Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
1 The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2010 on receiving information about DD No.31A dated 19.06.2010 i.e. Ex.PW1/A, PW13 SI Ina Kumari reached PS Mahendra Park where she met prosecutrix, her father Ganga Prasad and the accused Sushil Kumar, who was under the custody of Ct. Raju. The PW13 SI Ina Kumari made inquiry from the prosecutrix. In the meantime, Smt. Kalpana from NGO Sampurna also S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 1/36 reached in the PS and she also made inquiry from the prosecutrix. Thereafter PW13 SI Ina Kumari recorded the statement of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW2/A. She also directed Ct. Raju and Ct. Sunil to get the medical examination of accused Sushil Kumar conducted at BJRM Hospital while she herself took the prosecutrix to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination. In the hospital, the medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. After examination of the prosecutrix, the concerned doctor handed over a sexual assault kit, sealed with the seal of 'BJRM Hospital', along with sample seal which was seized by PW13 vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A, in presence of L/Ct. Meenal, who in the meantime also reached hospital. The Ct. Raju handed over two sealed parcels, containing samples taken from accused by the concerned doctor, sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital along with sample seal, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter PW13 SI Ina Kumari prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sunil Kumar, who left the hospital with rukka for registration of case FIR. In the meantime, PW13 SI Ina Kumari went along with the prosecutrix, her father and W/Ct. Meenal to the house at J1969, Jahangir Puri, where the prosecutrix was kept by the accused, and at the instance of prosecutrix, she prepared site plan Ex.PW13/B. Thereafter they also went to B27, Ramgarh, i.e. the other house where prosecutrix had been kept by the accused. The Ct. Sunil Kumar also reached the said place and handed over original rukka and computerized copy of FIR i.e. Ex.PW1/B to IO. The PW13 prepared site plan vide Ex.PW13/C of B27, Ramgarh, at the instance of prosecutrix. Thereafter prosecutrix was brought back to the PS Mahendra Park. At the PS, accused Sushil Kumar was interrogated by PW13 SI Ina Kumari and during the course of said interrogation, accused Sushil Kumar made disclosure statement Ex.PW13/D. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 2/36 Ex.PW2/B and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW13/E. 2 On the same day, accused Sushil Kumar led the Police party to the first floor of House No. J1969, Jahangir Puri, and pointed out the room where he had kept the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. Thereafter accused Sushil Kumar led the Police party to house No. B27, Ramgarh and pointed out the room, where he had kept the prosecutrix. The IO prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW13/F at the instance of accused.
21 During his crossexamination by learned defence counsel, PW8 deposed that he knew Sushil since 5/6 years prior to the incident and that Sushil had never stayed with PW8 in his room on sharing basis, at Delhi. The PW8 volunteered to state that he had stayed with father of PW8 for about 2/3 years. He also deposed that during the period, when Sushil and the girl accompanying him stayed in the building where PW8 was staying, neither Sushil nor the said girl went for work and that Sushil accompanied PW8 only on one day on vehicle of PW8. The PW8 further deposed that he knew about the parents and family of Sushil and the place where they were residing and that he never saw Sushil and the girl quarreling with each other during the S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 11/36 period, they stayed in building of PW8. The PW8 then deposed that he returned back from Lukhnow after about 5/6 days and that he knew that the girl accompanying Sushil had come with him willingly, however, he could not state if she was not related to him. The PW8 denied that he knew that the girl was not the daughter of Sushil's bua. Doctor witnesses 22 The PW11, Dr. Gopal Krishna, deposed that on 19.06.2010 patient / prosecutrix d/o Ganga Prasad, aged about 13 ½ years, female, was brought by IO PW13 W/SI Ina and her father Ganga Prasad and was examined by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the then JR, under his supervision vide MLC No.11152 and that on examination, no fresh external injuries were seen on the patient and that thereafter the patient was referred to SR Gynae. He proved the said MLC as Ex.PW3/A. He also identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the then JR, on the MLC Ex.PW3/A. 23 The PW3, Dr. Mamta, had conducted gynecological examination of the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW3/A and deposed that on local examination, no bruising, no laceration, no bleeding from labia or external genetalia was seen. Further her hymen was found torn and admitted two fingers easily. No active bleeding was seen. She also deposed about taking of samples from the prosecutrix, sealing them and handing them over to the IO. She further deposed that on 23.07.2010 her opinion was taken and she opined that possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. She proved the said opinion given by her on MLC Ex.PW3/A at point "X".
Police witnesses 26 The PW1, HC Suresh, was posted as duty officer at PS Mahendra Park on 19.06.2010. He deposed that on that day at about 5:15 pm, PW10 Ganga Prasad along with Ram Vilas came to PS and got recorded DD No.31A in respect of missing of prosecutrix from Ludhiana. The complainant further stated that prosecutrix was brought S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 13/36 to Delhi by accused, his tenant and kept her at J Block, Jahangir Puri, in a room. The PW1 then deposed that on the basis of said information, he recorded DD No.31A and handed over the same to PSI Ina for further inquiry and that she left the PS with the complainant for inquiry. The PW1 also proved the certified copy of DD No.31A as Ex.PW1/A. 27 The PW1 further deposed that on the same day at about 10:15 pm, on receipt of rukka through Ct. Sunil sent by IO PW13 SI Ina Kumari, he got recorded the FIR in the present case through computer operator. He proved the computer generated copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/B. 28 The PW13, SI Ina Kumari, is the first IO of the case. She deposed that on 19.06.2010, she received an information about DD No.31A dated 19.06.2010 through Duty Officer of PS Mahendra Park and that after receiving the abovesaid information, she went to PS Mahendra Park where Duty Officer handed over copy of DD No.31A, Ex.PW1/A, to her and in the PS, prosecutrix, her father Ganga Prasad and accused Sushil Kumar, who was under the custody of Ct. Raju, met her. She further deposed that she made inquiry from the prosecutrix and that in the meantime, Smt. Kalpana, NGO (Sampurna) also reached in the PS and she also made inquiry from the prosecutrix and that thereafter PW13 recorded the statement of prosecutrix vide Ex.PW2/A. She then deposed that she directed Ct. Raju and Ct. Sunil to get the medical examination of accused Sushil Kumar conducted at BJRM Hospital and that accordingly, they took the accused to BJRM Hospital and that she also took the prosecutrix to BJRM Hospital where the medical examination of prosecutrix was got conducted by her vide MLC S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 14/36 Ex.PW3/A and that Lady Ct. Meenal also reached at the hospital as PW13 had called her through Duty Officer to reach at the hospital and that doctor, who examined the prosecutrix, handed over sexual assault kit sealed with the seal of 'BJRM Hospital' along with sample seal to PW13, who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A and that Ct. Raju also handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital along with sample seal to her and she took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. She further deposed that she prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sunil Kumar, who left the hospital with rukka for registration of case FIR and that thereafter she along with the prosecutrix, her father and W/Ct. Meenal went to the spot i.e. J1969, Jahangir Puri, where the prosecutrix was kept by the accused, and at the instance of prosecutrix, PW13 prepared site plan Ex.PW13/B and that thereafter they went to B27, Ramgarh, where the prosecutrix was kept by the accused and that in the meantime, Ct. Sunil Kumar also reached there and he handed over original rukka and computerized copy of FIR Ex.PW1/B to PW13. She further deposed that she prepared site plan Ex.PW13/C of the said place i.e. B27 at the instance of prosecutrix and that thereafter they came back to the PS Mahendra Park, where accused Sushil Kumar was in custody of Ct. Raju, and that accused was interrogated by PW13 and that during the course of interrogation, accused Sushil Kumar made disclosure statement Ex.PW13/D and that thereafter accused Sushil Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW13/E and that PW13 recorded the statement of Ganga Prasad, father of prosecutrix u/s.161 CrPC and also recorded the supplementary statement of prosecutrix u/s.161 CrPC. The PW13 further deposed that thereafter accused Sushil Kumar led the Police party to J1969, Jahangir Puri, at first floor and he pointed out the room on S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 15/36 first floor where he had kept the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her and that accused Sushil Kumar also led the Police party at B27, Ramgarh and pointed out the room, where he had kept the prosecutrix and that PW13 prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW13/F in this regard and that thereafter they came back to PS Mahendra Park and that accused Sushil Kumar was put in the lock up of PS Shalimar Bagh and that PW13 recorded the statements of Ct. Sunil Kumar and Ct. Raju and also deposited the exhibits with MHCM.
33 The PW9, Ct. Meenal Singh, had joined the investigation of the case with the IO on 19.06.2010 when doctor at BJRM Hospital had medically examined the prosecutrix and deposed regarding the same.
34 The PW12, Ct. Sunil Kumar, had joined the investigation of the case with the IO on 19.06.2010 and deposed that on that day on the directions of IO, he along with Ct. Raju had taken accused Sushil Kumar to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and that after the medical examination of accused Sushil Kumar, doctor handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital along with sample seal to Ct. Raju and that in the meantime, IO SI Ina Kumari also reached to the hospital along with the prosecutrix and that Ct. Raju handed over the abovesaid parcels to her and that PW13 had taken the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A and that in the hospital, IO handed over one rukka to PW12, who took the same to PS for getting registered the case and that after getting registered the case, he went to B27, Ramgarh, Jahangir Puri, and handed over rukka in original and computerized copy of FIR to the IO and that in his presence IO had also prepared the site plan at the instance of prosecutrix and that thereafter they came back to the PS. S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 19/36 35 The PW16, Ct. Sanjay, had taken the exhibits of the present case vide RC No.36/21/10 to FSL Rohini on 13.07.2010 and deposed regarding the same. Other Witnesses 36 The PW17, Sh. V. Sankaranarayan, is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 13.07.2010, three sealed parcels, as per forwarding letter were received in the FSL from SHO, PS Mahendra Park, Delhi, in connection with present case and that he examined the parcels and prepared his report. He proved his detailed biological report as Ex.PW13/I and the serological report as Ex.PW13/J. He also deposed that on serological examination Ex.3 (Gauze cloth piece with sample of blood of accused) showed reaction for human blood group 'B' and Ex.1a (underwear of prosecutrix) also showed reaction for blood group 'B' (semen). 37 The PW18, Ms. Smita Garg, Secretary, DLSA - then learned MM, had recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC. She proved the said statement as Ex.PW2/C. The application filed by IO was proved as Ex.PW13/G while the certificate given by PW18 was proved as Ex.PW18/A. She further deposed that a copy of statement was supplied to the IO vide application Ex.PW13/G. 38 The PW4, Sh. Krishan Kant Rudra, is the Adviser of Veer Haqiqat Public High School, Gaushala Raod, Ludhiana and he deposed that the according to the admission form, the date of birth of prosecutrix was 29.12.1996 and that at the time of S.C No. 49/11 : State vs. Sushil Kumar Page Nos. 20/36 admission, Ganga Prasad Sahu, father of prosecutrix, had also given one affidavit regarding her date of birth. He proved the photocopy of admission form as Ex.PW4/A, copy of said affidavit as Ex.PW4/B and original certificate issued by Neelam Kapoor, Principal of the school, as Ex.PW4/C. 39 During his crossexamination, PW4 admitted that there was no other document of age of prosecutrix on record except the affidavit regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix given by her father.