Sat. Nov 28th, 2020

The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi vs Mohd Kamrul & Anr on 3 May, 2018

1 min read

2. I have heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and
have examined the file. The instant FIR was lodged on the statement
of the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name). On 13.04.2015, she was
medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.
Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the

Crl.Rev.P.24/2018 Page 1 of 4
respondents for commission of offences punishable under Sections
376/506/34 IPC read with Section 109/366A IPC and Section 6 read
with Section 17 POCSO Act.
3. The Trial Court, however, did not find sufficient material
to proceed against the respondents for the commission of the aforesaid
offences. It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix and the respondents
were acquainted since long and were related to each other. The
respondents had started living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix
for the last around 5 or 6 months prior to the lodging of the FIR in a
rented accommodation. In the complaint lodged on 13.04.2015, the
victim disclosed that respondent Mohd.Kamrul – husband of
respondent No.2 Firoza used to sexually assault her at his house after
criminal intimidation. Firoza used to instigate and assist her husband
in the crime. She did not disclose the incident to her parents due to
fear. Finally, when she became pregnant and her parents came to
know about it, she divulged her ordeal to them.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply