Delhi District CourtState vs Sandeep Luthra on 13 April, 2017-:: 1 ::-



              IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
                ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 
              (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)­01,
              WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

SC NO.  : 71/15

STATE 

versus

1.Sandeep Luthra,
son of Sh. Arjun Lal Luthra,
R/o House No. 18­C,  KC Ashok Vihar
New Delhi.2. Rekha Suri
wife of Sh Harvinder SinghR/o WZ­13, Gali No. 10Krishana Park, Tilak Nagar
New Delhi.3. Umesh Aggarwal
son of Sh Moti RamR/o H. No. 576, Sector 5Gurgaon, Haryana


                                                           FIR No. : 29/15
                                      Offence U/S : 328/376/506/34IPCPolice Station : Tilak Nagar 


                                                DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE 
                                      AFTER COMMITTAL: 13/07/2015
                                     DATE OF JUDGMENT:13/04/2017
JUDGMENT-:: Page 1 of 6 ::--:: 2 ::-1.        Present case has been filed undersection 328/376/506IPC   against   accused   persons   on   the   complaint   lodged   by
     prosecutrix   (name   mentioned   in   the   file   but   withheld   to
     protect   her   identity).   The   allegations   against   the   accused
     Sandeep   Luthra   and   Umesh   Aggarwal   are     that   on
     03/01/2015   in   the   evening   accused   Rekha   Suri   took   the
     prosecutrix   (name   mentioned   in   the   file   and   withheld   to
     protect her identity) to a  hotel at Faridabad, where accused
     Umesh Aggarwal administered intoxicated cold drink to the
     prosecutrix   &   thereafter   rape   was     committed   by   accused
     Sandeep   Luthra   and   Umesh   Aggarwal   on   the   person   of
     prosecutrix. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused
     Rekha   Suri  abated  the  commission  of    offences  against  the
     prosecutrix.   Accused   Sandeep   Luthra   and   Umesh   Aggarwal
     threatened   the   prosecutrix   not   to   disclose   the   incident   to
     anyone, otherwise she will have to face dire consequences.2.  After filing of the charge sheet and completion of committal
     proceedings,   case    was  committed  to the  Court  of Sessions
     and was assigned to this court. After   hearing arguments on
     the point of charge, vide order dated 11/09/2015 , charge  for
     offence   undersection   328/376/506/34IPC   was   framed
     against   the   accused   Sandeep   Luthra   and   Umesh   Aggarwal.Charge undersection 328,376read withsection 109IPC was
     framed against accused Rekha Suri, to which they pleaded not
     guilty and claimed trial.-:: Page 2 of 6 ::--:: 3 ::-3.    In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
  prosecutrix as PW1.4.    The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she had given a
  sum of Rs.50,000/­ to her friend ie accused   Rekha Suri on
  interest in the month of June, 2014. She started demanding
  her money back from accused Rekha Suri  but the same was
  not returned to her. On 03/01/2015 she had called accused
  Rekha   Suri,   who   told   her   to   reach   at   Patel   Nagar   metro
  station.   She   reached   at   Metro   Station.   Accused   Rekha   Suri
  asked   her   to   accompany   her   in   the   car.     They   reached   at
  Sarovar   Portico   hotel   in   Faridabad   to   meet   someone.   They
  had   consumed   cold   drink,   and   the   person   who   wanted   to
  meet accused Rekha Suri also reached there. That person was
  introduced with her as accused Umesh Aggarwal by accused
  Rekha Suri and other person was called as Sandeep. Accused
  Umesh   Aggarwal   had   given   cash   of   Rs.1   lakh   to   accused
  Rekha   Suri.   She   had   demanded   her   money   where   heated
  arguments were exchanged between her and accused Rekha
  Suri.  On 04/01/2015 she again called accused Rekha Suri to
  return her money back  but she refused to return her money.In the night she had received a call from unknown no. She
  became scared and she made a call at no. 100 and she was
  taken to PS Tilak Nagar.   She lodged the complaint against
  accused   persons,   which   is   Ex.PW1/A.   She   was   medically
  examined at hospital vide MLC Ex.PX6.    Her statement u/s-:: Page 3 of 6 ::--:: 4 ::-164Cr.P.Cwas   recorded   by   Ld   Metropolitan   Magistrate,
   which is Ex.PX­4. Witness has further deposed that she had
   made allegations against accused Rekha that she had taken
   her to Hotel Sarover Faridabad on the pretext of returning her
   amount but lateron she returned her amount. When she was
   demanding her money from accused Rekha, accused Sandeep
   and   Umesh   uttered   some   wrong   words   ie   they   did
   "Badtamiji".   The   witness   was   declared   hostile   by   Ld
   Additional P.P. In cross examination, witness has denied the
   suggestion   that   on   03/01/2015   accused   Rekha   Suri
   administered some intoxicated substance in her cold drink or
   that thereafter accused Umesh Aggarwal and Sandeep Luthra
   committed   rape   upon   her   or   that   on   04/01/2015   she   was
   threatened by accused Umesh Aggarwal and Sandeep Luthra
   not   to   disclose   the   incident   to   any   one.   In   the   cross
   examination by Ld defense counsel, witness has stated that no
   rape was committed upon her by accused Umesh Aggarwal
   and Sandeep Luthra.5.      The   prosecutrix,   has   not   supported   the   case   of
   prosecution.  She has deposed that accused persons have not
   committed  any offence against her and thus has not  deposed
   anything incriminating against the accused persons.6.      In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the
   material witness has not supported the prosecution case and
   no   incriminating   evidence   has   come   on   record   against   the-:: Page 4 of 6 ::--:: 5 ::-accused,   thus   prosecution   evidence   was   closed.     All   other
   witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been
   part of investigation.  Once the incident in question has been
   denied by the prosecutrix, no fruitful purpose would be served
   by   examining   the   formal   witnesses.   Hence   prosecution
   evidence was closed.7.       Requirement of recording statement undersection 313of
   the   Cr.P.C,   of   the   accused   persons    is  dispensed   with   as
   nothing incriminating against them has come on record when
   the prosecutrix has turned hostile & has stated that accused
   Rekha Suri had not administered any intoxicated substance in
   her cold drink or that thereafter accused Umesh Aggarwal and
   Sandeep Luthra did not   commit  rape upon her or that on
   04/01/2015   she   was   not     threatened   by   accused   Umesh
   Aggarwal and Sandeep Luthra not to disclose the incident to
   any   one.one.   Nothing   material   has   come   forth   in   her   cross
   examination by the prosecution.8.    In   view   of   above   discussion,   I   am   of   the   opinion   that
   prosecution has not been able to   prove its case against the
   accused persons  beyond reasonable doubt.   Hence, accused
   Sandeep Luthra and Umesh Aggarwal are     hereby acquitted
   of   the   charge   for   the   offences   punishable   undersection
   328/376/506/34IPC. Accused  Rekha Suri is acquitted for the
   offence   u/s   328,   376   read   withsection   109IPC.   Their
   personal bonds are extended for further six monthsu/s. 437­A-:: Page 5 of 6 ::--:: 6 ::-Cr.P.Con same terms and conditions.9. File  be consigned to the record room.Announced in the open Court on                  (SHAIL JAIN)
this 13th April, 2017.                      Additional Sessions Judge, 
                                             (Special Fast Track Court)­01, 
                                                  West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-:: Page 6 of 6 ::-