Delhi District Court
State vs Abhishek//Fir No.951/16//PsKnk ... on 29 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT:ROHINI :DELHI
Sessions Case No : 496/17
STATE
V/S
ABHISHEK,
S/O. SH. NARAIN DASS,
R/O. H.NO.T82, MALKA GANJ,
DELHI - 110007.
FIR No : 951/16.
Police Station : K.N. KATJU MARG.
Under Section : 376/506/509/384 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court: 21.08.2017
Date on which Judgment reserved: 22.04.2019
Date on which Judgment announced: 29.04.2019
Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State.
Shri K.K. Sharma alongwith Shri Akash, ld. Counsel for
accused.
STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been forwarded by police to face mainly rape and extortion trial.
2. Police case is that the victim used to reside in Sector16, Rohini since 2001. She developed friendship with accused in 20092010 as he used to reside in her neighbourhood. He shifted to B2 Block, Sector16, Rohini alongwith his family in 2011 and she was induced to go there by him in 2012 in the absence of his family members and there, he established physical relations with her forcibly and threatened that if she disclosed anything about the incident to anybody, her parents would be killed. Thereafter, he alongwith his family shifted to Nangloi where also he used to take her in the absence of his family members to establish physical relations. He started extorting money from her. In the last 1 ½ year, she was forced to transfer money in the account of one Mr. Bharti Behl on the pretext that the account was of his landlord to whom he had to pay rent.
3. Charge under Section 376/506/384 IPC was framed against accused on 17.09.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined four witnesses.
PW1 is the prosecutrix. She did not support the prosecution case.
PW2 Smt. Smt. Sakshi Verma is the mother of the prosecutrix and her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. was to the effect that her STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 2 of 7 daughter had told her that the accused had rape her in Sector16, Rohini and at Nangloi twice.
PW3 Shri Rajender Kumar Verma is the father of the prosecutrix and he also was declared hostile.
PW4 WSI Neetu is the IO of the case. She deposed that the investigation was assigned to her on 16.03.2017 and after going through papers, she came to know that the accused had still not been arrested. So, the accused was directed to join the investigation which he joined on 28.03.2017 and he was taken to BSA Hospital where his Potency Test was conducted. He was arrested next day i.e. on 29.03.2017 vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and thereafter she prepared rough site plan Ex.PW4/B and filed charge sheet
5. The accused admitted following documents and statements under Section 294 Cr.P.C.: S. No. Name of the documents Admitted Denied Exhibited i Statement of Bank Manager, HDFC Bank to prove Yes - Ex.PX1 bank transaction of account number 50100167006952 of Rishu.
ii Statement of Bank Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Yes - Ex.PX2 to prove bank transaction of account number 1211590977 of Rishu.
iii Statement of Bank Manager, Punjab National Bank Yes - Ex.PX3 to prove bank transaction of account number 3077000107231522 of Rishu.
iv Statement of PW W/Ct. Geeta who took the Yes - Ex.PX4 prosecutrix to BSA Hospital.
v Statement of PW SI Ram Rattan Kaushik, who Yes - Ex.PX5 registered the FIR No.951/16, at PS KNK Marg. vi PW Dr. Aaivsh Chaudhary, SR BSA Hospital, who Yes - Ex.PX6 conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix vide MLC No.398/16, dt. 08.11.16.
STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 3 of 7 vii PW Dr. Sandeep Garg, MD, Forensic Medicine, Yes - Ex.PX7 BSA Hospital, who conducted the Potency Test of accused.
viii PW Ms. Richa Manchanda, ld. MM, who recorded Yes - Ex.PX8 statement of prosecutrix u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
6. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that earlier he used to reside at Sector16, Rohini in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix and both had developed friendship and started meeting each other. He admitted that he was arrested and that his Potency Test was conducted in BSA Hospital.
7. Accused did not examine any witness in defence.
8. It is settled law that accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of prosecutrix provided the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and reliable.
9. In Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam I (2010) CCR 402(SC), it has been observed as under: "We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully."
In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2006 (1)) SCC 92, the Apex Court while reiterating that in a rape case, the accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of prosecutrix, STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 4 of 7 if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court, put a word of caution that the Court should be extremely careful while accepting the testimony, when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to have happened. This what has been stated: "It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or that whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."
10. In her first statement Ex.PW1/B and second statement Ex.PW1/A before ld. MM, u/s. 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had taken the stand that she and accused were friends being neighbour. The accused had shifted in 2012 in other block of the same colony where she was induced to go and was raped forcibly. She was threatened that he would murder her parents and defame her. Thereafter, she was taken to the other house of the accused in Nangloi where he had shifted with him family and she was raped there persistently. But when she appeared in witness box, the prosecutrix only admitted that she had developed friendship with accused while residing in the neighbourhood in Sector STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 5 of 7 16, Rohini. On the point of rape and extortion, she stood down totally and hence, she was crossexamined by ld. Addl. PP. On which she deposed that she had not stated in complaint Ex.PW1/B that the accused had taken her to his house in Sector16, Rohini and Nangloi, where she was forced to establish physical relation with her.
Her mother PW2 also deposed that she had not stated in statement Mark PW2/A that her daughter had told her in 2012 that the accused had taken her to his house at Sector16, Rohini by enticing her and established physical relation forcibly threatening that if she disclosed about the incident to anyone, she would be killed. She next deposed that she had not stated in complaint Mark PW2/A that her daughter told her that she was raped by the accused in his house situated in Nangloi where he had shifted with his family members.
PW3 Shri Rajender Kumar, father of the prosecutrix deposed in crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP that he had not stated in his statement Mark PW3/A that the accused had abused him on phone threatening that he should send his daughter to his house otherwise, he would kill her.
12. In order to establish the offence of rape, the prosecution is required to prove two ingredients. The first is that there was sexual intercourse between the boy and girl and that said intercourse had taken place without the consent or against will of the girl. In the case in hand, due to completely standing down of prosecutrix, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients.
STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 6 of 7
13. Accordingly, the accused Abhishek is acquitted of the offence, he was charged with. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled. Surety is discharged.
The personal and surety bonds of the accused is hereby cancelled. Surety is hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety, be cancelled and the document be returned to surety.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal) on this 29th April, 2019 ASJ : Spl. FTC (North) Rohini Courts : Delhi STATE VS ABHISHEK//FIR NO.951/16//PSKNK MARG//SC NO.496/17 7 of 7