- A class VII girl complains that some one tried to detain her and tried to pull her underwear and she raised an alam and ran away
- She names one "nimmi" as the culprit who tried to outrage her
- In her initial complaint the accused appears as some one know to her !!
- Police register an FIR(Ex. PW-5/A) on 17th August, 1998
- Unfortunately , No one is arrested immediately
- Four years later one Niamuddin is arrested as the accused in this case
- Niamuddin claims HE IS NOT the guy who is accused by the girl (he claims being taken to the girl's house and girl saying he is NOT the person !!)
- The victim girl herself makes contradicting statements and this is what the HC has to say about the victim's statements ".... As noticed already, the complainant had stated in the FIR that one Nammi who was resident of Mehrauli and whom she knew from before had enticed her to accompany him and had taken her to some building under construction. In cross-examination, however, she admitted in answer to the very first question put to her by the counsel for the accused that she neither knew the accused nor she knew his name....."
- ....and 15 years later Niamuddin is RELEASED as NOT proven / innocent
- Honbl'e HC Judge concludes "....In my view, this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not sound at all. It is well settled that in criminal trials benefit of every doubt in the prosecution case has to go to the accused and not to the prosecution....."...."
CRL. A. 155/2004 Page 1 of 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% CRL.A. NO.155/2004
+ Date of Decision: 25th April, 2013
# NIAMUDDIN ..... Appellant ! Through: Mr. S.R. Sharma Advocate
$ THE STATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP
CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused') who was convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 5th February, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation for the offence u/s 342 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default stipulation u/s 354 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation u/s 366 IPC vide order dated 6th February, 2004.
2. The prosecution case as noticed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment is as under:-
| "1............. It has been stated in the complaint by
| the prosecutrix that she is a student of Class VII in
| Sarvodaya School, Mehrauli. On the day of the
| complaint at 7.30 p.m., she had been sent by her
| mother to the shop of a tailor master for collection
| of her clothes. Tailor master told her that the
| clothes were not ready, therefore, he had started to
| return, when a boy named Nimmi, resident of Mehrauli
| met her on the way. He caught hold of her hand and
| after enticing her, took her to the first floor of a
| building which was under construction at Mehrauli. He
| asked the complainant to stay back for some time and
| he started kissing the complainant. He also started to
| pull down the underwear which the complainant was
| wearing; when she raised an alarm, he put his hand on
| her mouth. The complainant got herself freed and
| started running from the room. She also raised alarm
| at which, her mother Sunita reached there, who had set
| out to look for her because the complainant had been
| delayed. On the asking of her mother, complainant
| narrated the entire incident to her mother. Nami whom
| the complainant knew earlier ran away from the
3. After receiving the complaint of the complainant the police registered an FIR(Ex. PW-5/A) on 17th August, 1998. The police could arrest the accused only on 27th March, 2002 on getting some secret information about his whereabouts
4. The accused was charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 342 IPC.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined ten witnesses in all including the complainant and her mother.
6. At the time of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he had taken a plea that his name was not 'Nimmi' as had been claimed by the complainant in the FIR. Another plea taken by him was that after his arrest he was taken to the house of the complainant where she and her mother had told the police that he was not the person involved in commission of the crime. He examined two witnesses also in defence.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accused found him guilty and convicted him. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant filed the present appeal.
8. The prosecution's star witness is the complainant herself. This is what she had deposed in her examination-in-chief:-
"On 17.8.98 I went to shop of a tailor. Name of tailor I do not remember. The shop of the tailor was situated at a small distance from my house. Tailor master was present at the spot who told me that my clothes had not been stitched yet. My mother had sent me to bring cloths of my mother. When I was coming back to my home, accused present in the court met me on the way (witness pointed out towards the accused) and asked to come towards him. Construction work was going on and some flats were under construction. The accused took me inside a flat under construction and there was no light. I covered distance of 15-20 steps of stair cases and took me in a room. The accused kissed me and he was trying to remove my pantee and at that time I was wearing skirt and pantee. I raised alarm and came out from there. Accused could not remove my pantee. I came out and ran towards my house, on the way I met my mother and I told the incident to my mother. The accused ran away from the spot after seeing my mother when I along with my mother came towards place of incident. We reported the matter to the police on 17.8.98 at 12 midnight. My complaint is Ex. PW-1/A bearing my signature at point A."
9. The mother of the complainant was examined as PW-2 and this is what she had deposed:-
"On 17.8.98 I sent my daughter Swati aged about eleven and half years to bring my clothes from a shop near to my house from Raja Tailor. Again said it might be Sonica Tailor. The shop of that tailor was situated near my house. The shop was too near to my house but my daughter could not return till 5-7 minutes. Then I left my house for shop of tailor because distance between my house and tailor shop was one minute walking distance and on the way my daughter met me and she was frightened I asked her as to what had happened, then she told me that someone had caught hold of her, had taken her in the flats under construction. I took my daughter towards the flat and on seeing us, accused fled away. I saw the accused present in the Court today running from the place of incident. My daughter told me the whole incident."
Rest of the case on the link below (those reading on tumblr check the blog post heading )