MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Acquitted in feign rape case



SC No.44540/2015
FIR No.333/2013
PS Bhajanpura

Under Section 457/382/354-B/506(II)/376(2)(i) IPC @ Sec 6 POCSO Act



Imran S/o Mohd. Sabir
R/o B-241/4, Gali No.1, Krishan Kunj Gali, North
Ghonda, Delhi. Permanent Address: H.No.185,
Village Taki, PS Dewarniya, Tehsil Bahedi, District
Bareilly, UP-243203

Date of establishment of box : 13.11.2013
Date on that visualisation indifferent : 03.04.2017
Date of visualisation conspicuous : 06.04.2017


Manoj Giri done a censure to a military that he was a skill play by contention and on a night of 22.08.2013, he was sleeping with his mom on a belligerent building of his chateau and his 3 children were sleeping on a initial floor. On 23.08.2013, during about 04.00am, his daughter, victim, a teenager girl, aged about 11 years came to him tears and told him that while she was sleeping in her room, one child came to her and attempted to mislay her, she woke adult and afterwards he attempted to hurt her and asked her to sojourn still and took out Rs.10,000/- from a breathe of a complainant, that was unresolved in a room. He serve settled that a plant told him that she had seen a child operative in a circuitously underneath construction house. Thereafter, he took a plant to a pronounced underneath construction chateau where a plant identified a child as a child who had committed a above acts. Complainant serve settled that he attempted to repress a boy, who attempted to run divided by pulling him yet a child slipped and fell on a belligerent and he hold reason of him and done a call to a police.
On a basement of above complaint, benefaction box was purebred for a offences punishable underneath Section 376/506/457/392/397 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The plant and a indicted were got medically examined. Accused Imran was arrested after his medical examination. The matter of a plant got available underneath Section 164 CrPC.
After execution of investigation, chargesheet was filed opposite a indicted before this Court for a offences punishable underneath Section 380/354-A/354- B/376/457/506/392/397 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. On conference Ld. Addl. PP for a State and Ld. Counsel for a indicted and after deliberation a element on record, Ld. Predecessor framed a assign opposite indicted Imran for a offences punishable underneath Section 457/382/354-B/506(II) IPC and underneath Section 6 of a POCSO Act, vide sequence antiquated 03.02.2014. However, during conference an swap charge, antiquated 03.10.2016, for a corruption punishable underneath Section 376(2)(i) IPC was also framed opposite a accused. The indicted pleaded not guilty to a charges and claimed trial.
In sequence to move home a shame of a accused, assign examined 9 witnesses during a trial:

PW-1 Sh. Manoj Giri was a father of a plant and complainant in this case.
PW-2 ASI Rati Ram was a avocation Officer. He valid his publicity on a rukka as Ex.PW2/A and a computerized duplicate of a FIR as Ex.PW2/B.
PW-3 Ct. Ajay had reached a symbol with a IO on receipt of DD No.9-A. He also took a indicted to a sanatorium for medical conference and a rukka to a PS for a registration of a FIR and was also a declare to a detain of a accused.
PW-4 was a plant herself. She deposed about a incident.
PW-5 Ct. Prem Prakash taken a indicted to a sanatorium for his medical conference alongwith a IO. He also collected a exhibits of this box from a MHC(M) and deposited a same with FSL Rohini.
2 PW-6 SI Deepak Kumar was a initial IO. He had reached a symbol alongwith Ct. Ajay on receipt of DD No.9-A. He available a matter of a complainant and prepared a rukka on it, Ex.PW6/A.
PW-7 lady Ct. Sapna had taken a plant to a sanatorium for her medical examination, accompanied by a mom of a victim.
PW-8 HC Jitender was a MHC(M). He valid a duplicate of applicable entries in Register No.19 per depositing a exhibits in a malkhana as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and promulgation them to a FSL Rohini vide Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D, respectively.
PW-9 SI Vandna was a final IO of this case, who deposed about a review conducted by her in fact and also valid a several papers prepared/collected during investigation.

Statement of a indicted was available underneath Section 313 CrPC and a whole damning justification was put to him that he denied and pleaded innocence. He took a counterclaim that he was beaten adult by Manoj Giri (complainant) and his friends as they had got indignant and that a plant was tutored and he was secretly concerned in this case.

I have listened Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for a State and Sh. SK Atri, Ld. Counsel (Amicus Curiae) for a indicted and left by a records.

It was submitted by a Ld. Addl. PP that a iniquitous corruption was committed with a teenager victim, who had been unchanging in matter during each theatre of a record and therefore, a box of a assign stands valid and so prayed for a self-assurance of a accused.

On a other palm Ld. Defence Counsel forked out to a several contradictions in a assign box and a countless improvements done by a plant during each theatre of a proceedings. It was submitted that indicted has been secretly concerned as he was badly beaten by a victim’s father merely on guess and in sequence to 3 save himself from prosecution, he done allegations opposite a accused.

The benefaction box is formed on a testimony of a PW-1, complainant and a father of a plant and that of a plant herself i.e. PW-4. Admittedly, PW-1 had not seen a occurrence and it was told to him by a victim. The essence of a censure have already been reproduced hereinabove. During his examination-in-chief, PW-1 done several improvements. He deposed that a plant told him that while she was asleep, a child searched a locker. If a plant was asleep, she could not have seen a indicted acid a locker. He serve deposed that thereafter, a indicted undressed her and put a blade on her neck and afterwards attempted to do wrong act with her. In his complaint, there was no discuss of any blade to be with a indicted that he put on a neck of a victim. He also deposed that he after came to know that a child entered his chateau by a bamboo stair, that was again an alleviation from his censure Ex.PW1/A. He serve deposed that a plant told him that she could brand a indicted as once he had taken H2O bottle from their house, that was again an alleviation from his censure Ex.PW1/A. He serve deposed that he afterwards called adult one Deepak Jain, whose building was underneath construction, who came to his chateau and took him to a place where his labours were staying and from there a indicted was apprehended on a marker of a victim. There is again no discuss of any Deepak Jain in his censure Ex.PW1/A.

See also  Divorce : Cruelty on husband but Rs.50 lacs Alimony

PW-1 serve deposed that military came to his chateau and had given a write series of a PS. He also deposed that after divining a accused, he again called a military during a given series and a military again came to his house, apprehended a indicted and took him to a PS. If he had already apprehended a accused, there was no arise to a call a military for a second time and on a discordant if a military had already arrived before he went in hunt of a accused, there was no arise for a military to have come again and could have assimilated him in a search. Hence, he done paradoxical deposition.

In a cross-examination, PW-1 was confronted with his before matter Ex.PW1/A where it was not available that a indicted came to his chateau by a 4 bamboo stair. In any case, no bamboo step was recovered during review during a insistence or during a indicating out of a accused. He serve deposed that firstly a plant came downstairs, followed by his dual other children. This deposition was paradoxical to a deposition of a victim, who deposed in this courtesy that she came downstairs alone while her dual siblings kept sleeping. PW-1 firstly deposed in a interrogate that he had started acid for a indicted within dual mins and a chateau where he was found was adjoining to his house, again paradoxical to a deposition of PW-4 victim, who deposed that it took about 30 mins in reaching to a chateau underneath construction. Subsequently, PW-1 deposed that a place of chateau of a labours was opposite from a place of construction and a stretch between his chateau and where a indicted was found was about 150 meters. He also deposed that when a indicted was traced, Deepak Jain and Vikas Aggarwal were with him, again discordant to a chronicle of a victim, who deposed that usually she and PW-1 had left in hunt of a accused. In any case, a pronounced Deepak Jain and Vikas Aggarwal were never examined during review nor cited as witnesses.

PW-1 serve deposed that a income of Rs.10,000/- that was stolen was kept in a purse that was kept in his breathe unresolved in a room on a initial building where a plant was sleeping. He deposed that a purse was found fibbing in a open space outward a room on a initial floor, that was after on picked adult by a plant and it was placed on a fridge in that room. It is to be remarkable that yet a indicted was apprehended within dual hours of a pronounced occurrence yet no income could be recovered from him. The purse from that a burglary was committed was never seized by a IO.

In his serve cross-examination, he deposed that on reaching a chateau where a indicted was staying, a doorway was non-stop by a thekedar (contractor) when he knocked during a doorway yet again a pronounced executive was conjunction examined nor cited as a witness, yet it contingency have been that a plant identified a indicted in his presence. He never deposed that he went to a sanatorium where a indicted was 5 certified and also showed stupidity about a injuries on a chairman of a indicted since according to a IO, PW-6 and PW-9, a indicted had been taken to GTB Hospital as he was carrying injuries on his legs and PW-9 deposed that she arrested a indicted in a sanatorium in a participation of PW-1, that fact was never deposed by PW-1. It usually shows that all a papers have been manipulated and creates doubt during slightest in a complicity of a accused. It is to be remarkable that a initial call was done during series 100 per a burglary only. The pronounced call was available vide DD No.9-A, that is on record and it mentions per a burglary in H.No. B-139. The pronounced call was done by PW-1 usually after a plant disclosed all a contribution to him yet notwithstanding that no allegations of seduction of a teenager lady were done in a pronounced call.

The plant in this box was yet 11 years and 6 months aged during a time of a incident, however, she done improvements during each theatre of a proceedings. In her matter done to a police, underneath Section 161 CrPC, she settled that on 22.08.2013, she was sleeping with her hermit and sister in a room when during about 4.00am, one child came inside her room, who was operative as a work in a adjacent chateau and attempted to mislay her garments yet in a meanwhile, she woke adult on that a child started molesting her and asked her to keep quiet. She serve settled that afterward a pronounced child took out Rs.10,000/- from a breathe of her father and fled divided and afterwards she told all a contribution to her father after going downstairs and he took her to a room of a labours where she identified a pronounced boy. This matter was available on 23.08.2013 itself. She was brought to a justice where her matter was available underneath Section 164 CrPC, that was available on 26.08.2013 i.e. after about 3 days. In that statement, she gave an elaborate and most makeshift chronicle of a incident. She settled that on 23.08.2013, during about 4.00am, she was sleeping with her hermit and sister in a room while her relatives were sleeping in a room downstairs. She woke adult on conference some sound in a room and saw a chairman perplexing to open a almirah on that she asked as to who he was, on that that chairman replied that someone had sent him to their room and afterward he placed a blade on 6 her neck and asked her to mislay her garments to that she refused. She serve settled that afterward that chairman tore her garments and started kissing her and afterwards put his urinating organ in her mouth and told her that whatever would come out from his urinating organ, should be consumed by her and after sometime, something came out of his urinating organ yet she did not splash it. She serve settled that some flowing piece came out of his urinating organ and got on her top. She serve settled that pronounced chairman threatened her that if she told a pronounced acts to anyone, he would kill her and afterwards he went away. She serve settled that thereafter, she told all a contribution to her relatives and that a pronounced chairman was operative as a work nearby. She serve settled that after about half-an-hour, her father brought that chairman before her and she identified him immediately.

See also  Counter False 498A and Quash

Thus, she extrinsic totally new contribution that were conjunction settled by her in her matter underneath Section 161 CrPC nor were settled by PW-1 possibly in his censure or in his deposition before a Court. As per this statement, she had never left with her father PW-1 to brand a indicted yet it was PW-1, who on his possess had brought a indicted before her after half-an-hour and she identified him. It is not famous as to how her father could have apprehended a right chairman yet carrying his identity.

The plant seemed in a declare box as PW-4 and again altered a version. She deposed that on 23.08.2013, during about 04.00am, she was sleeping with her hermit and sister in a initial building room and woke adult when she was teased by a chairman and on observant him, she identified him to be a work who was operative in a adjacent chateau underneath construction. She introduced another fact deposing that pronounced chairman was putting his hands underneath her garments and was carrying a hanky on his face yet private it and afterwards she was means to see him in a lights. She deposed that a indicted placed a blade on her neck and she asked him to go divided yet he did not and afterwards forcibly private her clothes, non-stop his breathe and put off a light and afterward put a bottle like intent into her mouth. On being questioned by a Court, a plant explained that it was a skin and peep form bottle and partial of his physique used in washroom for urination and deposed that he put it on her lips and afterwards again done an makeshift 7 deposition that he had also put it on a bottom partial of her physique and attempted to force inside yet she did not felt any pain.

Thus, she again resiled from her matter underneath Section 164 CrPC where she settled that a indicted tore her garments and asked her to devour his semen and ejaculated on her clothes. She serve makeshift by observant that a indicted had put off lights before putting his urinating organ on her lips. Thereafter, a plant deposed that a indicted went divided while melancholy to kill her and afterwards she went downstairs and told above contribution to her parents, also told her father about a details of that person, who in spin took her to a adjacent chateau underneath construction and that chairman took her and her father to a place where twelve labours were staying and she identified one of them. It is conspicuous that yet a plant woke adult while a indicted came to her and her hermit and sister were sleeping circuitously yet she never lifted any alarm on observant an antagonist and kept articulate to him. She was confronted with her before matter where all a contribution as settled by her in her examination- in-chief that a indicted took off his breathe after shutting lights, extrinsic his bottle like organ on her lips and bottom partial of her physique were not available nor it was available that a indicted had placed a blade on her neck. She was also confronted with her matter underneath Section 164 CrPC where a fact that indicted took divided Rs.10,000/- from a breathe of her father, unresolved in a room was not recorded. She also deposed that she had seen a indicted once or twice before to a occurrence while he was operative in a circuitously house.

See also  Mere Disclosing Names of Accused cannot be said to be Strong and Cogent Evidence

In her serve cross-examination, she deposed that her siblings kept sleeping via a whole incident. She also deposed that usually she and her father had left in hunt of a accused, discordant to a chronicle of PW-1, as celebrated hereinabove. She serve deposed that a indicted had usually pulled down her reduce yet had not private it, again discordant to her chronicle done before a Ld. MM underneath Section 164 CrPC, Ex.PW4/A. The series of improvements done by her during each theatre creates her an strange witness.

Apart from a above contradictions and improvements, when a indicted was 8 shown to a plant during a conference and was asked to brand him, she deposed that he was substantially a same chairman yet could not review scrupulously due to relapse of time. Hence, a indicted was not scrupulously identified by her in a Court. However, she started great on observant a indicted yet did not divulge a reason for that. The plant was a best chairman to have identified a indicted as even her father had identified him usually on a basement of her marker of a indicted and when she was puzzled per his identity, a marker of a indicted by her father or by any other declare including a IO can't be believed.

The review of a box was also not above mark. PW-6, a initial IO, was a initial chairman who reached a spot. According to him, he had reached a place where a indicted was apprehended and according to him, a mom of a complainant was also benefaction there, discordant to a deposition of PW-1 and PW-4, who never deposed about her presence. He also deposed that he remained during a symbol for about one hour, again discordant to a deposition of PW-1, who settled that he remained there for about 10 minutes. In cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that he legalised a room where a occurrence took place and a double bed was fibbing in a room, again discordant to a deposition of PW-1 and PW-4, who deposed that usually one folding cot was fibbing there.

It was deposed by PW-1 that there were no windows in a room on a initial building where a occurrence took place and usually one doorway was there heading to a room. The staircase heading to a room was from inside a house. Thus, a indicted could not have reached a pronounced room by any bamboo staircase, as deposed by PW-1 and could have entered usually from a categorical opening of a house. It is nobody’s box that a categorical opening to a chateau was found open. It was also not deposed by PW-1 that there was any patio above a initial building room or there was any approach from a patio to that room. Thus, a doubt as to how a indicted could have entered a room, stays unanswered. The site devise of a room has also not been prepared by a IO nor any photographs were placed on record.

As per a matter of a victim, done underneath Section 164 CrPC, Ex.PW4/A, a 9 indicted ejaculated on her top. The pronounced tip was sent for FSL conference yet no semen stains were found on it. Hence, a medical justification on record has not advanced a chronicle of a victim.

The doubt that might arise as to because a plant deposed in a demeanour as she did. The counterclaim taken by a indicted was that he was beaten adult by PW-1 and other all of a remarkable when he non-stop a doorway of his chateau and when he postulated serious injuries afterwards he was secretly concerned in this case. The observations done by a Hon’ble Apex Court in Radhu Vs. State of MP (2007) 12 SCC 57, are utterly good to a contribution of a benefaction case. It was celebrated that “however, courts should, during a same time, bear in mind that fake charges of rape are not uncommon, and there are some singular instances where a primogenitor has swayed a trusting or deferential daughter to make a fake assign of rape possibly to take punish or extract income or to get absolved of a financial liability”. Similarly, in Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of MP 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 139 SC, it was celebrated that “it can't be hold that a prosecutrix contingency be believed irrespective of a improbabilities in her story. She should be believed if story put brazen by her prima facie desirous confidence”.

Thus, deliberation a entirety of a contribution and resources of a case, a element improvements and contradictions appearing in a testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, miss of correct marker of a indicted by a plant before a Court and no liberation from a indicted of any nature, all go in foster of a indicted and it can be safely hold that a assign has not been means to infer a box opposite a indicted over reasonable doubt. Accordingly, indicted Imran is clear of a offences punishable underneath Section 457/382/354-B/506(II)/376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of a POCSO Act. He be set during liberty. File be consigned to a Record Room after execution of due formalities.


(Sanjay Sharma-I) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act),
Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Divorce : Cruelty on husband but Rs.50 lacs Alimony
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation