorded separately in this regard and the report in respect of the service of the prosecutrix is taken on record as Ex. CW1/A.
10. Since, the prosecutrix who is the star witness in the present case, is not traceable, no other prosecution witness were called for deposition and PE was closed.
11. Since, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons recording of statement of accused persons under provisions of 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
12. I have heard Ld Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl PP on behalf of the State.
Judgment 7 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
13. The case of the prosecution rests upon the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her complaint. The prosecutrix is the only person who could depose about the veracity of the allegations made by her against the accused persons. However, despite the best efforts, she could not be traced and her testimony could not be recorded. She was summoned through IO but her presence could not be secured. No other witness is cited who can depose that the accused are the same persons who had committed the wrong act with the prosecutrix.
14. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted for the offences they are charged with. They are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- each with surety in the like amount each under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Announced in open Court on Day of 12th August, 2015. File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
12.08.2015
Judgment 8 of 8
SC No: 77/13 State Vs. Surender Sharma & Others
State Vs Surender Shrama & Others
FIR No. 204/10
PS Mahindra Park
SC No. 77/13
12.08.2015
Present: Ms. Suchitra Singh Chauhan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused persons are present on bail except accused Narmada Accused Narmada Malhotra is reported to have expired. Sh. Deepak Malhotra, husband of accused Narmada in person. Husband of accused Narmada Malhotra has submitted death certificate of accused Narmada in original. In view of the unfortunate death of accused Narmada, the case against her stands abated.
Since, no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused persons recording of statement of accused persons under provisions of 313 Cr.P.C. stands dispensed with.
Vide separate judgment, the accused persons are acquitted for the offences they are charged with. The accused persons are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- each with surety in the like amount each under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Bond has been furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
12.08.2015
Judgment 9 of 8