Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. On 23.12.09 a case u/s 365/366/376/506/34 IPC was registered vide FIR no. 471/09 at PS Shahdara on the basis of written complaint filed by FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Anju Rani (prosecutrix) d/o Ram Karan r/o 351/5 G.T. Road, Samalkha, District Panipat, Haryana against Vishal Jain and Lokesh Jain @ Sunny both sons of Subash Chand Jain r/o 1/6817, Gali no.2, East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.

2. Brief facts arising out of this case are that on 17.12.09 prosecutrix filed a complaint to SHO PS Shahdara and relevant facts of the complaint are as follows :

Accused Sunny and two other persons were also present there and they again pushed her inside the house of Vishal Jain and bolted the door from inside. Accused Vishal Jain removed her clothes. Sunny also entered in the bed room and took her naked photographs inside the room. She further deposed that accused Vishal Jain forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and also extended threat of exposing her necked photographs in the public in case she would disclose this incident to anyone. She was kept confined in a room for the whole night. Accused Vishal also offered water and after taking the same she became unconscious and when she regain consciousness she found mother of accused Vishal Jain present there. She further deposed that next day morning both the accused took her in a car at FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Karkardooma Court in a chamber of an Advocate and obtained her signatures on some papers, thereafter, they both took her in a Mandir and got her marriage solemnized forcibly. She further deposed that both the accused took her in a room at unknown place and also extended threat of killing her, if she would disclose the incident to anyone. Accused Vishal Jain again committed rape upon her in the night of 26.11.09. She further deposed that before leaving her house she had left the address and telephone number of Vishal Jain at her house, therefore, her parents made a telephonic call to Vishal Jain and accused Vishal Jain disclosed before them that he alongwith herself were going outside and would return next day. She further deposed that on 27.11.09 both the accused again took her to their house at Shahdara and on reaching there mother of both accused Vishal Jain and Lokesh Jain @ Sunny tried to make her understand regarding the incident and also suggested that not to disclose the incident to anyone but she informed her parents through telephone of Vishal Jain. FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS She further deposed that on 27.11.09 her brother Amit and cousin brother Pramod reached at the house of accused, therefore, accused Vishal Jain took her in a separate room and extended threat about not to disclose the incident to her brothers. They also forced her brother to write a letter that they were taking her with them, thereafter she was allowed to return to her house. She narrated the whole incident to her parents and thereafter went to PS Samalkha and filed a complaint Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. She further deposed that l 23.12.09 she was taken by the police officials at the house of accused Vishal Jain. He was found present in the house and was arrested on her identification vide arrest memo Ex. PW PW1/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C. She further deposed that she was got medically examined at GTB hospital. She identified both the accused present in the court and further stated that her original educational certificates and photographs taken by them were not returned to her. During her cross examination she stated that accused Vishal Jain met FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS her first time in the year 2006 at Computer Institute Samalkha, Haryana and since then she used to talk with him telephonically but never met personally. She further stated that accused Vishal Jain met her once a time i.e on 25.11.09 prior to this incident. She further stated that in para no.3 of the complaint it is mentioned that on 21.11.09 accused Vishal Jain reached at Samalkha and met her at 4:30 p.m and forced her to sit in his car for which she refused. She further stated that they had gone to PS Shahdara on 15.12.09 and handed over the complaint to the police officials. She further stated that on 25.11.09 she made several calls to Vishal Jain from Samalkha intimating thereby that she was coming to Delhi for interview and Vishal Jain also made several calls to her directing the way how to reach Shahdara. She denied the suggestion that on 25.11.09 she was at Samalkha till 4 p.m with accused Vishal Jain and entered in Delhi at about 4:30 p.m. She also stated that she got recorded in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C that she reached at Shahdara Metro Station in the morning time and from there Vishal Jain took her to his house at Mauzpur thereby she confronted from her complaint FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS Ex.PW1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She also admitted that when she leave her house from Samalkha her original certificates, one suit was with her as she had to go to her Mausi's house. When marriage certificate dated 26.11.09 shown to the witness she admitted her signature but stated that these were forcibly obtained but she failed to depose as to how her passport size photograph came in possession of accused which was admittedly affixed on the marriage certificate. She also admitted that letter mark A bears the signature of her cousin brother Pramod and further admitted that when her real brother and cousin brothe reached at PS Shahdara she was sitting in a car which was parked outside the PS. She also admitted her 13 photographs when shown to her in the court which are Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/12. She further stated that after solemnization of marriage she again went to the house of accused Vishal Jain but she denied the suggestion that after marriage she lived with accused person happily and came from his house with a bag of clothes containing three pair of suits, tooth paste and brush etc. She also admitted that her one suit which she brought with her was FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS taken by accused Vishal Jain from her possession. She denied the suggestion that photograph Mark X with her niece was handed over by her to Vishal Jain but she admitted her photograph with her niece and which might have been available in her documents which was taken away by accused Vishal Jain. Rest of her testimony is reiterated by him as submitted by him during examination in chief.

(viii) PW8 proved the factum of recording statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Statement is Ex. PW8/A.

(ix) PW9 is the IO of this case and deposed that on 23.12.09 prosecutrix Kumari Anju Rani alongwith her father (PW5) reached at PS Shahdara and on that day a complaint which was earlier filed by prosecutrix was assigned to her for investigation. The complaint is already Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on the complaint after verifying the facts from the prosecutrix and got the case registered u/s 365/366/376/506/34 IPC. The endorsement made by him in his own hand and is Ex.PW9/A bearing her signature at point A. After registration of the case prosecutrix was got medically examined by Lct. Shallu. All the exhibits were handed over to her and she deposited all the exhibits with MHCM. Site plan was prepared on the identification of prosecutrix which is Ex.PW9/B. On the identification of prosecutrix accused Vishal Jain was arrested, interrogated, his personal search was FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS conducted. Arrest memo is Ex. PW1/B and personal search memo is Ex. PW1/ C. Co-accused Lokesh Jain was also formally arrested on 8.4.10 vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He also sent Ct. Manjeet with accused Vishal Jain to GTB hospital for his medical examination and all the exhibits were handed over by doctor to Ct. Manjeet which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A and deposited the exhibits with MHCM. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vishal Jain Ex.PW9/E. He further deposed that on 24.12.09 statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded which is already Ex.PW8/A. All the exhibits were sent to CFSL Rohini through Ct. Anand. CFSL report Ex.PW9/F is also placed on record. After recording statement of witnesses and on completion of necessary investigation he filed the challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C in the court of Ld. MM. During cross examination she stated that she had visited the Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar to verify the factum of solemnization of FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS marriage of accused Vishal Jain with prosecutrix. She also recorded statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey s/o sh. Bala Pd. Pandey r/o 21/64 Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. In his statement Pandit Brij Kumar stated that the marriage of the prosecutrix with Vishal Jain was solemnized in his presence and at that time there was no instances of pressure, threat/forceful activity by the accused were noticed. However, he specifically stated that marriage was solemnized in a peaceful manner and without raising any objection by the prosecutrix. Statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey recorded by her is Ex.PW9/DX.

17. After hearing arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for both the parties, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the documents brought on record which has already been discussed I am of the considered view that prosecutrix was more than 21 years old on the FIR NO:471/09; PS SHAHDARA; U/S 366/376/506/34 IPC ; STATE VS. VISHAL JAIN & OTHERS day of alleged incident. On perusal of the photographs and also on the basis of statement of Pandit Brij Kumar Pandey in whose presence the marriage between Vishal Jain and prosecutrix was solemnized clearly goes to show that there was no instances of threat and pressure during the solemnization of marriage. The physical appearance of the prosecutrix coupled with the fact that she of her own left her house while having extra wearing clothes and other daily use items with her and joined the company of accused again goes to show that she joined the company of accused with her own consent. Marriage is also solemnized and thereafter sexual relationship were established with her. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that no ingridents to prove the offence u/s 366/376/506/34 IPC is proved against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Vishal Jain is acquitted for the offence as alleged against him u/s 366/376/506/34 IPC and Lokesh Jain is acquitted for the offence as alleged against him u/s 366/506/34 IPC.