Kimod Kumar Raju vs State & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1292 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.M.C. No.4357/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:24th February, 2012

KIMOD KUMAR RAJU                             ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr. H.C. Vashisht, Adv.

                     versus

STATE & ANR                              ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms. Khairul Nisa, Adv.
                                        Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

+ Crl. M.C. No. 4357/2011

1. In pursuance to order dated 21.12.2011, respondent no. 2 namely Ms. Pooja, D/o Mr. Sadan, R/o 7 35/4-B, Gali No. 11, Mandawali, Delhi-92, is personally present in the court with her counsel Ms. Khairul Nisa. W/ASI Rajesh, ZO of the case has already present in the court and has identified her as respondent no. 2.

2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed to modify / rectify the impugned order dated 16.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) / Patiala House Courts, in case FIR No. 123/2010, titled as State Vs. Kimod Kumar @ Raju u/s 376/506 IPC at PS Tuglak Road, in S.C. No. 14/11.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after full trial of the case, vide judgment dated 16.09.2011, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges against him. However, when he received certified copies of the judgment then he came to know about that in the said judgment, it is recorded, the petitioner is husband of respondent no. 2. He informed respondent no. 2 about her statement and asked her as to whether on 16.09.2011 while the recording of her statement she stated that "accused is now my husband".

4. Ms. Khairul Nisa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, on instructions has submitted that respondent no.2 never stated that the petitioner was her husband as she never married with the petitioner.

5. Respondent no. 2, who is personally present in the court, has further clarifies that she stated that she fallen in love with him, therefore, he was her husband.

6. She further submits that in recording evidence, may be some mis- communication happened, therefore, this fact has to be removed.

7. In these circumstances, the para 12 of the judgment dated 19.05.2011 shall be read after deleting the context as under: -

"Perusal of her statement recorded before the court revealed that she did not level any allegation against the accused. She has stated that she is married with the accused Kimod. She has also stated that she made statement to the police at the instance of her family members."

8. It is further clarified that rest of the judgment dated 19.05.2011 shall remain as it is.

9. The petition is allowed on the above terms and conditions.

SURESH KAIT, J

FEBRUARY 24, 2012 ac