IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J.

(SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

SC No.79/15
Unique Case ID No.02405R0080192015.

State Vs. 1.

Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan

R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.
(Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).

2.

Rajesh s/o Sh. Prem Singh

R/o VPO Siwaha Distt Jind Haryana.

3.

Smt. Pushpa w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar

R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

4.

Himanshu s/o Ashok Kumar,

R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

5.

Smt. Priyanka w/o Praveen,

R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
Haryana.

6.

Praveen
R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
Haryana.
(Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).

Date of Institution :10.07.2015.

FIR No.437/14 dated 15.07.2014.
U/s.376/498A/34 IPC.
P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar.
Date of reserving judgment :16.12.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2015.

SCNo.79/2015

Page1of6

JUDGMENT
1.

Accused Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Himanshu, Praveen,

Priyanka and Pushpa had been charge sheeted by the prosecution

for having committed the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
2.

According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix

namely 'P' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her
identity) had submitted a written complaint in the police station
against the above named persons. Accused Himanshu is her
husband, accused Ashok and accused Pushpa are her parents in
law, accused Priyanka is her sister in law, accused Praveen is
Priyanka's husband and accused Rajesh is the maternal uncle of
Himanshu. Apart from levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry
demands in the complaint, the prosecutrix had also stated therein
that her husband Himanshu had been committing un-natural sex
with her and Himanshu's maternal uncle Rajesh had committed
rape upon her on 14.5.2014.
3.

FIR was registered on the aforesaid complaint of the

prosecutrix and the investigation was entrusted to SI Suman. She

got the medical examination of prosecutrix conducted and seized
the exhibits given by the doctor. The prosecutrix was produced
before a lady Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. The accused Ashok and Rajesh were arrested after their
bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The bail
applications of the remaining accused were dismissed by the
Sessions court but they were granted anticipatory bail by the High
Court later on. They joined the investigation and were interrogated
by the IO. All the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL by the

SCNo.79/2015

Page2of6

IO for forensic examination.

4.

After completion of the investigation, the IO prepared

the charge sheet and submitted the same to the court concerned.
Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, the accused
Ashok and accused Praveen were discharged vide order dated
9.11.2015 by this court. However, charge u/s 377 IPC was framed
against accused Himanshu, charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against
accused Rajesh and charge u/s 498A IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC was
framed against three accused Himanshu, Pushpa and Priyanka.
Further charge u/s 406 IPC was also framed against accused
Pushpa.
5.

All the accused denied the charges and hence trial was

held.
6.

The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove the

charges against the accused. The accused were examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2015 wherein all of them denied the prosecution
case and claimed false implication. However, they did not lead any
evidence in defence.
7.

I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have

perused the entire record.

8.

The prosecutrix has been examined as PW4. In her

examination in chief, she reiterated that she had been treated with
cruelty by her in laws i.e. accused persons and cash in the sum of
Rs. 5 lacs as well as heavy jewellery were being demanded from
her. She also reiterated that accused Rajesh had committed rape

SCNo.79/2015

Page3of6

upon her on 14.5.2014. She added that her father-in-law Ashok

also committed rape upon her on 18.5.2014. She deposed that her
husband used to show blue films to her and then used to have oral
sex as well as anal sex with her.
9.

However, in the cross examination conducted on

behalf of accused persons, she took a complete U-turn and

deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case as well as to her
deposition in examination in chief. She admitted that none of the
accused had ever beaten her or had ever demanded dowry from
her. She admitted that neither her husband nor any of her in laws
had inflicted any physical, mental or sexual harassment upon her.
She deposed that her parents had told her that her husband has
eloped alongwith the wife of his own cousin and upon hearing this
she became enraged and in a fit of rage as well as upon their
instigation, she went to police station to lodge a complaint. She
further deposed that somebody had written the complaint in the
police station, upon which she was asked to sign without being
permitted to go through its contents. She admitted that the
contents of the application were not even read over to her before
taking her signatures upon the same. The complaint was read over
to her in the court and she stated that its contents are false and
incorrect. She deposed that no incident as deposed by her had
infact taken place. She stated that she reiterated the contents of
the complaint in her statement to the ld. MM

and in her

examination in chief also on the asking of the police officials

including the IO.
10.

She was re-examined by the ld. APP with the

permission of the court and in her re-examination, she denied that

SCNo.79/2015

Page4of6

she had submitted the complaint Ex. PW4/A in the police station
voluntarily and not in a fit of rage or upon the instigation of her
parents. She also denied that the contents of her complaint Ex.
PW4/A and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW4/B were true and
correct.
11.

PW5 is the father of prosecutrix and PW6 is her

mother. In their examination in chief, they also deposed that their

daughter i.e. the prosecutrix was treated with cruelty by her in
laws and they had been demanding a car, Rs. 5 lacs in cash and
heavy jewellery from her. However, in the cross examination, they
also admitted that prosecutrix was never harassed by her in laws
or by her husband at any point of time. They expressed ignorance
about the contents of the complaint Ex. PW4/A stating that it was
neither written by them nor by their daughter. They admitted that
when they heard that their son-in-law Himanshu had eloped with
the wife of his cousin, they got enraged and pressurised their
daughter to file a case against him. PW6 also admitted that her
daughter had not told her that Himanshu's maternal uncle Rajesh
had raped her.
12.

These

were

the

three

star

witnesses

of

the

prosecution. All of them have deposed totally contrary to the

prosecution case in their cross examination. They have said one
thing in the examination in chief and have given totally contrary
version in their cross examination. It is thus evident that all the
accused are innocent and none of them had inflicted any kind of
cruelty (physical, mental or sexual) upon the prosecutrix. It is also
manifest that none of the accused has made any dowry demand
from the prosecutrix.

SCNo.79/2015

Page5of6

13.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any

cogent, credible or trust worthy evidence to prove the guilt of the

accused. All the accused are, therefore, liable to be acquitted and
are hereby acquitted.

Announced in open
Court on 22.12.2015.

SCNo.79/2015

(VIRENDER BHAT)
Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

Page6of6