Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rajesh Kumar on 3 April, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL: ASJ-V: OUTER:
ROHINI: DELHI
SC NO. 398/09
FIR No. 285/09
P.S. Parshant Vihar
U/s 366/342/376(2)(G) IPC
State Vs. 1. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o Village Karala, Delhi-81.
2. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Tara Chand
R/o Village Karala, Delhi-81
3. Jagdish
S/o Hem Chander
R/o Village Karala, Delhi-81.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court: 29.09.2009
Date of Judgment: 03.04.2010
JUDGMENT
In brief, the prosecution story is that on 30.5.09 a DD No. 6 was received at P.P Sector 16, Rohini, and for taking appropriate action on the said DD, ASI Nand Kishore and constable Ramesh alongwith the Incharge of the said Police Post SI Mahavir reached at BSA Hospital, where one complainant/prosecutrix (S)(the name of the prosecutrix hereinafter referred to as (S) as it is a case U/s 376 (2)(G) 2 IPC) was present and she got recorded the following statement to him:
" That she was Permanent resident of village Gadole(Bihar) and for the last 15 days she alongwith her husband was residing with a sister like friend Pinky and she had been married with one Habib-ur-Rehman two years ago, and since then she had been residing in Delhi, and they had also resided in a rented house in Sector -7 for some time.
That on 29.5.09 her husband got late from his work and therefore she rang her husband on the mobile phone at around 10.30p.m and asked him when he will return, to which he stated that he will come late and told her that she should fetch the food from some hotel. At that time one person by the name of Ashu was present in the house of Pinky, therefore, she alongwith the said person came down from the house of Pinky and Ashu told her that he would get her food, after walking for some distance one white colour Maruti Car was parked on the road side, in which three persons 3 were sitting and Ashu told her that those persons were his acquaintances and were known to him, and thereafter they sat in the said car. One of the person was driving the said Maruti Car, who has been called as Rajesh, who told Ashu to fetch a cigarette. Ashu got down and went into the gali.
Thereafter, one person who was sitting alongwith the driver came on the back seat and sat alongwith her and thereafter they drove away with the vehicle. She raised an alarm, but those two persons sitting on the back seat of the car gaged her mouth and took her to some secluded place and thereafter took her to some flat and locked her in a room and one of the person told her to take off her clothes, when she refused she was beaten up on her face with fists and other two persons were also present at the said place at that time.
Thereafter, all the three persons raped her against her consent. After some time she somehow managed to escape from their clutches and took a TSR and from the TSR driver she came to know that the name of the said place from where she was picked up by the TSR driver was 4 Karala.
2. On the said complaint, endorsement was made by SI Mahavir and consequently an FIR U/s 376(2)(G)/366/342/120B/34 IPC bearing FIR No. 285/09 was registered at P.S. Parshant Vihar.
3. The IO also seized the relevant samples preserved by the doctors after the medical examination of the prosecutrix(s) and further investigation of the case was marked to W/ASI Sumitra.
4. During investigation(s), the IO arrested two of the accused persons Rajesh Kumar and Ashok Kumar, who were medically examined at BSA Hospital and relevant exhibits pertaining to them were also taken by the doctors and were handed over to the IO, who seized them. Both the above accused persons in their disclosure statement disclosed the name of the third accused persons as Jagdish, who was involved in the present case alongwith them.
5. The IO also got prepared the siteplan at the instance of the prosecutrix. The third accused Jagdish surrendered in the court on 30.7.09, who was also arrested in this case. The judicial TIP of the 5 said accused was also fixed, wherein the prosecutrix duly identified him. The said accused was also medically examined and all the relevant exhibits seized in this case were sent for Forensic Evaluation, to FSL Rohini. The other accused Ashu could not be arrested, as it was stated in the charge-sheet that no clues regarding the said accused could be obtained and regarding him supplementary charge-sheet would be filed in the court lateron, whenever he would be arrested.
6. After completion of investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 376(2)/366/342/323/109/120B/34 IPC was filed in the court for trial.
7. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, a charge U/s 366/342/376(2)(G) IPC was framed against all the three accused persons vide 17.11.09 to which all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined 3 witnesses.
PW1 is the prosecutrix (S), the star witness of the prosecution. PW2 is Ms. Pinky, another material witness of the prosecution. 6 PW3 is Sh. Habib-ur-Rehman, the husband of the prosecutrix.
9. All the aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and all of them have turned hostile despite lengthy cross-examination of the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
10. Accordingly, it was prayed by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons Sh. Kulbhushan Mehta that the prosecution evidence be closed, as all the material prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Prosecutrix(S) and PW2 Pinki and PW3 Habib-Ur-Rehman had all turned hostile and it was also stated by him, that despite lengthy cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state, nothing had come out in their cross-examination, and therefore, it was prayed that no purpose would be served by continuing with the trial, as even if all the remaining prosecution witnesses are allowed to be examined, even then it was not going to improve the case of the prosecution a little bit. In these circumstances, it was prayed that prosecution evidence be closed, as no purpose shall be achieved by continuing with the trial.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP Sh. G.S. Guraya, for the State 7 had opposed the same.
12. After perusing the record, it was found that in the present case, PW1 Prosecutrix(S), PW2 Pinky and PW3 Sh. Habib-Ur-Rehman @ Raja, who were the material witnesses of the prosecution had all turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case, regarding the identity of the accused persons having raped the prosecutrix(S) on 29.5.09, after abducting and wrongfully confining her. All the above material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused persons having being involved in the present case.
13. All the remaining prosecution witnesses were formal in nature. Even iff, all the remaining prosecution witnesses would have been allowed to be examined, even then it was not going to improve the case of the prosecution, therefore, continuing with the trial, in these circumstances would have been a completely futile exercise and no purpose would have been achieved by doing so. Even iff, all the remaining prosecution witnesses would have been allowed to be examined, even then it was impossible to secure the conviction of 8 the accused persons on the testimony(s) of the remaining prosecution witnesses. Consequently, prosecution evidence was closed. Statements of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were also dispensed with, as no evidence had come on the record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence(s) U/s 366/342/376(2)(G) IPC , for which the accused persons had been charged. The accused persons are consequently hereby acquitted of the said charge(s). Their bail-bonds are cancelled. Surety(s) stand discharged. Endorsement(s), if any made on the original documents of the accused persons and surety(s) stand cancelled. File be consigned to R.R. Announced in the open court Sanjeev Aggarwal on dt. 03.04.2010 Addl. Sessions Judge:
Rohini Courts: Delhi.