State of NCT of Delhi v. Jeevan Singh

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 10th, 2019 SU

$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. L.P. 153/2019 % Judgment reserved on: 28th March, 2019 Judgment pronounced on: 10th April, 2019 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Suresh Chand, PS Kirti Nagar Versus JEEVAN SINGH ....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the appellant/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 01, Special Court, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') in FIR No.248/2012, Police Station Kirti Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:- "i.Prosecution case unveils with DD No. 37A dated 20.08.2012 being recorded regarding wrong act with the prosecutrix. Ms.X, the prosecutrix and Mr.Vicky Maggo came to the police station and informed about the incident. ii. At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was working as a maid in the same house where accused Mr.Jeewan Singh was also working as a cook. The prosecutrix further informed that on 20.08.2012 at about 3.30 pm, she had been raped by the accused and DD No. 37A was lodged in this regard. iii. IO W/SI Vandana prepared rukka and handed over the same to the duty officer for registration of the FIR. An FIR No.248/12 was registered on 21.08.2012. iv. The prosecutrix was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 3. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses in all. 4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and claimed to be innocent. 5. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offence. 6. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP appearing for the appellant State contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix has duly supported the case of the prosecution and she specifically stated the act of the accused which was covered under the provisions in which the accused was facing trial. She clearly and unequivocally deposed that the accused pulled her inside the room while she was going to put the duster in the balcony for drying and forcibly raped her. The learned APP further contended that the contradictions in the deposition of said witnesses are minor and not in material particulars which are bound to occur during the course of trial. In addition to that he contended that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence of PW-13, Smt. Asha Maggo, who stated that her son is aged about 10 years is physically challenged and he would not have intervened in the commission of rape. Further, the deposition of the grandmother-in-law clearly establishes that the keys of the room where the offence was committed were with the accused. The APP further contended that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that there were no material contradictions that have come on record which goes to the root of the case. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 8. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and she stated that she was employed in the house of Mr. Vicky Maggo as a maid. Her Mausi (maternal aunt) placed her in house no. 20/7 in Mansarovar Garden in Kirti Nagar. She further deposed that apart from her, four other employees were also employed in t