Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. On the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix, an FIR u/s 328/376/384 IPC and u/s 66(E) IT Act was got registered against the accused. The prosecutrix was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded by the learned MM on 12.02.2014.

SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 4 of 18

3. In the chargesheet, it is further averred that during hearing of anticipatory bail application of accused, the prosecutrix handed over a marriage contract agreement and an agreement of live-in relationship, twelve papers, twelve photographs, a CD containing video to the IO. On 27.02.2014, the accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and accused was formally arrested and he was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. The exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet under section 328/376/384 IPC was filed against the accused.

4. Since the major offence in this case was triable by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 02.12.2014, learned M.M. committed this case to the Court of Sessions and on allocation, it was assigned to this court.

5. Vide order dated 10.12.2014, a charge u/s 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/506/354-B IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 5 of 18 two witnesses i.e. prosecutrix as PW1 and Sh. Ravinder Kumar as PW2.

19. The accused is also facing trial for the commission of offence of extortion punishable u/s 384 IPC. During evidence, the prosecutrix deposed that the accused never made any obscene film and he never demanded any money from her or her family members. During her cross examination conducted on behalf of State also she maintained that the accused never demanded any money from her and she never paid Rs.1,00,000/- to 1,50,000/- to the accused on his demand in lieu of return of her video film. It is not the case of the prosecution that any obscene film or photograph was recovered during investigation or at any other time from the accused. As noted above, there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of offence punishable u/s 384 IPC. Thus accused is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 384 IPC.

23. In view of above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/506/354B IPC. Thus, the accused is acquitted of the offences SC No.189/14 State vs. Suresh Tandon page 17 of 18 punishable under section 328/376/376(2)(n)/313/384/323/ 506/354B IPC.

24. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.