State vs.jamshed Khan @ Nannu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1211896
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnJan-11-2018
AppellantState
RespondentJamshed Khan @ Nannu
Excerpt:
$~18 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi + state decided on : january11 2018 crl.rev.p. 29/2018 ........ petitioner jamshed khan @ nannu through : mr.ravi nayak, app with si nishant, ..... respondent ps gandhi nagar. versus through : none. coram: hon'ble mr. justice s.p.garg s.p.garg, j.(oral) crl.m.a.no.551/2018 (exemption) 1.2. exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. the application stands disposed of. crl.rev.p. 29/2018 1. present revision petition has been filed by the state to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 10.10.2017 of learned additional sessions judge by which the respondent was discharged in case fir no.387/2016 under sections 354/354(d)/506/509 ipc. sections 8 and 12 of the pocso act were added later on.2. i have heard the learned additional public prosecutor and have examined the file. on perusal of the file, it reveals that the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant on 25.08.2016. in crl.rev.p.29/2018 page 1 of 2 the complaint she leveled certain allegations against the respondent for outraging her modesty. during investigation, the victim recorded her 164 cr.p.c. statement on 27.08.2016 before the learned metropolitan magistrate. in her 164 cr.p.c. statement, the victim completely exonerated the respondent; she did not level any allegations, whatsoever, against the respondent. she denied if the respondent had outraged her modesty.3. taking into consideration 164 cr.p.c. statement given by the prosecutrix, the trial court discharged the respondent. this court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. the statement under section 164 cr.p.c. was recorded before the learned metropolitan magistrate soon after the lodging of the report on 27.08.2016. there are no allegations if the prosecutrix was tutored to make the said statement. the prosecutrix was in the company of her brother. apparently, she was not under fear or pressure from the respondent to make the statement. since the prosecutrix has given entirely two conflicting statements i.e. one before the police and the other before the learned metropolitan magistrate, there was no sufficient material to proceed against the respondent for commission of the aforesaid offences.4. the revision petition being unmerited is dismissed in limini. january11 2018/sa s.p.garg (judge) crl.rev.p.29/2018 page 2 of 2
Judgment:

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + STATE DECIDED ON : JANUARY11 2018 CRL.REV.P. 29/2018 ........ Petitioner

JAMSHED KHAN @ NANNU Through : Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Nishant, ..... Respondent PS Gandhi Nagar. versus Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.

(ORAL) Crl.M.A.No.551/2018 (Exemption) 1.

2. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 29/2018 1. Present revision petition has been filed by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 10.10.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the respondent was discharged in case FIR No.387/2016 under Sections 354/354(D)/506/509 IPC. Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were added later on.

2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have examined the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that the present case was registered on the statement of the complainant on 25.08.2016. In Crl.Rev.P.29/2018 Page 1 of 2 the complaint she leveled certain allegations against the respondent for outraging her modesty. During investigation, the victim recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement on 27.08.2016 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim completely exonerated the respondent; she did not level any allegations, whatsoever, against the respondent. She denied if the respondent had outraged her modesty.

3. Taking into consideration 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by the prosecutrix, the Trial Court discharged the respondent. This court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate soon after the lodging of the report on 27.08.2016. There are no allegations if the prosecutrix was tutored to make the said statement. The prosecutrix was in the company of her brother. Apparently, she was not under fear or pressure from the respondent to make the statement. Since the prosecutrix has given entirely two conflicting statements i.e. one before the police and the other before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, there was no sufficient material to proceed against the respondent for commission of the aforesaid offences.

4. The revision petition being unmerited is dismissed in limini. JANUARY11 2018/sa S.P.GARG (JUDGE) Crl.Rev.P.29/2018 Page 2 of 2