Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu on 8 May, 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 : 21/2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
State versus 1. Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu
Son of Mr.Hari Kishan
Resident of Village Ranhola, Delhi.
2. Mr. Satpal
Son of Mr. Net Ram
Resident of Village Ranhola, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 510/13
Police Station Ranhola
Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 22.01.2014.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this : 10.02.2014.
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 08.05.2014.
Date of judgment : 08.05.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal have been
produced from judicial custody.
Accused Mr.Manjeet @ Manveer @ Monu is absconding and
has not been arrested.
Mr. C.M Sanghwan, counsel for the accused Mr.Vipin Lakra
@ Sonu and Mr.Satpal.
Prosecutrix is present with her counsel Mr.B.L Madhukar.
Ms.Poonam Sharma, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Investigation Officers SI Lata Singh and SI Savita are also
present.
Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla,
Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 1 of 9 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal, the accused, have been charge sheeted by Police Station Ranhola, Delhi for the offence under sections 376D /328/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that both the accused persons along with co-accused Mr.Manpreet (not arrested) on 31.12.2013 at about 11.45 am at Plot Laxmi Park, Ranhola Extension, Phase-I, Delhi administered some stupefying or intoxicating material mixed in a cold drink to the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) with intent to commit the offence of rape on her and committed rape upon her.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.01.2014 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 10.02.2014.
3. After completion of the investigation, the supplementary charge sheet against accused Mr.Satpal was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.03.2014 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 27.03.2014.
4. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 328/34 IPC read with section 376 D of the IPC was framed against the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal vide orders dated 25.02.2014 and Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 2 of 9 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
17.04.2014 respectively to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
6. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix 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 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.
7. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she had developed friendship with accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu on facebook and after developing friendship with him, she had physical relations with him several times voluntarily and with her free consent. Accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu has never forced her in any manner to have physical relations with him. She did not have any grievance against accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and prayed that he may be acquitted. She did not want to say anything else.
8. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
9. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 3 of 9 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
State, the prosecutrix has admitted that she had made a complaint in Police Station Ranhola (Ex. PW1/A). She voluntarily stated that she had not written anything herself in her complaint. She had called the police at 100 number due to wrong advise of some well wishers and had been taken to the Police Station by some police officers and the complaint had been made by her on wrong advise of some well wishers and due to some misunderstanding. No one has intoxicated and raped her and she had physical relations with accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu voluntarily and with her free consent. She did not know any man in the name of Mr.Satpal and Mr.Manpreet @ Monu @ Manveer. She had not stated to the police anything which is written in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) and had not told the police that she was raped after intoxication by accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu, Mr.Satpal and Mr.Manpreet @ Monu @ Manveer. She has deposed that she did not read the contents of the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) before she put her signatures. She has admitted that she has given her statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Ex.PW1/B) and voluntarily stated that the statement was made to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate due to the wrong advise of some well wishers and due to some misunderstanding. She has denied that statement (Ex.PW1/B) and statement (Ex.PW1/A) were made by her before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and before police voluntarily and not due to some misunderstanding and at the instance of her well wishers. She has admitted that she was medically examined in SGM hospital and voluntarily stated that whatever she had stated to the doctor, it was instance of her well wishers and due to some misunderstanding. She has denied that she had not made any statement before the doctor due to some misunderstanding and whatever had happened with her, she had stated truth. She has further denied that on Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 4 of 9 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
31.12.2013 at about 11.45 a.m at plot Laxmi Park, Ranhola Extn. Phase I, accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and accused Mr.Satpal along with one Mr.Manpreet (not arrested) administered some intoxicating material mixed in a cold drink to her and thereafter committed rape upon her. She has further denied that she was not supporting the prosecution case and she was deposing falsely as she has been won over by both the accused persons.
10. She has also been cross examined on behalf of accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal and admitted that they have not committed any offence. Accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal along with one Mr.Manpreet @ Manveer have not intoxicated her nor raped her and accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal are innocent. She has further admitted that she had physical relations with accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu with her free consent. She has again prayed that the accused Mr.Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and accused Mr.Satpal may be acquitted.
11. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being intoxicated and raped at all. She has not even mentioned the word "rape" in her evidence nor has deposed anything incriminating against the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu, Mr.Satpal and one Mr.Manpreet @ Manveer (absconding).
12. 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 both the accused, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional Public Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 5 of 9 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
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.
13. Statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal 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.
14. 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.
15. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. 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."
Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 6 of 9 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
16. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
17. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal alongwith one Mr.Manpreet @ Manveer @ Monu are guilty of intoxicating and raping the prosecutrix. There is no material on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was ever intoxicated and raped by both the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal. No case is made out against the accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal as there is no incriminating evidence against them.
18. 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 cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
19. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and accused Mr.Satpal are guilty of the charged offence under sections 328/34 IPC read with section 376 DIPC. There is no material on record to show that both the accused persons Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal along with co-accused Mr.Manpreet (not arrested) on 31.12.2013 at about 11.45 am at Plot Laxmi Park, Ranhola Extension, Phase-I, Delhi admin- istered some stupefying or intoxicating material mixed in a cold drink to the Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 7 of 9 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
prosecutrix with intent to commit the offence of rape on her and committed rape upon her.
20. In fact, it is revealed from the evidence of the prosecutrix that she had physical relations with accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu with her free consent.
21. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.
22. 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 the accused persons Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and Mr.Satpal for the offence under sections 328/34 IPC read with section 376D IPC.
23. Consequently, accused Mr. Vipin Lakra @ Sonu and accused Mr. Satpal are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under sections 328/34 IPC read with section 376 D IPC.
24. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
25. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
26. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 8 of 9 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
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, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, 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 Prosecutor, as requested.
27. 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 08th day of May, 2014. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr. -:: Page 9 of 9 ::-