Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Decided on: 19 March, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 272/2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7630/2017 (Delay)
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for State with SI Sachin
Kumar, PS Amar Colony.
versus
WASEEM AKRAM BUTT ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
th
1. State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26 April,
2016 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections
417/376 IPC giving benefit of doubt to the respondent.
2. Case of the prosecutrix in the complaint was that she met the
st
respondent at a common friend’s place on 31 December, 2009. Respondent
took her mobile number from the common friend and started sending her
messages. Within a week’s time he insisted her to meet him but she avoided.
After sometime he again met her and proposed to marry. She immediately
rejected his proposal as she hardly knew him. However, the respondent
insisted that they should be friends and should keep in touch with each
other, so she accepted the proposal. In January, 2010 when she and her
friend were passing near his residence, he called her to meet him for five
minutes for the last time as he was going to his home town. She sat in his
car, after a while he again proposed to marry her, to which she replied in the
CRL.L.P. 272/2017 Page 1 of 5
negative however, the respondent cut his hand and thus started bleeding
profusely. She got scared and accepted the proposal. Thereafter they started
meeting frequently. Respondent invited her to his cousin’s marriage at
Srinagar which she attended with her friends where also the respondent
insisted on marrying her but she asked him to wait for two-three months. In
March/April they became very close and started living together when she
discovered that the respondent was into drugs. In July/August she came to
know about his girlfriends and past affairs through Facebook that he was in
habit of flirting with girls. She was shocked and confronted the respondent
with the facts, to which the respondent apologized and assured that he will
not do it again. Thereafter, the respondent started fighting with her without
any rhyme or reason and stayed away from her which created suspicion in
her mind. He started making frequent trips to his hometown. In the month
of November, the prosecutrix got to know that she was pregnant. When she
broke this news to the respondent he did not react. When she asked him to
introduce her to his family members and marry her, he ignored and stated
that this was not the right time however, he assured of marrying her.
Feeling helpless, the prosecutrix contacted his father on which the
respondent got angry and beat her. Thereafter the respondent refrained
relationship with her and started avoiding her. Respondent asked her to abort
the child which was a big shock to her.
3. In her deposition before the Court prosecutrix stuck to her version.
Prosecution also examined the doctor where she got conducted her pelvic
ultrasound as PW-8 and the doctor who conducted the MTP as PW-10.
Respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the
incriminating evidence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He
CRL.L.P. 272/2017 Page 2 of 5
never promised to marry the prosecutrix who used to contact him through all
modes. He further stated that even after the registration of the case she was
in continuous touch with him and has threatened him on many occasions for
which he had made complaints to the police. He stated that he had married
the prosecutrix after she converted her religion from Hindu to Muslim and
executed affidavits by putting her signatures and thumb impression. He also
produced the transcripts along with the CD of the prosecutrix calling him
from her mobile phone number. In order to prove his defence the respondent
examined DW-1 proprietor of hotel at Srinagar, DW-2 who knew
prosecutrix since 2010, DW-3 caretaker of the business of the father of
respondent, DW-4 the Maulvi who performed the nikah, DW-5 clerk Record
th
Room of the Court who proved the order of the Court dated 19 September,
2011 Ex. DW-5/A whereby the application of the complainant Ex. DW-5/B
for cancellation of bail was dismissed, ASI Ravinder Kumar, (DW-6), who
brought the complaints filed by the respondent at PS Hauz Khas, HC Hari
Singh as DW-7, who brought the complaint lodged by the respondent at PS
Amar Colony, his cousin as DW-8 and a friend of the prosecutrix DW-9, the
Manager of International Recreational Parks Pvt. Ltd. Noida as DW-10,
Women Constable Kiran Lal as DW-11 who attended the call of the
prosecutrix, HC Om Prakash as DW-12 regarding complaint of threat to the
respondent, Nodal Officer Vodafone as DW-13 to prove the call records and
Mohd. Riazuddin as DW-15 son of DW-4 who was present at the time of
Nikah.
4. Learned Trial Court on the basis of facts admitted by the prosecutrix
in her cross-examination that she was not invited to the marriage of the
cousin of the respondent, but gave a changed version that in fact a friend of
CRL.L.P. 272/2017 Page 3 of 5
respondent invited her, came to the conclusion that it was strange that the
prosecutrix agreed to go to Kashmir to attend the marriage of the sister of
friend of respondent and stayed there for many days, though she hardly had
any acquaintance with the friend of the respondent. Further the material
witness i.e. the friend of the prosecutrix through whom she met the
respondent was not examined. In cross-examination as the prosecutrix
admitted that she had told the respondent that their marriage cannot
materialize due to the difference in religion and that their parents would not
agree, the learned Trial Court noted that the prosecutrix was educated, a
freelancer flight attendant working on chartered domestic flights, whereas
th
the respondent was 10 standard pass hailing from a conservative family and
it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that both of them lived in a live
in relationship for long and moved to many place. When the prosecutrix
became pregnant, the respondent went with her and informed her mother.
Further the prosecutrix also informed his father. It was not the case of the
prosecutrix that the respondent severed the relationship after the prosecutrix
became pregnant. Prosecutrix was conscious of the fact that father of the
respondent would not agree to the marriage between the respondent and
prosecutrix. As per the evidence led even after the registration of the FIR,
the prosecutrix moved to many places with the respondent, stayed with him
and was in constant touch with him. On the basis of the evidence, the
learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to
infer that the respondent refused to marry the prosecutrix when she became
pregnant, rather the photographs and nikahnama showed that both the
respondent and the prosecutrix were married after the prosecutrix converted
her religion. Even in the documents relating to her pregnancy the
CRL.L.P. 272/2017 Page 4 of 5
prosecutrix gave her name as wife of respondent though the case of the
prosecutrix was that she was not married to the respondent.
5. Considering the inconsistent statements of the prosecutrix and the
material contradictions in her testimony which go to the root of the matter
and the fact that the prosecutrix had even performed nikah with respondent
the conclusion of the learned Trial Court that the relationship between the
prosecutrix and the respondent was consensual in nature cannot be said to be
a perverse finding warranting interference.
6. Leave to appeal is declined.
7. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2018
‘vn’
CRL.L.P. 272/2017 Page 5 of 5