Delhi District Court
State vs Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 1 Of ... on 17 December, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014.
State versus
1. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Rathore
Son of Mr. Ram Babu Rathore,
Resident of House No.A-46, Dev Nagar, Rawli Mahdood,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
P/Add:- L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
2. Mr. Ram Babu
Son of late Mr. Umrav,
Resident of L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
3. Ms. Madhuri,
Wife of Mr. Ram Babu Rathore,
Resident of L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
4. Ms. Meenu,
Wife of Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Resident of House No. 9/48, Parvatiya Mohalla, Gali No. 11,
Rampur Road, Haldwani, Uttrakhand.
5. Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Son of Mr. Kailash Chand Sahu,
Resident of House No. 9/48, Parvatiya Mohalla, Gali No. 11,
Rampur Road, Haldwani, Uttrakhand.
6. Mr. Sudhir Tiwari,
Son of Mr. Shivali Tiwari,
Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014
FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar,
Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 1 of 12 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Resident of Gali No., Tihri Visthapit Colony,
Haridwar.
7. Ms. Ranjana @ Renu
Wife of Mr. Sudhir Tiwari
Resident of Gali No., Tihri Visthapit Colony,
Haridwar.
8. Ms. Vandana Rathore,
Son of Mr. Ram Babu Rathore,
Resident of House No. Sani Niwas Patel Nagar, Dehradun,
P/Add:- L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
First Information Report Number : 247/2012.
Police Station Nihal Vihar.
Under sections 498/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 07.03.2014
before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this : 03.07.2014.
Court of ASJ (SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 17.12.2014.
Date of judgment : 17.12.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
All the accused persons on bail.
Mr. R.K.Gaur, counsel for all the accused persons.
Prosecutrix in person with counsel Mr.R.K.Sharma.
Ms.Shubhra Mehndiratta and Ms.Poonam Sharma, counsel
for Delhi Commission for Women.
*************************************************************
JUDGMENT
"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 2 of 12 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there."............ Kurt Cobain *************************************************************
1. The charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons, Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.-
Sunil Kumar, Mr.Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore by Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi for the offence under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that complainant/prosecutrix (name mentioned in file but withheld to protect her identity) got married with accused Mr.- Pankaj Kumar Rathore on 25.02.2009 at Haridwar and after marriage, ac- cused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore being husband of the complainant along with co-accused Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore being relatives of the husband in furtherance of their common intention subjected complainant/prosecutrix to cruelty for demand of dowry i.e. demand of four wheeler worth Rs. 5 lacs. Accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, being hus- band of the complainant, accused Mr.Ram Babu being father in law of complainant and accused Ms.Madhuri being mother in law of complainant were entrusted the istridhan articles of complainant as mentioned in list Mark A and they all in furtherance of their common intention did not return the same to the complainant/prosecutrix despite the demand raised by her. On 19.03.2011 at about 4.00pm at the house of accused Mr.Ram Babu i.e L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony, Haridwar, Uttrakhand and again on 20.03.2011 at about 1.30 pm at the above said place, accused Mr.Ram Babu being father in law of the prosecutrix committed rape upon the prosecutrix.
Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 3 of 12 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against all the accused persons Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.-
Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.Sunil Kumar, Mr.Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore were filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 07.03.2014 and after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 03.07.2014.
3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC was framed against all the accused persons Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.Sunil Kumar, Mr.Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore and charge for offence under section 376 of the IPC was framed against Mr. Ram Babu vide order dated 10.10.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statements of the prosecutrix and her minor daughter have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 4 of 12 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she got married with accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore on 25.02.2009 in Haridwar, UP and since then she lived with him in the matrimonial home i.e L-127, Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar, U.P. Her parents in law namely accused Mr.Ram Babu and Ms.Madhuri were also living in the matrimonial home. Accused Pankaj Kumar Rathore has three sisters, accused Ms.Meenu, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore and they are her sisters in law (Nanad). Accused Ms.Meenu is married to accused Mr.Sunil Kumar and accused Ms.Ranjana @ Renu is married to accused Mr.Sudhir Tiwari and they are her brothers in law (Nandoi). She did not have any child from her wedlock with accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore. She stayed in her matrimonial home till 09.04.2012 and since then she is living in her parental home at Delhi. She has some disputes and temperamental differences with accused Pankaj Kumar Rathore, they have agreed to take a divorce by mutual consent. The first motion petition has already been allowed vide order dated 04.09.2014 of the Family Courts, West, Tis Hazari Courts and proved the certified copies of the order and the order sheet (Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively). The second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent shall be filed in March, 2015. It has been agreed that accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore shall give her a total amount of Rs. 5 lacs as alimony and maintenance (present, past and future) and out of the same he has already given her Rs. 4 lacs by two cheques, which have since been encashed by Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 5 of 12 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
her. The remaining amount of Rs. 1 lac is to be paid to her at the time of her statement in the second motion petition. Due to some misunderstanding, she had made a complaint (Ex.PW1/C) to Police Station Nihal Vihar against all the accused persons. It was got typed by some well wisher and she had only signed on the same without actually reading it. She was produced by the police before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who recorded her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C) (Ex.PW1/D). She had made the statement at the instance of some well wisher and due to some misunderstanding. She did not have any grievance any of the accused persons. She has prayed that all the accused persons may be acquitted. She did not want to say anything else.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her. She has been cross examined at length but nothing material for the prosecution has come forth.
8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecutrix admitted that the complaint (Ex.PW1/C) and her statement (Ex.PW1/D) were made by her at the instance of her well wishers. She has have already stated that due to some misunderstanding, the present case was lodged against the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that the complaint (Ex.PW1/C) was not made by her before the police at the instance of her well wishers, rather she had got the same typed by the typist on her dictation and after reading the contents of the same carefully she Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 6 of 12 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
signed on it. She denied the suggestion that she had made her statement (Ex.PW1/D) before learned Metropolitan Magistrate voluntarily and not at the instance of her well wishers. She admitted that accused Mr.Ram Babu was arrested by the police in her presence and she has proved his arrest memo and personal search memo (Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively). She denied the suggestion that after her marriage with accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, she was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry by all the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that accused Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, accused Mr.Ram Babu and Ms.Madhuri did not return her istridhan articles to her, despite the demand raised by her from them. She denied the suggestion that on 19.03.2011 at about 4.00 pm in H. No. L-127, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Colony, Haridwar, Uttrakhand and thereafter again on 20.03.2011 at about 1.30 pm in the same house, accused Mr.Ram Babu committed rape upon her. She denied the suggestion that she is not supporting the prosecution case and deposing falsely as she has settled the matter with all the accused persons.
9. In her cross examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has admitted that all the accused persons have not committed any offence. She has admitted that all the accused persons are innocent. She has admitted that she did not have any grievance against any of the accused persons. She voluntarily stated that she prayed that all the accused persons may be acquitted.
10. The prosecutrix, PW1 has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by all accused persons and Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 7 of 12 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
raped by accused Mr. Ram Babu. She has not even mentioned the word "rape" by accused Mr. Ram Babu in her examination in chief nor has deposed anything incriminating against all the accused persons. In fact, she prayed that all the accused persons may be acquitted claiming that they are innocent and she does not have any grievances against them.
11. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to all the accused persons, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
12. Statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of all the accused are dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against them when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
13. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 8 of 12 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
prosecutrix, PW1, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable and the evidence of the material witnesses cannot be treated as worthy of credence. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that all the accused persons are guilty of treating the prosecutrix with cruelty for demand of dowry. No inference can be drawn that accused Mr.Ram Babu is guilty of raping the prosecutrix. There is no material on record to suggest that there is any demand of dowry from the all the accused persons or that she was treated with cruelty. There is no material on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was raped by accused Mr. Ram Babu. No case is made out against all the accused persons as there is no incriminating evidence against them. In fact, the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused persons have not committed any offence against her.
17. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 9 of 12 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that accused have not committed any offence against her. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
18. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that all the accused Mr. Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr. Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms. Meenu, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sudhir Tiwari, Ms. Ranjana @ Renu and Ms. Vandana Rathore are guilty of the charged offences under section 498A/406/34 IPC and accused Mr. Ram Babu is guilty of the charged offence under section 376 IPC.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of cruelty for demand of dowry and rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix make it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. In fact, the prosecutrixhas deposed that all the accused persons have not committed any offence against her.
She has even prayed for their acquittal.
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against all the accused persons namely Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.Sunil Kumar, Mr.Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore due to complete lack of evidence for the offence under sections 498A/406/34 of Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 10 of 12 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
the IPC and against the accused Mr. Ram Babu for the offence under section 376 of the IPC.
21. Consequently, all the accused persons Mr.Pankaj Kumar Rathore, Mr.Ram Babu, Ms.Madhuri, Ms.Meenu, Mr.Sunil Kumar, Mr.Sudhir Tiwari, Ms.Ranjana @ Renu and Ms.Vandana Rathore are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and accused Mr.Ram Babu is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 376 of the IPC .
22. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
23. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
24. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence or where the prosecutrix is hostile, as in the present case, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
25. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 11 of 12 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
Prosecutor, as requested.
26. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 17th day of December, 2014. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************* Sessions Case Number : 71 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0114712014 FIR No.247/12, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Under sections 498A/406/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Pankaj Kumar Rathore & Ors. -:: Page 12 of 12 ::-