Delhi District Court
Ps - Sultanpuri vs State on 3 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 53/1
Unique case Identification No. 02404R0028222008
State
Versus
1) Surender Singh
Son of Satpal Singh
R/o- D-62, Inder Enclave,
Part-II, Delhi. ( Since Juvenile)
2) Raj Kumar @ Raju
Son of Inder Singh
R/oD1/218, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
3) Brijesh Kumar
Son of Rohtash
R/o C-1/137, Aman Vihar, Delhi.
4) Ram Chander
Son of Girdhari
R/o Village & PO-Nithari, Delhi.
5) Joginder
Son of Sardar Singh
R/o Village & PO-Nithari, Delhi.
6) Baljeet Singh
Son of Raghbir Singh
R/o B-120, Aman Vihar,
Delhi.
FIR No. 593/2000
PS - Sultanpuri
U/s. 363/376(2)(g)/506/120B/34 of IPC
AND
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 1/55
SC No. 66/1
Unique case ID NO. 02404R00283222008
State
Versus
1) Raj Kumar @ Raju
Son of Inder Singh
R/o D-1/218, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2) Brijesh Kumar
Son of Rohtash Singh
R/o C-1/137, Aman Vihar, Delhi.
3) Joginder
Son of Sardar Singh
R/o Village-Nithari, Delhi.
4) Ram Chander
Son of Girdhari
R/o Village-Nithari, Delhi.
5) Baljeet Singh
Son of Raghbir Singh
R/o B-120, Aman Vihar,
Delhi.
6) Urmila (since expired)
W/o Satpal
R/o D-62,Inder Enclave,
Delhi. .................. ( Since expired)
7) Surender Singh
Son of Satpal
R/0 D-62, Inder Enclave,
Delhi. .................. ( Since Juvenile)
8) Miss Pinki @ Pintoo
Son of Satpal
R/0 D-62, Inder Enclave,
Delhi. .................. ( Since Juvenile)
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 2/55
FIR No. 300/2001
PS - Sultanpuri
U/s. 306/34 of IPC
Date of institution of case FIR No. 593/00: 30/09/2000
Date of institution of case FIR No. 300/01: 29/03/2004
Arguments heard on: 20/07/2010
Date of reservation of order: 20/07/2010
Date of Decision: 29/07/2010
JUDGMENT
According to the case of prosecution, on 03/07/2000, on receipt of DD No. 84B, SI Binay Singh alongwith Constable Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. E- 172, Inder Enclave, Part-II, and recorded statement of the prosecutrix, who has stated that she resides at the above address with her family and is a student of 9th class in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Village- Nithari. She developed friendship with one Surender, son of Satpal, in the last 2/3 months and they used to meet with each other. On 03/07/2000 at about 11.30 a.m., Surender met her in the way. He was on his bicycle and asked her to sit on the bicycle. She sat on the bicycle. He took her to Karala Balaji Temple and did not do anything in the way. Thereafter, he forcibly took her in a vacant house in Sector-22 and committed rape with her against her consent forcibly. She weeped a lot. So, three persons came there on hearing her weeping. One of them was aged about 25 years, black colour, long face. Second was aged about 30 years, black colour, round face and third was aged about 45 years, who was grazing his cattle at a distance. They asked her as to why she was weeping. She told them that Surender had committed rape with her forcibly against her consent. On this, all those three persons also committed rape with her against her consent forcibly.
She has further stated that she can point out the place, where she was raped. Surender and the above three boys committed rape with her against her SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 3/55 consent. They released her at about 3.00 p.m. and also threatened her that, if she will inform to the police, then they will kill her. She reached at her house, while weeping and the person, who was grazing his cattle, aged about 45 years, also came behind her. When her father asked him as to why his daughter was weeping, he told that police is coming. She has further requested that necessary legal action be taken against four persons, who had committed rape with her and she can identify those persons, if shown.
On this, a ruqqa was prepared by SI Binay Singh and he got registered a case U/s. 363/376/506/34 of IPC.
Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent with W/HC Pushpa for her medical examination at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and IO himself reached at the hospital with the father of the prosecutrix. There, he obtained MLC of the prosecutrix. On the pointing out of the prosecutrix, spot was inspected by the IO. He prepared site plan. Exhibits were seized and on 04/07/2000, on the pointing out of the prosecutrix, accused Surender, Joginder, Brijesh and Raj Kumar were arrested from Sector-22. On the statement of the prosecutrix, Section 120B of IPC was also added. Accused Ram Chander and Baljeet were also arrested on the pointing out of the prosecutrix.
All the accused persons were sent for medical examination at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and exhibits were seized. Case property was deposited with the MHC(M). Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded. Accused persons had pointed out the place of occurrence. Bicycle, used in the incident, was also taken into possession and was deposited with MHC(M). Statement of witnesses were recorded.
Further investigation was conducted by SI Devender Singh, who got conducted bone age X-ray of the prosecutrix and got sent the exhibits to FSL, Malviya Nagar. Before filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecutrix died. Proceedings U/s. 174 of Cr.PC were conducted by SI C.M. Meena vide DD No. 22A dated 13/08/2000. He also got conducted postmortem on the dead body vide DD No. 54B SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 4/55 dated 14/08/2000. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed U/s. 363/376(2) (g)/506/120B/34 of IPC against accused Surender, Joginder , Brijesh, Ram Chander, Raj Kumar and Baljeet. Later on, FSL result was also placed on record.
Charge-sheet of this case was filed on 30/09/2000 before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused Surender was found to be juvenile. So, IO was directed to file a separate Charge-sheet against accused Surender before Juvenile Justice Board.
Case was committed to Court of Session on 12/01/2001 and was received on 23/01/2001.
On 28/05/2001, charge U/s. 376 (g) of IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar, Brijesh Kumar and Joginder Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge U/s. 109 read with Section 376 of IPC was also framed against accused Baljeet and Ram Chander to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Case FIR No. 300/01 was registered separately on 12/08/2000. DD No. 76B was received regarding burning of a girl at D-172, Inder Enclave, Phase-II, in front of Fakir dealer by SI C.M. Meena, who alongwith Constable Sanjay Kumar reached at the spot and came to know that prosecutrix had already been removed to LNJP hospital. They both reached at the hospital and came to know that prosecutrix had died. Both the police officials came back to the spot and recorded statement of one Roop Kishore, father of the prosecutrix.
On 13/08/2000, Roop Kishore has made statement, wherein he has stated that he resides at the above said address and works as a goldsmith. Yesterday on 12/08/2000, they had taken their dinner, but his daughter-prosecutrix did not eat anything as she was not well. After taking dinner, they all went to the roof to sleep. At about 10 p.m. night, his daughter asked to go down to sleep there as she was feeling cold and she went downstairs to sleep. They remained on the roof and slept there.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 5/55Roop Kishore has further stated that on 03/07/2000, his daughter was gang raped and since that day, she became lazy. Due to the said incident, his daughter had not attended the school for one week and thereafter she had attended her school. After about 20 days of the incident, Principal of Rajkiya Sarvodaya Senior Secondary School, Nithari, called him. He reached at the school. Principal told him that a student, who does not come for 15 days, name of that student, they used to struck off. Class teacher told that prosecutrix had given application for 15 days leave and she was coming continuously for one week. Then, Principal told that she will not entertain the application and they are not marking the attendance of the prosecutrix for the last one week. The Principal further told that due the said incident, their school has got bad name, so, he should obtain T.C. of the prosecutrix and got her admitted somewhere else. He refused for the T.C. Thereafter, prosecutrix became more sad and did not attend the school. She also used to remain tense.
Roop Kishore has further stated that today at about 12.45 a.m., they heard the cries of prosecutrix. He got up and saw smoke coming from downstairs. They went downstairs and saw the prosecutrix burning. They extinguished the fire and informed the police on 100 number. After sometime, PCR van came there and they took prosecutrix in PCR van. On the way, CAT ambulance also reached and prosecutrix was shifted in CATs ambulance and was removed to JPN hospital. She died there. While she was being removed in CAT ambulance, he asked from his daughter i.e. prosecutrix as to how it happened. Then, she told that she committed suicide due to shame as she was raped in the last month and her name was also struck from the school. He has not suspected anyone about the death of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix.
After recording the statement of Roop Kishore, SI C.M. Meena got conducted postmortem on the dead body of prosecutrix on 14/08/2000 from LNJP hospital. Dead body was handed over to its legal heirs. One brass lamp and ashes of burnt clothes were taken into possession from the spot. One suicide note was taken SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 6/55 into possession, which was produced by Roop Kishore. Proceedings U/s. 174 of Cr.PC were conducted. On 01/12/2000, detailed statement of Roop Kishore was recorded, wherein he has stated that he resides at above address and works as a goldsmith. He has six children and his third child was prosecutrix. On 03/07/2000, prosecutrix was gang raped by accused Surender, Brijesh, Joginder, Ram Chander and Baljeet. She was aged about 15 years. Due to shame, she could not attend her school and when she had gone to her school, her attendance was not marked, but prosecutrix did not tell him. He was called by Principal and class teacher and they told him that for a continuous absence of 15 days, they used to struck off the name of the children from the school and as prosecutrix had not come to the school for more than 15 days, so her name was struck off from the school. He did not move an application to Principal and class teacher for readmission of his daughter. He tried to get admit his daughter in Nangloi Sarvodaya School, be she could not be admitted.
Roop Kishore has further stated that whenever either prosecutrix or any member of their family used to pass in front of the house of accused Surender, then mother of accused Surender, namely, Urmila (since expired) and sister Pinch used to taunt them by saying that they were not in favour of seeing the face of suchlike girl and she should die by putting herself on fire. They were having passage to go anywhere from the front of the house of accused Surender only.
Roop Kishore has further stated that one day, due to some work, he was going from there with his daughter i.e. prosecutrix, then Urmila (since expired), mother of accused Surender and his sister Pintu taunted that one girl in their family was raped, so, they killed that girl themselves and the prosecutrix should die by setting herself on fire.
Roop Kishore has further stated that his daughter put herself on fire and committed suicide on 13/08/2000 due to the taunting of mother and sister of accused Surender. They also got one suicide note in which cause of death was written as taunts and harassment caused by mother and sister of accused Surender and he is SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 7/55 sure that his daughter had committed suicide by setting herself on fire due to the taunts and harassment caused by mother and sister of accused Surender. So, necessary action be taken against them.
On this statement of Roop Kishore, SI C.M. Meena prepared a ruqqa and got registered a case U/s. 306/34 of IPC.
On 20/03/2001, case was registered U/s. 306/34 of IPC and investigation was handed over to SI C.M. Meena. Suicide note and admitted handwriting were sent for expert opinion to FSL, Malviya Nagar and opinion was obtained. Postmortem report was also obtained.
On 21/03/2001, accused Urmila (since expired) was arrested. On 03/07/2003, accused Pinki (since juvenile) was formally arrested by SI Bega Ram. During investigation, Principal Smt. Bimla Yadav was also interrogated. An application was also filed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate to arrest accused persons in this case, which was dismissed because at the time, when prosecutrix committed suicide, accused Surender, Baljeet, Brijesh, Joginder and Ram Chander were in jail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Urmila (since expired) and a separate charge-sheet was sent against accused Pinki (since juvenile) being minor to the Juvenile Court. Accused Bimla Yadav was shown in column No. 2.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance against accused Bimla Yadav and she was summoned vide order dated 12/09/2003. Thereafter, this charge- sheet was committed to the Court of Session on 26/02/2007 against accused Urmila (since expired) and Bimla Yadav. Case was received by the court of Session on 09/03/2004.
Vide order dated 12/04/2004, accused Bimla Yadav was discharged. Charge U/s. 306 of IPC was framed against accused Urmila (since expired) on 17/04/2004 and PW1 to PW9 were examined. Later on, it was revealed on 26/07/2005 that accused Urmila also died. Thereafter, case was transferred from time to time and ultimately this case file was attached with FIR No. 593/00 as per SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 8/55 order dated 16/09/2006 because in between supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against accused Raj Kumar, Brijesh, Joginder, Ram Chander and Baljeet on 29/07/2004. Case was committed to Court of Session on 17/11/2004 and was received on 25/11/2004.
Charge U/s. 306 of IPC was framed against accused Brijesh, Joginder, Ram Chander, Raj Kumar and Baljeet to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW22 in all in case FIR No. 593/2000.
Statements of accused persons were recorded. All the accused persons have denied the case of prosecution.
Accused Baljeet has stated that "he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police of PS Sultanpuri in connivance with the family members of the prosecutrix. He has no link or concern with the alleged incident. As a matter of fact, he has no relation with the other co-accused of any kind and during the course of the trial of this matter, and while in custody before filing of charge-sheet, it was learnt by him that the prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender. He had never any occasion to visit the alleged site of incident nor he has seen the prosecutrix and even he was not aware about her residence and her education or about her family. The alleged allegation against him is totally concocted and baseless as he has never visited at the alleged site and was taken by the police from his house and later on implicated in this case."
Accused Raj Kumar has stated that "as a matter of fact, he has no relation with the other co-accused of any kind and during the course of the trial of this matter, and while in custody before filing of charge-sheet, it was learnt by him that the prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender. He has never any occasion to meet the prosecutrix and even he was not aware about her residence and her education or about her family. He has not committed rape upon the prosecutrix."
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 9/55Accused Joginder has stated that "he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police of PS Sultanpuri in connivance with the father of the prosecutrix. As a matter of fact, he has no concern with the alleged incident and is in no way have any relation of any kind with the said incident. As a matter of fact, he has no relation with the other co-accused of any kind and during the course of the trial of this matter, and while in custody before filing of charge-sheet, it was learnt by him that the prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender. He has never any occasion to meet the prosecutrix and even he was not aware about her residence and her education or about her family. He has not committed rape upon the prosecutrix."
Accused Ram Chander has stated that "he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police of PS Sultanpuri in connivance with the family members of the prosecutrix. He has no link or concern with the alleged incident. As a matter of fact, he has no relation with the other co-accused of any kind and during the course of the trial of this matter, and while in custody before filing of charge-sheet, it was learnt by him that the prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender. He had never any occasion to visit the alleged site of incident nor he has seen the prosecutrix and even he was not aware about her residence and her education or about her family. The alleged allegation against him is totally concocted and baseless as he has never visited at the alleged site and was taken by the police from his house and later on implicated in this case."
Accused Brijesh has stated that "he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police of PS Sultanpuri in connivance with the father of the prosecutrix. As a matter of fact, he has no concern with the alleged incident and is in no way have any relation of any kind with the said incident. As a matter of fact, he has no relation with the other co-accused of any kind and during the course of the trial of this matter, and while in custody before filing of charge-sheet, it was learnt by him that the prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender. He had never any occasion to meet the prosecutrix and even he was not aware about her residence SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 10/55 and her education or about her family. He has not committed rape upon the prosecutrix."
In defence, accused Baljeet has examined DW1 Azad Singh. Accused Raj Kumar as examined DW2 Jagpal. Accused Brijesh has examined DW3 Naresh Kumar.
In case FIR No. 300/01, PS Sultanpuri, to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW23 in all.
Statements of accused persons were recorded. All the accused persons have denied the case of prosecution.
Accused Raj Kumar has stated that "this case has been falsely registered against him and he has nothing to do with the offence of this case. He was in judicial custody in another case bearing FIR No. 593/2000 and the incident of the present case when happened, he was in judicial custody and being in judicial custody in the said case, he has no role to play in respect of the case in hand. Even at no point of time, he had ever any occasion to meet the prosecutrix or their family members before she had committed suicide."
Accused Brijesh has stated that "this case has been falsely registered against him and he has nothing to do with the offence of this case. He was in judicial custody in another case bearing FIR No. 593/2000 and the incident of the present case when happened, he was in judicial custody and being in judicial custody in the said case, he has no role to play in respect of the case in hand. Even at no point of time, he had ever any occasion to meet the prosecutrix or their family members before she had committed suicide."
Accused Joginder has stated that "this case has been falsely registered against him and he has nothing to do with the offence of this case. He was in judicial custody in another case bearing FIR No. 593/2000 and the incident of the present case when happened, he was in judicial custody and being in judicial custody in the said case, he has no role to play in respect of the case in hand. Even at no point of time, he had ever any occasion to meet the prosecutrix or their family SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 11/55 members before she had committed suicide. Earlier his application for seeking his arrest in this case was dismissed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, Ld. MM, Delhi."
Accused Ram Chander has stated that "this case has been falsely registered against him and he has nothing to do with the offence of this case. He was in judicial custody in another case bearing FIR No. 593/2000 and the incident of the present case when happened, he was in judicial custody and being in judicial custody in the said case, he has no role to play in respect of the case in hand. Even at no point of time, he had ever any occasion to meet the prosecutrix or their family members before she had committed suicide. Earlier his application for seeking his arrest in this case was dismissed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, Ld. MM, Delhi."
Accused Baljeet has stated "this case has been falsely registered against him and he has nothing to do with the offence of this case. He was in judicial custody in another case bearing FIR No. 593/2000 and the incident of the present case when happened, he was in judicial custody and being in judicial custody in the said case, he has no role to play in respect of the case in hand. Even at no point of time, he had ever any occasion to meet the prosecutrix or their family members before she had committed suicide. Earlier his application for seeking his arrest in this case was dismissed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, Ld. MM, Delhi."
All the accused persons have not examined any defence witness separately in this case.
Thereafter on the application of prosecution U/s. 311 CrPC in case FIR No.593/00, PS Sultanpuri, PW23 Dr. Dhruv Sharma, PW24 HC Partap Singh and PW25 ASI Sanjay Kumar were examined and additional statements of accused persons were recorded. Again accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and explained that "they were in the custody before filing of charge- sheet of FIR No. 300/01. Prosecutrix was in friendship with accused Surender and they do not know anything about the prosecutrix." In addition to that, accused Ram Chander has stated that "he was lifted from his shop by the police and was SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 12/55 implicated in this case." Similarly, Accused Baljeet has also stated in his statement that "he was taken by the police from his shop and was implicated in this case."
I have heard Ld. Addl. PP and learned defence counsels for the accused persons and have gone through the evidence brought on record with material placed on record.
In FIR No. 300/01, PS Sultanpuri, father of prosecutrix i.e. Roop Kishore has been examined as PW5. Beside the facts of FIR No. 593/00, he has stated that after the incident, his daughter-prosecutrix did not go to the school for the next 4/5 days or a week, but after one week, she started going to the school. After about 15 days, his daughter-prosecutrix told him that Principal wanted to meet him. Thereafter, he went to the school and met her Principal. Principal told him that his daughter's-prosecutrix character was in question and she did not attend the school continuously for 15 days, therefore, her name was struck off. He raised objection that he had already sent an application for her leave, but the Principal did not agree and asked him to admit his daughter-prosecutrix in some other school. The Principal also stated that his daughter-prosecutrix had brought a bed name for the school and she was ready to give transfer certificate, but he did not take T.C. of his daughter-prosecutrix and his daughter-prosecutrix continued studies in the same school. The Principal used to defame his daughter-prosecutrix by using libelous comments upon her in presence of other school mates, as told to him by his daughter-prosecutrix. This fact was also stated by other classmates of his daughter- prosecutrix. He went to another school at Nangloi for the purpose of admission, but they also denied. After that, there was a festival of Raksha Bandhan and on this occasion, there were holidays for 3-4 days. So, he postponed this issued to assert with the Principal till holidays.
PW5 has further stated that they all used to sleep on the roof top of their house. His daughter i.e. prosecutrix used to remain depressed and always in a silent mood because of the above incident. House of accused Surender (since juvenile) was situated in the midway, if they proceed anywhere towards Nangloi. Family SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 13/55 members of accused Surender (since juvenile) used to taunt his daughter-prosecutrix that once it happened to their sister, then they had taken their sister and killed her there. They also indirectly commented that his daughter i.e. prosecutrix was still roaming in the streets despite she was raped.
PW5 has further stated that once they all family members including his daughter i.e. prosecutrix were sleeping on the roof. On that day, his daughter- prosecutrix did not take any food. At night, she told them that she was not feeling well and wanted to go downstairs. Then she went downstairs in a room. They all kept on sleeping on the roof. They heard the noise from the outside that fire had broken out in their house. Then they went downstairs and saw his daughter- prosecutrix clothes were burning and she was also in a rage of flame. They extinguished the flames and made a call to the police.
PW5 has further stated that police came at the spot and took his daughter-prosecutrix to Irwin Hospital. On the way, hospital van arrived and they shifted prosecutrix to that van. She was taken to Irwin Hospital. She was given medical aid, but she could not survive any more and expired on the same day. His daughter i.e. prosecutrix on the way stated to the police that she committed suicide because of the embarrassment and shame.
PW5 has further stated that police recorded his statement Ex. PW5/A in the PS. Thereafter, police came to his house and took one brass lamp, one can of kerosene oil and burnt pieces of clothes in its possession, after preparing the pullanda vide memo Ex. PW5/B. PW5 has further stated that after 2/3 days, they found a suicide note from the temple of their house and they handed over the same to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/C. PW5 has identified the suicide note as Ex. P1 before the court and has further stated that it is in the handwriting of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix as he is acquainted with the handwriting of his daughter- prosecutrix as he had seen her writing and signing in the usual course. His daughter i.e. prosecutrix committed suicide because of humiliation due to rape and also due SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 14/55 to deletion of her name from her school. PW5 has identified the accused persons before the court, who are accused Raj Kumar, Joginder, Brijesh and Baljeet. He has also identified brass lamp as Ex. P2 and burnt pieces of clothes as Ex. P3.
PW5 has further stated that dead body of prosecutrix was handed over to him after postmortem vide receipt Ex. PW5/D and before postmortem, he identified the dead body of his daughter-prosecutrix vide memo Ex. PW5/E. PW5 has also identified four sheets containing the handwriting and signatures of his daughter-prosecutrix and the same is Ex. PW3/1 and has also identified memos Ex. PW20/B, Ex. PW20/C and Ex. PW20/D bearing signatures of his daughter-prosecutrix placed in case file of case FIR No. 593/2000, PS Sultanpuri. PW5 has further stated that his daughter-prosecutrix was wearing skirt and shirt, when she was kidnapped. He has also identified wearing clothes of his daughter-prosecutrix, which were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW20/D Ex. PX-1.
PW5 has not been cross examined at length. In the cross examination, he has admitted that accused Baljeet is not connected in any manner with the offence of rape or with respect to the suicide committed by his daughter-prosecutrix. He has also admitted that accused persons were in jail, when his daughter committed suicide. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of arrest of accused Baljeet. PW5 has further admitted in the cross examination that his daughter-prosecutrix had only named accused Surender (since juvenile), who had done wrong with his daughter-prosecutrix and no other name of any person was disclosed by his daughter-prosecutrix to him. He has further admitted that his daughter-prosecutrix was not able to speak on the way to the hospital and in the hospital after she had got burnt.
PW5 has denied the suggestion that he did not hand over any suicide note to police officials.
A Court question was put in the cross examination to PW5 that in his examination in chief, he has stated that his daughter-prosecutrix told to the police on SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 15/55 the way that she committed suicide because of embarrassment and shame, but in the cross examination, he has stated that she was not able to speak. To this Court question, PW5 has replied that since long time has been passed, he may not be able to remember this fact well.
PW1 Chhotey Lal has not supported the case of prosecution despite being cross examined by learned Addl. PP.
PW4 Munna Lal has simply stated that about 4/5 years ago, during the morning hours, he heard that prosecutrix caught fire. He reached there and found prosecutrix in an injured condition. He has also not supported the case of prosecution. In the cross examination, he has stated that he came to know that prosecutrix had committed suicide due to school Principal. PW4 has also admitted that Principal of school had struck off the name of the prosecutrix from school. He has denied his knowledge about any rape committed upon the prosecutrix. So, except the fact that he came to know that prosecutrix caught fire and was in injured condition and her name was struck off from the school, nothing else has been stated by this witness. So, he is not much helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.
Similarly, PW6 Mahesh Chand has stated that prosecutrix was his niece. He came to know that she had set herself on fire. He has denied any knowledge of incident of rape committed upon the prosecutrix. In the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, he has admitted that prosecutrix set herself on fire in the night intervening 12/13.08.2000 and she was raped on 03/07/2000. He has also admitted that he had told to the police that her name was struck off from school by the Principal, but she used to go to school. He is also not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.
PW9 is Smt. Angoori Devi, mother of the prosecutrix. She has deposed about the facts as told to her by prosecutrix about gang rape by six persons and has further told that name of one of those six persons was told as Surender. PW9 has also denied the knowledge as to what had been stated by the family members of accused Surender (since juvenile) to her daughter-prosecutrix and thereafter she set SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 16/55 herself on fire. Again, PW9 has told that accused Surender (since juvenile), his mother and his sister used to taunt her daughter-prosecutrix, when she used to pass in front of their house by making comments about the incident of rape. For the suicide of his daughter-prosecutrix, accused Surender (since juvenile), his mother and his sister were responsible.
PW9 has also been cross examined by learned Addl. PP and in the cross examination, she has admitted that her daughter-prosecutrix had told her that on 03/07/2000, accused Surender (since juvenile), Brijesh, Raj Kumar, Joginder, Ram Chander and Baljeet had committed rape upon her forcibly. She has also identified the signatures of her daughter-prosecutrix on Ex.PW20/B. She has denied the suggestion that her daughter-prosecutrix did not name all the six accused persons except accused Surender (since juvenile).
PW10 is Sarabjeet Kaur. She has also not supported the case of prosecution and even in the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, she has not supported the case of prosecution. She has stated that she was working in the school on contract basis. Neither police met her nor her statement was recorded.
Information of the incident was given by PW5 Roop Kishore to Control Room. PW15 Lady HC Indu Bala was on duty on 12/08/2000 from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. At about 11.30 a.m., she received information from Roop Kishore that one girl had set herself on fire at D-172, Inder Enclave, Phase-II in front of Fakir dealer. She filled up PCR form and sent it to net for flashing the news. She has not produced the original PCR form as it was destroyed by the order of Assistant Commissioner of Police dated 17/01/2005, copy of which is Ex. PW15/A. IO of this case is PW24 Inspector C.M. Meena. He has also been examined in case FIR No. 593/2000, PS Sultanpuri, as PW19. He has stated that on 12/08/2000, he was posted as SI at PS Sultanpuri. On that day, at about 11.30 p.m., he received DD No. 76B Ex. PW24/A and came to know about the incident. It was handed over to him by Constable Sanjay Kumar. He alongwith PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh reached at the spot and came to know that injured was already removed SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 17/55 by CATs van to the hospital.
PW24 has further stated that while they were returning back, DD No.4A dated 13/08/2000 Ex. PW24/B was handed over to him by Constable Sanjay and he came to know that the prosecutrix was admitted in JPN hospital and she was declared dead by the doctor. So, he along with PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh reached at the hospital and collected death summary and MLC of deceased. Death Summary is Mark PW24/C. Father of the prosecutrix i.e. Roop Kishore was present there. He made inquiries from him and recorded his statement Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Roop Kishore came back at the spot, whereas PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh remained in the mortuary to safeguard the dead body. He met with Angoori Devi, mother of the deceased. He also made inquiries from her and recorded her statement.
PW24 has further stated that thereafter, he alongwith Roop Kishore and one Ghanshyam went to hospital for postmortem of the dead body. It was shown to them. He recorded identification statement of Roop Kishore Ex.PW5/E/Ex. PW2/F. He also recorded statement of Ghanshyam Ex. PW24/D. PW24 has further stated that postmortem of the dead body could not be conducted on that day. So, on the next day i.e. 14/08/2000, he again visited mortuary, JPN Hospital, where PW5 Roop Kishore and Ghanshyam were already present. After postmortem, dead body was handed over to its claimants vide memo Ex. PW5/D. After the postmortem, doctor concerned handed over the postmortem report. Thereafter, he again came back to the spot alongwith PW2 Constable Jagjit. He again tried to make inquiries from the public persons, but nothing came to his notice.
PW2 Constable Jagjit has also deposed the same facts and has stated that dead body was removed to mortuary of SGM hospital. He remained in the hospital till postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body. Firstly, PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh examined on 05/04/2005. He was cross examined by learned defence counsel, but later on, he was again examined as PW3 on 16/10/2006, but at SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 18/55 that time, he was not cross examined by any of the accused persons.
PW24 Inspector C.M. Meena has further stated that he came back with PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh at the spot and they entered in the room, where the incident took place. Some burnt clothes and ash were lying there alongwith one brass lamp. He prepared two separate pullandas and sealed the same with the seal of "CMM". He seized the same vide memo Ex. PW5/B. Thereafter, he alongwith PW2 Constable Jagjit Singh came back to the PS and case property was deposited with MHC(M). He also prepared rough sketch of the spot, which is Ex. PW24/E. PW24 has further stated that during the inquiry, he came to know that on 03/07/2000, prosecutrix was gang raped and due to that, her name was struk off from the school. He has further stated on 17/08/2000, both Roop Kishore and Angoori Devi came to PS and handed over to him one suicide note, allegedly written by the deceased. On 20/03/2001, he prepared ruqqa Ex. PW24/F on the statement of Roop Kishore Ex. PW2/B. PW17 HC Gyan Chand has corroborated further and has stated that on 20/03/200, he was posted as DO at PS Sultanpuri from 12 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. On that day, PW24 SI C.M. Meena handed over a ruqqa to him at about 12.35 a.m. for registration of the case. He recorded FIR No. 300/2001, U/s. 306/34 of IPC, copy of which is Ex. PW17/A. This witness has not been cross examined by learned defence counsels in any manner.
PW24 Inspector C.M. Meena has further stated that on 21/03/2000, he arrested accused Urmila (since expired) and conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW20/G. On 04/04/2001, he went on leave and came back on 22/05/2001. He handed over the case file to MHC(R) on 03/04/2001 and on 23/05/2001, investigation of this case was again marked to him.
PW24 has further stated that before postmortem, he prepared inquest papers Ex. PW24/H and Ex. PW24/I. He has also identified the suicide note as Ex. P1. He has further stated that original was handed over to SI Devender Singh of SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 19/55 case FIR No. 593/2000, PS Sultanpuri, on 28/09/2000 and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW19/A. PW24 has also identified brass lamp as Ex. P2 and some burnt clothes with ash as Ex. P3.
PW24 has admitted in the cross examination that accused persons were in judicial custody in case FIR No. 593/2000 on the day of the incident.
PW24 has been cross examined regarding the suicide note. He has admitted that prior to 17/08/2000, he was not aware of the suicide note of the deceased. He has also admitted that from the date of the incident till 17/08/2000, he met parents of thes deceased many times. He has denied that he did not check the place from where the parents of deceased allegedly recovered the suicide note. He has denied the suggestion that suicide note Ex.P1 is a fabricated document. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. Even he has deposed the same facts, while examined as PW19 in case FIR No. 593/2000. Therein, he has stated that suicide note was produced by father of the prosecutrix on 16/08/2000 and it was seized vide memo Ex. PW19/A. In the cross examination, again he has stated that prior to that, on his visit to the house of the prosecutrix, he had searched for suicide note, if any, but could not locate it. So, PW24 has given a consistent testimony about the handing over of the suicide note to him by Roop Kishore, father of the prosecutrix on 16/08/2000.
So, from the depositions of PW5 Roop Kishore and PW24 Inspector C.M. Meena, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that suicide note was produced by PW5 Roop Kishore, when they found the same after 2/3 days of the incident from a temple in their house and handed over it to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/C. Only suggestions have been given to PW5 in this respect. PW5 has denied that he did not hand over the suicide note to police. He has also denied that suicide note was not found by him and his wife from the house. PW5 has not been cross examined or even suggested that suicide note is forged and fabricated and is planted upon the accused persons.
PW16 SI Devender Singh, examined in case FIR No. 593/2000, PS SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 20/55 Sultanpuri, has stated that on 10/07/200, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri and investigation of this case FIR was handed over to him. He obtained bone age x-ray report of the prosecutrix from SGM hospital. He got sent the exhibits to FSL and obtained the result later on. He also got sent the documents having admitted signatures of the prosecutrix to FSL for expert opinion. These are Mark 1 to 3- Ex. PW10/7 to Ex. PW10/13 along with the suicide note. Ex. PW3/1 and some other documents were obtained from Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya, Nithari, which are Mark A2 to A7 and these were also sent to FSL. Report of FSL is Ex. PW16/1.
To further corroborate, PW12 Bimla Yadav, Principal, Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nangloi, has been examined in case FIR No. 593/2000, PS Sultanpuri. She has stated that she had seen answer sheet bearing Roll No. 8504 dated 06/03/2000. According to the school record, said answer sheet is of prosecutrix, student of 8th class. It is of subject "Grah Vigyan", consisting of six pages. This answer sheet has been verified from school record and during investigation, she had given the same to the police. Answer sheet Ex. PW3./1 bears her signature. She had signed the same in her official capacity as Principal of the School, where prosecutrix was studying. She has also identified signatures of Vijay Pal Singh, Examination In-charge, whom she had seen writing and signing in her official capacity. PW12 has not been cross examined much in any manner. She has not produced the original record, as stated by her in the cross examination and she is a witness to the record only, according to which, she produced the answer sheet of "Grah Vigyan" subject consisting of six pages, to the police during investigation, of the prosecutrix, while she was studying in the school.
Similarly, PW16 SI Devender Singh has also not been cross examined much. He has not been cross examined at all that he did not obtain these documents from the Principal of Government Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nithari, Mark A1 to A7. So, both PW12 and PW16 have corroborated each other in this respect.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 21/55The suicide note and the other documents were examined by PW8 Ms. Deepa Verma. She has stated that she examined the documents in case FIR No. 593/00, PS Sultanpuri. Questioned documents were marked as Q1 on statement dated 31/07/2000, Q2 on Fard Makboojgi Vaginal swab, Q3 on Fard Makboojgi Kapde, Q4 on Fard Nishan Dehi Jai Mauka Vardat, Q5 to Q10 on Fard Inshaf of six persons, Q11 and 12 on both sides of printer wrapper of Shri Blouse Piece and standard writings were marked as A1 to A8 of the prosecutrix, which are encircled red. After comparison and applying various scientific instruments, she came to the conclusion that the person who wrote the red encircled writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A8 also wrote the red writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q12. The report are already exhibited as Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW16/1.
PW8 has also exhibited the documents,which were examined by her. She has further stated that she has also seen suicide note i.e. questioned documents 11 and 12 from case FIR No. 300/01 and alleged admitted writings A1 to A8 already exhibited as Ex.PW3/1-4 in case FIR No. 593/00.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW8 has admitted that questioned signatures were not compared with the standard signatures, however, alphabets of questioned signatures such as Hindi letter "Da", "pa", vowel sign of "eekar" as well as general writing habits were examined from the available admitted writings. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that PW8 Ms. Deepa Verma had examined all the characteristics of handwriting of prosecutrix/deceased of the questioned documents with the admitted documents. So, she cannot be relied upon and prosecution has not been able to prove that the suicide note was written by deceased/prosecutrix.
The postmortem of deceased/prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. R.K. Bansal. PW11 Dr. Sunil has been examined in place of Dr. R.K. Bansal. He has stated that he has seen postmortem report of the deceased dated 14/08/2000. The body was sent by SI C.M. Meena of PS Sultanpuri. On internal examination of SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 22/55 pelvic cavity, there was hymenal tear present at 6.0 clock position. No fresh tear was present. Vaginal opening easily admitted two fingers and showed whitey exudate. Two vaginal slides were prepared and handed over to the IO. Death was due to shock consequent upon 100 percent burn injuries. PW11 Dr. Sunil has identified writing and signatures of Dr. R.K. Bansal on postmortem report Ex. PW11/A. So, it is also not disputed that prosecutrix died due to 100% burn injuries,which she sustained as she committed suicide.
PW12 Dr. Arun Goel has been examined in place of Dr. Prashant Bora, who has prepared MLC of the prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW12/A. PW13 Dr. Chaman Parkash has been examined in place of Dr. Sushil Kumar. He has proved MLC Ex. PW12/A. According to him, Dr. Sushil Kumar had observed 100% burn injuries. The patient was referred to burnt ward for further management. PW13 Dr. Chaman Prakash has identified the writing and signatures of Dr. Sushil Kumar on Ex. PW12/A. Other formal witness is PW15 lady HC Indu Bala. On 12/08/2000, she was on duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. At about 11.30 p.m., one Roop Kishore informed that one girl has set herself on fire at D-172, Inder Enclave, Phase-II in front of Fakir dealer. She filled up PCR form and sent it to net for flashing the news. Original PCR form stands destroyed vide order of ACP dated 17/01/2005 Ex. PW15/A. Another formal witness is PW16 HC Gajender Singh. On 19/12/2003, he collected two sealed parcels and one sample seal from MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL, Malviya Nagar as per directions of SHO and handed over the receipt back to the MHC(M).
The charge sheet of this FIR No. 300/01 was filed against one Urmil, wife of Satpal and one Pinki. One accused Bimla was shown in column No. 2 i.e. Principal of Govt. Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nangloi, Delhi. Cognizance was taken against accused Bimla Yadav and case was committed to the Court of Session. At the time of framing of charge, accused Bimla Yadav was discharged and charge SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 23/55 was framed against accused Urmila U/s. 306 of IPC. Accused Pinki was found to be juvenile. So, charge sheet was filed against her before the Juvenile Court. While discharging accused Bimla Yadav, the then Ld. ASJ ordered to proceed with the investigation in the matter against accused Surender, Raj Kumar, Brijesh, Ram Chander and Baljeet U/s. 173(8) of CrPC. In fact, they were in custody in case FIR No. 593/00, PS Sultanpuri at that time.
Accordingly, as per deposition of PW14 HC Dilbagh Singh, on 05/08/2004, he alongwith PW22 SI Tej Bahadur and Constable Rajender went to Tis Hazari Courts. Four accused persons were produced from Tihar Jail. With the permission of the court, they arrested accused Ram Chander, Joginder, Brijesh and Raj Kumar vide memos Ex. PW14/A to Ex. PW14/D. Personal search of accused Ram Chander was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/E. Both the witnesses have not been cross examined by learned defence counsel in any manner.
Supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused Raj Kumar, Brijesh, Baljeet, Joginder, Surender and Ram Chander. Surender was shown to be juvenile and his charge-sheet was filed before the Juvenile Court. Against remaining five accused persons, charge U/s. 306 of IPC was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Though only fact which has to be considered is whether accused persons abetted the prosecutrix to commit suicide or whether their alleged act of committing gang rape with the prosecutrix resulted as instigation to the prosecutrix to commit suicide on 12/08/2002.
Learned defence counsel has contended that there is no such evidence on record nor the instigation can be stretched to the extent that the alleged act of gang rape resulted into instigation to the prosecutrix to commit suicide because she was allegedly gang raped on 30/07/2000, whereas she has committed suicide on 12/08/2002. so, even the act of suicide was not immediate result of gang rape as allegedly committed by the accused persons.
This situation has been discussed in criminal Appeal No. 626/00 by the SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 24/55 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sandy @ Ved Prakash & Ors Vs. State, which is as under:
" The offence of abetment of suicide is made punishable by Section 306 IPC which reads as under:
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable for fine."
"Section 306 does not define the expression "abet" nor is the expression defined in Chapter II of Code, which deals with general explanations. However, Chapter V of Code makes provisions with respect to abetment. Section 107 in this Chapter defines "abetment" in following terms:-
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation-2-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
As per the prosecution, the deceased was raped in the fields. She returned home and decided to take poison as she though that the humiliation heaped upon her has blackened her face and she had no face to show in the society. With this feeling of dejection, despair, humiliation and frustration she fed a sulphas tablet to her infant daughter and consumed sulphas tablets herself. The rapists have not been alleged to have conspired with the deceased for the doing of the act of consuming sulphas. The rapists have not been alleged of doing any act in conspiracy or any illegal omission. The rapists have not been alleged to aid, much less intentionally aid the deceased in consuming sulphas. Thus, the second and the third limb of Section 107 IPC are just not attracted. The question would be whether the first limb is attracted i.e. whether can it be said that the rapists instigated the deceased by their act of rape to consume sulphas.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court have taken diametrically opposite views. In the decisions reported as Mohd Hafeez V State of MP MANU/MP/0238/2009 and Kokkiligadda Veeraswamy V State of AP SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 25/55 2005 Cri.L.J. 869 it has been held that an accused by raping a girl instigates her to commit suicide if there is a proximate and live link between the offending act of the accused and the commission of suicide by the girl. Two Judges of the same Court have taken the opposite view in the decisions reported as Battula Konadulu V State of AP MANU/AP0833/2006 and Deepak V State of MP 1994 Cri.L.J. 767 where the aforesaid question was answered in negative.
What is the meaning of the word 'instigation' occurring in Section 107 of the IPC?
"The answer to the aforesaid question can be found in the following observations of Supreme Court in the decision reported as Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (2009) 11 SCALE 24:
"Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); " to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary- 7th Edition). Similarly "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that : (i) the accused kept o n irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 26/55 vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self. (Emphasis Supplied).
In the decision reported as Gangula Mohan Reddy V State of AP 2010 (1) SCALE 1, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." (Emphasis Supplied). A similar view was taken by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V State of MP (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it was observed as under:
"The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or to incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation." (Emphasis Supplied).
The ratio of the afore-noted decisions is that in order to convict an accused for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, in respect of the act of instigation, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused had the "intention" to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
In the instant case, can it be said that the rapists had the "intention" to instigate the deceased to commit suicide?
The answer to the aforesaid question is an emphatic "no" for the reason there is no material on the record wherefrom it could be inferred that the rapists raped the deceased with an intention to instigate her to commit suicide.
Thus, we hold that in the facts of the instant case, the rapists of the accused cannot be held liable for the offence of having abetted the suicide of the deceased."
In view of above judgment, it cannot be said that accused persons abetted the prosecutrix to commit suicide.
Accordingly, all the accused persons are acquitted for offence U/s. 306 of IPC.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 27/55Now, it has to be seen whether suicide note can be treated as evidence against the accused persons to prove the offence of gang rape, as alleged by the prosecution because although accused persons were in J/C at that time of suicide committed by the prosecutrix, but the prosecutrix could not have been examined as a witness in case FIR No. 593/00, PS Sultanpuri. So, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons except the suicide note and dying declaration made to the witnesses, which have been brought on record.
In case FIR No. 593/00, father of prosecutrix i.e. PW3 Roop Kishore has stated that prosecutrix was his daughter. She was aged about 14 years. At the time of incident, she was student of 9th class in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nithari, Delhi-41. He does not remember date and month of the incident, but it was of last year. School of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix had just opened after new session after the vacation. It was probably the month of July. On the date of the incident, his daughter told him that since it was the first day of opening of the school for new session, there was no chance of teaching in the classes and only books to be distributed and has further stated that she would go to her school empty handed. His other children were also studying in the same school. His two daughters were also studying in the same school. His daughter i.e. prosecutrix alongwith her two sisters,namely, Poonam and Rachna went to school at about 7/9 a.m. He does not remember the exact time. At about 1.00 p.m., his daughters Poonam and Rachna came back. He made inquiries from them as to why prosecutrix did not return. His daughters Poonam and Rachna told him that prosecutrix had left the school early because books and copies were not distributed on that day.
PW3 has further stated that at about 2/2.30 p.m., his daughter i.e. prosecutrix came back to his house, while weeping and she was accompanied by a man. He does not know the age of said man, who accompanied the prosecutrix since he did not notice him properly. He was on a bicycle and told that police was about to come and then he went away. Prosecutrix told him that Surender of her colony and several other persons had raped her. Thereafter, they went to PS. He told the SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 28/55 facts to the police and statement of prosecutrix was recorded. On the same day, he got arrested Surender (since juvenile). His daughter i.e. prosecutrix was medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. On interrogation, his daughter i.e. prosecutrix told to the police that she could identify the other accused persons and she could locate the place of incident. Surender (since juvenile) was detained in the police station.
PW3 has further stated that thereafter, prosecutrix had pointed out the place of occurrence, but he does not know the exact name of the location. Accused Surender (since juvenile) told that other accused persons could meet next morning in the side of Rohini. Thereafter, he alongwith his daughter i.e. prosecutrix accompanied the police in search of accused persons, but he does not know their names. PW3 has identified accused Brijesh, Raj Kumar and Baljeet before the court. Accused persons were interrogated and his daughter i.e. prosecutrix had identified the accused persons. Accused persons were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, but he does not know, for what purpose they were taken to the hospital.
PW3 has further stated that he had studied upto 7th class. His daughter i.e. prosecutrix signed some papers prepared by the police and he might have signed some of them. Date of birth of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix might be of 1986 or 1988. After about 8/10 days of the incident, his daughter i.e. prosecutrix again started going to the school. After about one month of the incident, his daughter i.e. prosecutrix committed suicide by setting herself on fie and had expired in Irwin Hospital.
PW3 has identified the writing and signatures of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix at point A in statement Mark 1 and documents Mark 2 to 17 on the case file at point A each. PW3 has also identified the answer sheet, which is in the handwriting of his daughter i.e. prosecutrix as he had seen her writing and signing. Same is Ex. PW3/1 (four pages). The Hindi writing as well as English writing, wherein his daughter i.e. prosecutrix had written answers, are in her handwriting.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 29/55In the cross examination, PW3 has denied the suggestion that his daughter-prosecutrix was having affair with accused Surender (since juvenile). He has also denied the suggestion that accused Surender (since juvenile) did not commit rape with his daughter i.e. prosecutrix. In his further cross examination, PW3 has stated that he had gone with the prosecutrix to the PS to report the matter and he had also gone for the arrest of other accused persons. He had signed 2/3 papers before the police. PW3 has further stated in the cross examination that accused Surender (since juvenile) was arrested prior to the arrest of other accused persons. About 3/4 police officials had gone with them. SI Binay Singh was with them alongwith other police officials. PW3 has not been cross examined regarding the fact that prosecutrix did not disclose to him about the rape committed upon her by Surender and several other persons.
PW20 SI Binay Singh has stated that on 03/07/2000, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri. On that day, he received a call vide DD No. 84B and he alongwith Constable Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. Inder Enclave. He met there with prosecutrix and her father. He called W/HC from PS. HC Pushpa came there and he sent the prosecutrix alongwith HC Pushpa to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for her medical examination.
PW5 ASI Pushpa has stated that on 03/07/2000, she was posted at PS Sultanpuri as HC. On that day, she reached at Sector-22, Rohini, as called by PW20 SI Binay Singh. IO gave Naksha Majrubi of the prosecutrix and she took the prosecutrix to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for medical examination. After medical examination, her MLC and vaginal swab alongwith sample seal were handed over to her, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/1. She signed the same at point A. She also handed over the clothes of the prosecutrix to the IO and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/2. She signed the same at point A. She has identified the clothes of the prosecutrix i.e. one skirt and one top of blue colour as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. Nothing came out from her cross examination to disbelieve her testimony in any manner.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 30/55PW20 SI Binay Singh has further stated that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, he recorded her statement Ex. PW20/B and made endorsement on the same, which is Ex. PW20/C. It was handed over to Constable Ravinder for registration of the case. He also seized vaginal swab and sample seal, handed over by the doctor in the hospital, vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/C and clothes of the prosecutrix vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/D. PW10 is Constable Ravinder Kumar. He has stated that on 03/07/2000, he alongwith PW20 SI Binay Singh reached at the spot. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Her statement was recorded. He was sent to PS with the tehrir by the IO. After registration of the case, he came back to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and ruqqa and handed over the same to IO-PW20 SI Binay Singh.
PW2 HC Om Prakash has further corroborated and has stated that on 04/07/2000, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri as Duty Officer from 12 night to 8.00 a.m. On that day at about 2.20 a.m. on 04/07/2000, one ruqqa was brought by Constable Joginder, sent by SI Binay Singh, on the basis of which, he recorded formal FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW2/A. He has also produced original FIR register. PW2 has not been cross examined in any manner. So, there is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
Regarding the arrest of accused persons, PW20 SI Binay Singh has stated that he recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix, in which, she also stated about involvement of some more accused persons. At her instance, he arrested accused Surender Singh, Raj Kumar, Joginder, Brijesh Kumar, Ram Chander and Baljeet vide arrest memos Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/6. He also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW10/11 to Ex. PW10/16. He also prepared site plan Ex. PW20/E at the instance of the prosecutrix. He also recorded disclosure statements of accused persons and got the place of incident identified. On 08/07/2000, he was transferred and deposited the file with MHC(R).
PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar has further corroborated and has stated that accused Brijesh, Raj Kumar, Surender, Baljeet, Ram Chander and one SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 31/55 more accused, whose name he does not remember, were arrested by the IO. He has not identified the accused persons due to lapse of time. IO had prepared arrest memos of the accused persons and had also conducted their personal search. IO had also interrogated the accused persons. He signed on the arrest memos of accused persons Ex. PW10/1 to Ex. PW10/6. He had also signed on disclosure statements of accused persons Ex. PW10/7 to Ex. PW10/12. PW10 has also identified his signatures on Ex. PW10/13 at point A. PW10 has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP and accused persons were specifically pointed out to the witness. He has admitted that these are the same accused persons, who were arrested by the IO in his presence. PW10 has further admitted that accused persons led the police party to the place of occurrence and pointed out the same. PW10 has further stated that on their pointing out, IO had prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW10/13.
PW11 Constable Pratap Singh has also joined the investigation with PW20 SI Binay Singh and has stated that on 04/07/2000, he alongwith Constable Ravinder, Constable Subhash and prosecutrix proceeded from PS at about 3.30 or 4.00 p.m. and reached at Sector-22, Rohini. Number of persons were walking with buffaloes. These persons were apprehended on the pointing out of prosecutrix,namely, Raj Kumar, Surender, Brijesh, Baljeet, Ram Chander and Joginder. They were interrogated by the IO. All the accused persons made disclosure statements, which were recorded by the IO. PW11 has identified his signatures on disclosure statements Ex. PW10/7 to Ex. PW10/11 at point B. Accused persons led them to the place of incident i.e. half constructed house in Sector-22, Rohini, and pointing out memo Ex. PW10/13 was prepared by the IO. He signed on same at point B. He also signed the arrest memos of accused Ram Chander, Joginder Singh, Baljeet, Raj Kumar and Brijesh Ex. PW10/2 to Ex. PW10/6 at point B. PW11 has also identified these accused persons in the court and has further stated that they were apprehended in his presence on the pointing out of the prosecutrix except accused Surender (since juvenile).
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 32/55PW13 is Constable Subhash. According to the arrest memos of accused Ram Chander, Joginder Singh, Baljeet, Raj Kumar, Brijesh; disclosure statements of accused Surender, Raj Kumar, Joginder, Brijesh, Ram Chander and Baljeet and pointing out memo, he is a witness to these documents, but he has not stated so in his examination in chief. PW13 has merely stated that on 05/07/2000, he accompanied accused Raj Kumar to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for his medical examination and after his medical examination, concerned doctor handed over to him two sealed parcels alongwith sample seal, which he handed over to PW20 SI Binay Singh, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW13/A. PW13 has not been cross examined by learned Addl. PP in any manner nor by learned defence counsels for accused persons.
So, for the identification of accused persons except accused Surender (since juvenile), we have depositions of PW3 Roop Kishore, PW10 Constable Ravinder, PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW3 Roop Kishore has stated that his daughter i.e. prosecutrix came back to the house at about 2/2.30 p.m. and PW10 Constable Ravinder has stated in the cross examination that he reached with the IO at the house of the prosecutrix at about 12 noon. Learned defence counsel has further contended that if prosecutrix had come on 03/07/2000 at about 2/2.30 p.m., then how PW10 Constable Ravinder alongwith PW20 SI Binay Singh could have reached at the house of the prosecutrix at 12 noon because till that time, it was not known that the prosecutrix was raped. So, PW10 Constable Ravinder cannot be believed in any manner.
According to DD No. 84B Ex. PW20/A, information was received on telephone from one unknown person that some wrong act was committed at D-172, Inder Enclave, Phase-II. This was recored and was handed over through Constable Ali Sher to SI Binay Singh. In the cross examination, PW20 SI Binay Singh has also stated that he reached at the house of the prosecutrix at about 11.30 a.m. and he got the prosecutrix medically examined.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 33/55Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the MLC of the prosecutrix, she reached at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital with lady HC Pushpa on 03/07/2000 at ab out 10.45 p.m.. So, PW20 SI Binay Singh can also not be believed in any manner.
It seems that both PW10 Constable Ravinder and PW20 SI Binay Singh have deposed about the time inadvertently because the same is against the record as PW5 ASI Pushpa has stated in the cross examination that she reached at Sector-22 in the evening time and it took 10 to 15 minutes to reach at Sector-22 in a cycle rickshaw and thereafter she went to hospital with the prosecutrix in an auto rickshaw. PW20 SI Binay Singh has stated that he had called W/HC from the PS and HC Pushpa came there. He sent prosecutrix alongwith HC Pushpa for her medical examination. So, all these proceedings must have been conducted before 10.45 p.m. So, contradictions pointed out by learned defence counsel are not material as such and on these minor contradictions, these witnesses cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
According to PW10 Constable Ravinder, PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh, accused Brijesh, Raj Kumar, Surender (since juvenile), Ram Chander, Baljeet and Joginder were arrested at the instance of prosecutrix on the next day at about 9.00 a.m. In the cross examination, PW20 SI Binay Singh has stated that only prosecutrix had accompanied them to the spot. PW10 Constable Ravinder and PW11 Constable Pratap Singh have also not stated that PW3 Roop Kishore also accompanied them to the spot for the arrest of these accused persons and they remained at the spot for about three hours. On the other hand, PW3 Roop Kishore has stated that he accompanied his daughter i.e. prosecutrix alongwith the police persons in search of accused persons. Accused were identified by his daughter i.e. prosecutrix and they were interrogated. In the cross examination, PW3 Roop Kishore has again stated that he had also gone for the arrest of accused persons. He has further stated in the cross examination that about 3/4 police officials had gone with them and has voluntarily stated that SI Binay Singh was alongwith SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 34/55 them with other police officials. He has denied that none of the accused person was arrested in his presence.
PW3 Roop Kishore has also contradicted with PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar, PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh regarding the arrest of accused Surender (since juvenile). PW3 has stated that accused Surender (since juvenile) was arrested prior to the arrest of other accused persons, whereas PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar, PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh have stated that accused Surender (since juvenile) was arrested with other accused persons.
PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh have also contradicted about the fact as to how they reached at the spot. PW20 SI Binay Singh has stated in the cross examination that he was taken to the spot of occurrence by the prosecutrix at about 9.00 a.m. on the next day of the incident in a private car, whereas PW11 Constable Pratap Singh has stated in the cross examination that they proceeded from the PS in official vehicle i.e. gypsy. Father of the prosecutrix was also with them. There was no other vehicle except gypsy in which they proceeded from PS. First of all, prosecutrix pointed out towards accused Surender (since juvenile), who was also grazing buffaloes at that time. All the accused persons, after the proceedings, were brought to PS in the same gypsy alongwith raiding party. PW20 SI Binay Singh has corroborated only one fact with PW11 Constable Pratap Singh that spot was near the place, where accused persons were grazing their cattle. Therefore, they were arrested at the time of inspection of the spot only. PW20 SI Binay Singh has also stated further in the cross examination in this context that he had also recorded statement of father of the prosecutrix.
According to arrest memos, accused Surender (since juvenile), Ram Chander, Joginder, Baljeet, Raj Kumar and Brijesh were arrested on 04/07/2000. So, despite some contradictions, PW3 Roop Kishore, PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar, PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh have corroborated each other that on the pointing out of the prosecutrix, accused persons were arrested SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 35/55 from Sector-22, Rohini, while they were grazing their cattle there. The contradictions, as pointed out, are not material and the testimonies of the witnesses inspire confidence regarding the arrest of accused persons on 04/07/2000 on the pointing and identification of the prosecutrix, while she accompanied the police party and his father-PW3 Roop Kishore.
PW3 Roop Kishore has not been cross examined by learned defence counsels regarding the pointing out of the place of occurrence by the prosecutrix. PW11 Constable Pratap Singh has been cross examined on this aspect. He has stated in the cross examination that the room, where the incident had taken place, pointed out by the prosecutrix was the last room of that house. No furniture was lying in that room. It had complete flooring inside it. Kankars and small stones were found scattered at that time. PW20 SI Binay Singh has also been cross examined on this aspect. He has stated in the cross examination that place of occurrence was a semi constructed house without any number. It had no door. There was no furniture in the said house. Prosecutrix had also taken him inside the house and pointed out the first room at the entrance, which was used by the accused persons for committing rape with her. The house was clean and there was no construction material lying inside the house. So, both PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh have contradicted as to whether it was first room or the last room in the said house, where incident took place or whether the floor of the house was clean or some material was found scattered in the room.
PW3 Roop Kishore has stated that prosecutrix had pointed out the place of occurrence. PW3 has not been cross examined on this aspect or regarding the nature and position of the place of occurrence like PW11 Constable Pratap Singh and PW20 SI Binay Singh have been cross examined. So, from the depositions of these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that prosecutrix had pointed out the place of occurrence. In view of the same, the contradictions regarding the first room or the last room or whether it was clean or not are not material in any manner because identity of the place of occurrence is SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 36/55 proved. Pointing out memo was prepared by the Investigating officer, which is Ex. PW10/B. It bear the signatures of the prosecutrix along with PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar and PW11 Constable Pratap Singh. All the accused persons have also signed the same. So, identity of the place of occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubts.
Age of the prosecutrix:
PW3 Roop Kishore, father of the prosecutrix, has stated that prosecutrix was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and according to his memory, she was born either on 1986 or 1988.
PW8 Dr. Komal Singh has stated that on 03/07/2000 at 10.45 p.m., prosecutrix was brought by lady Head Constable Pushpa with alleged history of sexual assault. He examined the prosecutrix for estimation of age. On examination, secondary sexual characters were not well developed. He advised for bone age x- ray. After going through the x-ray report and the report of the Radiologist, it was concluded that age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years. He made endorsement on the MLC Ex. PW8/A. PW8 Dr. Komal Singh has not been cross examined in any manner. No other document has been brought on record regarding the age of the prosecutrix. So, according to the opinion of PW8 Dr. Komal Singh, prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of incident.
MLC of the prosecutrix, as proved by PW9 Sh. M.K. Sharma by identifying the signatures of Dr. Anjana Rastogi and Dr. Lokender Singh, is Ex. PW9/1 and bearing the signatures of Dr. Anjana Rastogi at point X. Later on, Dr. Anjana Rastogi has been examined as PW17. She has stated that on 03/07/2000, she was working in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, as Senior Resident. On that day, prosecutrix was brought to the hospital for her medical examination with alleged history of sexual assault at about 12 a.m. Her last menstrual period was 15 days back. On examination, she did not find any marks of injury over thighs and breast. On local examination, she found SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 37/55 labia majora and minora normal, not inflamed. Hymen was found torn, slightly oedemoutous. There were no marks of fresh injury or bleeding. She took vaginal swab and sent for lab examination. Her clothes were not available. She gave her opinion on the basis of the examination that rape could not be ruled out. She mentioned these facts in the MLC, which is Ex. PW17/A. In the cross examination, PW17 has stated that hymen of the prosecutrix was old torn and not freshly torn. She has further stated that if sexual intercourse has been committed by making the victim lie on a floor , where there were small stones and kankar, in that event victim was bound to sustain some scratch marks/injuries on her body. But learned defence counsel did not ask any question from PW17 whether she noticed any such marks on the body of the prosecutrix during her examination. In MLC Ex. PW17/A, only thighs and breasts were inspected for mark of injury and not the whole part of the body. So, it cannot be said that whether prosecutrix was having some scratch mark injuries on the back of her body or not.
Consequently, it cannot be said whether there were any kankar or small stones in the room of the place of occurrence or the floor was totally clean.
Prosecutrix was also produced for recording her statement U/s. 164 CrPC. PW22, the then Ld. MM, has been examined. He was working as Metropolitan Magistrate on 05/07/2000 as Link MM of Sh. L.K. Gaur. An application for recording of statement of the prosecutrix U/s. 164 CrPC was produced before him. After considering the entire matter, he did not find any ground to record her statement. He has proved the application as Ex. PW22/A and his order as Ex. PW22/B. According to seizure memo of clothes of the prosecutrix Ex. PW20/D, skirt and shirt were produced by the prosecutrix to police, which were sealed with the seal of "BS" in a pullanda and were taken into possession. So, this fact also corroborates with the testimony of PW17 Dr. Anjana Rastogi, who has stated that clothes of prosecutrix were not available. So, during the medical examination of the prosecutrix, her vaginal swab and one sample seal were seized by the police vide SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 38/55 memo Ex.PW20/C. PW13 Constable Subhash has also deposed that on 05/07/200, he accompanied accused Raj Kumar to SGM hospital for his medical examination. After his medical examination, doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas with one sample seal, which he handed over to PW20 SI Binay Singh. These were seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A. PW13 has also not been cross examined in any manner. So, his testimony is unchallenged and unshaken.
PW18 Head Constable Jagjit Singh has stated that on 08/07/2000, on the instructions of Investigating officer, he took accused Joginder for medical examination. After his medical examination, two sealed pullandas were handed over to him, which he handed over to Investigating officer and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW18/A. According to MLC of accused Joginder Ex. PW6/A, he was examined on 05/07/2000at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. So, it seems that PW18 has deposed about the date 08/07/2000 instead of 05/07/2000 inadvertently. FSL Report:
All the accused persons, who were arrested, were also got medically examined and blood sample alongwith undergarment of accused Raj Kumar were seized vide memo Ex. PW13/A; blood sample and undergarment of accused Joginder were seized vide memo Ex. PW18/1; blood sample and pant of accused Surender were also seized vide memo Ex. PW15/A and blood sample and undergarment of accused Brijesh were also seized.
Accused Brijesh, Joginder, Raj Kumar and Surender (since juvenile) were examined by PW6 Dr. Anand Shukla. He has proved MLC of these four accused persons as Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D. He has further stated that after their medical examination, their blood samples and undergarments were sealed and were handed over to Investigating officer. PW6 has not been cross examined by learned defence counsels for accused persons in any manner. So, from deposition of PW6, prosecution has been able to prove that all these four accused persons were SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 39/55 medically examined after their arrest and their blood samples and undergarments were sealed by the concerned doctor and were seized by the Investigating officer.
Regarding the sexual potency of accused Brijesh, Joginder, Raj Kumar and Surender, PW7 Dr. Sameer Pandit has been examined. He has proved his opinions given on MLCs Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D correspondingly as Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/D. According to these opinions, there was nothing to suggest that any of the four accused persons was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. PW7 has also not been cross examined by learned defence counsels in any manner. So, his testimony is also un-rebutted and unshaken.
PW15 Constable Preet Singh had got conducted medical examination of accused Surender (since juvenile) on 05/07/2000 on the instructions of PW20 SI Binay Singh. He handed over the sealed pullandas given to him by the doctor to the Investigating officer, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW15/A. This witness has also not been cross examined by learned defence counsels in any manner.
The exhibits of the prosecutrix and of all these four persons were sent to FSL. Report of FSL dated 25/10/2000 has been placed on record. It has been proved by PW23 Dr. Dhruv Sharma as Ex. PW23/A and serological report as Ex. PW23/B. According to the report, cotton wool swab i.e. vaginal swab, one skirt and one top marked as Ex. 1, Ex. 2A and Ex. 2B were examined and human semen was detected on Ex. 1 and Ex.2A i.e. vaginal swab and skirt of the prosecutrix. Human semen was also detected on underwear of accused Joginder, but semen could not be detected on pant of accused Surender, underwear of accused Raj Kumar and underwear of accused Brijesh. In biological report, no grouping has been shown as blood samples of accused persons were putrefied, hence no opinion has been given and regarding the semen stains on vaginal swab, skirt and underwear, are reported as inconclusive. PW23 Dr. Dhruv Sharma has identified the exhibits as Ex. P1 to Ex. P12. In the cross examination, PW23 had denied the suggestion that he has given his findings regarding presence of human semen on Ex. 1, 2a and 10 at the instance of the IO. So, from the report of FSL, prosecution has been able to prove SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 40/55 beyond reasonable doubts that human semen was detected on vaginal swab of the prosecutrix alongwith her skirt and it was also detected on underwear of accused Joginder.
PW24 HC Pratap Singh has corroborated these facts and has stated that on 14/08/2000, he was posted at PS Sultanpuri. On that day, on the instructions of the SHO, he received ten sealed parcels with the seal of SGMH, Govt of NCT of Delhi for depositing in FSL, Malviya Nagar, vide RC No. 239/21/2000 alongwith FSL form. He deposited the same in the FSL and obtained receipt on RC and came back to PS and handed over receipt on REC to MHC(M). Nothing came out from the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
PW25 ASI Sanjay Kumar was working as MHC(M) on 04/07/2000 and he received two pullandas, out of which, one was bearing the seal of "VS" and other pullanda was bearing the seal of "SGM hospital" and one sample seal of SGM hospital, Govt. of NCT from SI Binay Singh. He deposited the same in the malkhana by making entry in register No. 19 alongwith personal search of six accused persons.
PW25 has further stated that on 05/07/2000, SI Binay Singh also handed over four small bottles having blood sample, sealed with the seal of SGMH and four pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH, Govt. of NCT, Delhi, alongwith one sample seal to him. He again deposited the same in the malkhana and made entry in register No. 19. He has produced the original register No. 19. Photocopies of the entries are Ex. PW25/A and Ex. PW25/B. PW25 has further stated that on 14/08/2000, as per instructions of the IO, he handed over 10 pullandas, out of which, one pullanda was having seal of "VS" and remaining pullandas were having seal of SGMH hospital alongwith two sample seals to Constable Pratap Singh vide RC No. 239/21/2000 for depositing in FSL, Malviya Nagar, who got deposited the same in FSL, Malviya Nagar, and handed over receipt on RC to him,which is Ex. PW25/C. PW25 has denied the suggestion that he has forged and fabricated the SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 41/55 entries in register No. 19 and RC book. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
PW1 Head Constable Satish has proved DD No. 4A dated 13/08/2000 and DD No. 22A of the same date as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. He has also proved DD No. 54B dated 14/08/2000 and DD No. 76B dated 12/08/2000 as Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. This witness has not been cross examined in any manner.
PW4 Smt. Suresh has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner despite being cross examined by learned Addl. PP. So, she is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.
PW14 is Ram Raj Scindia. He has stated that he knows accused Surender (since juvenile), who is his neighbour. So, this witness is also not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.
PW12 Bimla Yadav, Principal, Govt. Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nangloi, Delhi, PW19 SI C.M. Meena and PW21 Dr. Deepa Verma, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Delhi, are relevant to the offence U/s. 306/34 of IPC.
PW2 HC Om Prakash was on duty on 04/07/2000 and was posted at PS Sultanpuri. He was working as Duty Officer from 12 night to 8.00 a.m. At about 2.20 a.m., he received ruqqa through Constable Joginder, sent by SI Binay Singh, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR of this case Ex. PW2/A. PW2 has not been cross examined by learned defence counsels for accused persons in any manner.
PW19 SI C.M. Meena has investigated case FIR No. 300/01 and he has also been examined in this case. He has stated that original suicide note written by prosecutrix was produced by her father Roop Kishore before him on 16/08/2000. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW19/A. He handed over the photocopy of suicide note to SI Devender.
PW19 has stated in the cross examination that when he produced suicide note of prosecutrix to the IO, it was seized vide memo Ex. PW19/A. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross examination, PW19 SI C.M. Meena has stated that when he visited the spot, he did SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 42/55 not find any suicide note of the prosecutrix. He was not disclosed by anyone that there was a suicide note of the prosecutrix. Her father had given the reason of suicide of prosecutrix to him on the basis of what has been disclosed to him by the prosecutrix prior to her death. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW19 SI C.M. Meena has also stated in the cross examination that he searched for the suicide note, if any, but he could not locate it. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it shows that suicide note has been planted against the accused persons and it has been fabricated by father of the prosecutrix.
The evidence of the prosecution can be summarised as under:
From the depositions of PW5 Roop Kishore and PW24 Inspector C.M. Meena, prosecution has been able to prove that suicide note was produced by PW5 Roop Kishore, when he found the same after 2/3 days of the incident from a temple of his house and handed over it to police, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/C. From the depositions of PW12 Principal Bimla Yadav and PW15 SI Devender, prosecution has also been able to prove that admitted handwriting of the prosecutrix was taken from the school i.e. answer sheet of Grah Vigyan, consisting six pages.
From the statement of PW8 Ms. Deepa Verma, Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, prosecution has also been able to prove that the suicide note is in the handwriting of the prosecutrix and she came to such conclusion after examining the admitted documents A1 to A8. She has also examined questioned documents Q1 to Q10 bearing the signatures of the prosecutrix. PW8 Ms. Deepa Verma cannot be disbelieved simply on the fact that she did not examine questioned signatures and the standard signatures because she had compared only the alphabets alongwith general writing habits from the available admitted writing. It also includes Q1 i.e. her statement recorded by PW20 SI Binay Singh after the incident of rape.
According to the suicide note, prosecutrix committed suicide because she SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 43/55 came to know that she was pregnant. She has further written therein that she was raped by accused Surender, Brijesh, Raj Kumar, Joginder, Ram Chander and Baljeet.
From the deposition of PW3 Roop Kishore, examined in case FIR No. 593/2000, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that when the prosecutrix came back to her house, she told her father that she was raped by accused Surender and several other persons.
Prosecution has also been able to prove from the statements of PW3 Roop Kishore, PW20 SI Binay Singh, PW10 Constable Ravinder Kumar and PW11 Constable Pratap Singh, identity of all the accused persons, who were arrested on the pointing of the prosecutrix on the next day nearby the spot.
Prosecution has also been able to prove that place of occurrence was pointed out by the prosecutrix Ex.PW10/B. So, the identity of place of occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubts as already discussed in the evidence of the witnesses.
From the evidence of PW8 Dr. Komal Singh, prosecution has also been able to prove that the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of incident because PW3 Roop Kishore has not been able to bring on record any document regarding the age of the prosecutrix to show and prove that she was less than 16 years of age at the time of incident. PW8 Dr. Komal Singh has given his opinion on the basis of bone age X-ray.
Prosecution has also been able to prove from the depositions of PW9 Dr. M.K. Sharma and PW17 Dr. Anjana Rastogi that hymen of prosecutrix was old torn. The contention of learned defence counsel that prosecutrix did not sustain any injuries is not believable because only thighs and breasts of the prosecutrix were examined in respect of the marks of injury and not the whole body of the prosecutrix. Vaginal swab was taken and was sent for lab examination. PW17 Dr. Anjana Rastogi has given opinion that rape could not be ruled out and has proved MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW17/A. SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 44/55 The contention of learned defence counsel that PW17 Dr. Anjana Rastogi has stated in the cross examination that if a minor girl is raped by four men continuously, in that event, she must sustain some injuries on labia majora and minora. It is not so, from the deposition of PW8 Dr. Komal Singh, it has been proved that prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. According to MLC Ex. PW17/A, hymen was found torn. No opinion has been given whether it was fresh torn or old torn as there was no mark of bleeding, which shows that it was old torn and prosecutrix was not unknown to the sexual intercourse. It is also evident from the postmortem report Ex. PW11/A (FIR No. 300/01) that vaginal opening easily admitted two fingers, so, she was habitual to sexual intercourse. Due to this reason also, she had not sustained any injuries on labia majora and minora. This is also fortified with the fact that human semen was detected on vaginal swab and skirt of the prosecutrix i.e. Ex. 1 and 2a. Human semen was also detected on underwear of accused Joginder.
If the prosecutrix was not raped, then there was not possibility of presence of human semen on the vaginal swab and skirt of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was raped on 03/07/2000, whereas all the accused were arrested on the next day i.e. 04/07/2000 at about 10 p.m. It shows that accused Joginder had not changed his clothes, whereas other accused persons had changed their clothes. So, human semen was not detected from their clothes, which were taken into possession and seized by the police in this case. So, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was not raped by the accused persons as told by her to her father in her house, which is corroborated with the MLC and FSL reports. Even otherwise, prosecutrix was not having any motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. In her complaint Ex. PW20/B, proved by SI Binay Singh, she has stated that she had gone with accused Surender on his bicycle, but he took her to Sector-22 and committed rape with her in a vacant house. While she was weeping, some persons came there, who were grazing cattle there, and asked her as to why she was weeping. She told that she was raped by Surender without her consent. Thereafter, three persons also committed SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 45/55 rape with her against her wishes without her consent. She has not given the names of those three persons because they were not known to the prosecutrix and consequently she could not have been in a position to disclose the names of these accused persons to her father-PW3 Roop Kishore.
On the next day, she pointed out the accused persons i.e. Surender (juvenile), Brijesh, Raj Kumar and Joginder, who had committed raped with her without her consent forcibly, and also pointed out accused Baljeet and Ram Chander as the persons, who were standing outside, while she was being raped by above accused persons. Consequently, all these accused persons were arrested.
Supplementary statement was recorded on 04/07/2000 of the prosecutrix, whereas Ex.PW20/B was recorded on 03/07/2000. In the statement Ex. PW20/B dated 03/07/2000, prosecutrix did not tell to the IO that when she was raped by all the four accused persons, accused Baljeet and Ram Chander were standing outside, but this fact has appeared in the supplementary statement, which has not been proved in any manner being recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC, because before her examination, prosecutrix committed suicide. Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded in presence of the prosecutrix on 04/07/2000, wherein accused Ram Chander and Baljeet have disclosed that they were standing outside and were watching the area. Although PW20 SI Binay Singh has not been cross examined nor any suggestion has been given, but it seems that supplementary statement of prosecutrix regarding involvement of accused Ram Chander and Baljeet was based on their disclosure statements Ex. PW10/11 and Ex. PW10/12. Even otherwise, from the disclosure statement of accused Ram Chander and Baljeet, they were standing outside and were watching the area does not mean that they had instigated the other accused persons, who committed rape upon the prosecutrix or engaged with those four accused persons into any conspiracy for committing rape or intentionally aided in any manner in committed rape of the prosecutrix by other four accused persons.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 46/55 offence punishable U/s. 109 read with Section 376 of IPC against accused Baljeet and Ram Chander. Accordingly, accused Baljeet and Ram Chander are acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 109 read with Section 376 of IPC.
In view of above discussion, beside the suicide note in which prosecutrix mentioned names of six accused persons, we have the dying declaration about the rape committed by accused Surender (juvenile) and other accused persons , which she told to her father after the incident and also her statement signed by her, as proved by PW20 and also by PW8 Ms. Deepa Verma, Senior Scientific Officer, who examined the signatures of prosecutrix on Ex. PW20/B. This is also corroborated and fortified with the further fact that on the next day i.e. 04/07/00, prosecutrix went to the spot with the police party and her father and identified the accused persons as the same persons, who had committed rape with her. So, the suicide note is in contradiction with the dying declaration of the prosecutrix made to her father and her another dying declaration Ex. PW20/B. In suicide note, she has named six accused persons, which shows that the same is based upon her supplementary statement, which was recorded by IO on 04/07/2000 because dying declaration made by her to her father about the rape committed by the accused persons alongwith one Surender and statement made to IO Ex.PW20/B, which was signed by her, she named accused Surender and other three persons, who committed rape with her and on the next day also, she identified accused Surender and other three accused persons near the spot, who were arrested in this case on the identification of prosecutrix.
In these circumstances, suicide note cannot be relied upon in any manner, rather ying declaration made by prosecutrix to her father and Ex.PW20/B are natural and more probable being made at first instance. All these facts are further corroborated with her MLC, FSL report and postmortem report, which shows that she was habitual to sexual intercourse, hence, she did not sustain injuries on labia majora and minora, as suggested by learned defence counsel to PW17 Dr. SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 47/55 Anjana Rastogi and human semen was detected on her skirt and vaginal swab. These all facts as proved lead to the conclusion that she was raped by accused Raj Kumar, Joginder and Brijesh. In support of these findings, I rely upon criminal Appeal No. 626/00 titled as Sandy @ Ved Prakash & Ors Vs. State, wherein it has been held that:
"The death of the deceased in the instant case and her being raped is a frozen reality. A criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. It is the duty of a Court to identify the culprit with reference to the evidence brought before evidence brought before it and in the evaluation of evidence whenever barriers of legislative enactments are encountered, law must witness dynamic evolution to respond to the challenge i.e. the challenge of identifying and discovering the offender at law.
Two submissions were urged by learned counsel for the appellants to question the veracity of the testimony of the said witnesses and thereby to question the sanctity of the dying declarations made by the deceased. It was firstly urged that a mere glance at the contents of the stated dying declarations made by the deceased as claimed by the witnesses shows that they are unreliable as there is material contradiction between the contents of the dying declarations sought to be proved by the witnesses Learned counsels highlighted that as per Rajesh PW-1, Chand Kaur PW-5 and Sartaj PW-10, the deceased told them that she was raped by five persons i.e. the appellants, whereas as per the dying declaration made by the deceased to Head Constable Surender Kumar, as claimed by him, the deceased told him that she was raped by four persons; three of whom she named but could not recollect the name of the fourth, counsel argued that in view of the contradictions between the contents of different dying declaration made by the deceased, the same should be rejected as being unreliable.
Law with respect to multiple dying declarations is well settled. In the decision reported as Nallam Veera V Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP (2004) 10 SCC 769 Supreme Court observed as under:-
"........in case of multiple dying declaration each dying declaration will have to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. In cases where there are more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the court to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which was one of them reflects the true state of affairs."
Per-se, Ex.PW-1/B has no meaning by itself as on it are written five SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 48/55 names: Sady, Seel, Ram Kumar, Zale Ka and Lily. But great meaning is acquired by the aid slip if supplemented with the testimony of Rajesh, Sartaj and Chand Kaur.
While considering and evaluating the testimony of said three witnesses who are the family members of the deceased, we feel that in the backdrop it has to be kept in mind that as per Head Constable Surender Kumar PEW-23, to whose testimony substantial corroboration is found in the testimony of SI Om Dutt pW-29, the deceased had told Head Constable Surender Kumar PW-23 that four boys had raped her. She could not remember the name of the fourth and disclosed the names of only three, being Sanjay son of Ziley Singh, Kala son of Ram Kumar, Lilli son of Balbir. We note that said fact has been contemporaneously recorded in the PCR form by SI Om Dutt PW-29, whose attention was not drawn when he deposed that a photocopy of the form part of the judicial record and for said reason he wrongly stated that the PCR form is not present in the documents filed by the prosecution.
Pertaining to Ex.PW-1/B we find that vide report Ex.PW-38/A it has been opined that the same is written in the handwriting of the deceased, I.S. Rao PW-38, the author of the report Ex.PW-38A was subjected to a very detailed and lengthy cross-examination but nothing tangible could be elicited there-from. But, in view of our further findings pertaining to the testimony of Rajesh, Sartaj and Chand Kaur and the possibility of the said 3 persons contriving to give a meaning to the inchoate contents of the slip Ex.PW-1/B resulting in our not accepting the testimony of the said 3 persons in respect of the dying declaration of the deceased, it hardly matters whether it has been proved that the slip was in the handwriting of the deceased.
That a dying declaration, as a piece of evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and thus it has to be judged and appreciated like any other piece of evidence is well settled law. A dying declaration which stands the test of credibility requires no corroboration.
In any case, in view of the testimony of Head Constable Surender Kumar PW-23 and the testimony of SI Om Dutt PW-29 it stands established through the dying declaration of the deceased that she was raped by four boys, three of whom she not only named but gave their parentage and that she was impelled into consuming sulphas tablets because she thought that she had no face to show in the society. The same establishes that the deceased was indeed raped. Why would she have consumed sulphas? Why did she give a sulphas tablet to her daughter? Obviously the mind of the deceased was disturbed in the highest category of disturbance and under the facts and circumstances is another piece of circumstances where from the factum of her being raped can be inferred.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 49/55In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove offfence punishable U/s. 376(2) (g) of IPC beyond reasonable doubts against accused Raj Kumar, Brijesh and Joginder. Accordingly, accused Raj Kumar, Brijesh and Joginder are held guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 376(2) (g) of IPC and are convicted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 29th of July, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 50/55
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 53/1
Unique case Identification No. 02404R0028222008
State
Versus
1) Raj Kumar @ Raju
Son of Inder Singh
R/oD1/218, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2) Brijesh Kumar
Son of Rohtash
R/o C-1/137, Aman Vihar, Delhi.
3) Joginder
Son of Sardar Singh
R/o Village & PO-Nithari, Delhi.
FIR No. 593/2000
PS - Sultanpuri
U/s. 376(2)(g) of IPC
Date of decision: 29/07/2010
Date of order on Sentence: 03/08/2010
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convicts Raj Kumar, Brijesh Kumar and Joginder from J.C. Sh. Sanjay Rathi, counsel for convict Brijesh Kumar.
Sh. Dharambir Singh, counsel for convict Joginder.
Sh. A.P. Singh, counsel for convict Raj Kumar.
Learned counsel for convict Brijesh submits that he has four children i.e. one daughter and three sons. He is residing in the village with his wife and children.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 51/55He is the sole bread earner of his family. He has already undergone about five years in custody in this case. He has faced trial of this case for the last about 10 years and has appeared regularly. Learned counsel submits that a lenient view be taken and convict be released on already undergone period. In support of his contention, learned defence counsel has relied upon Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhanna Vs. State West Bengal 1994(1) RCR 429 wherein it has been held that:
"In recent years, the rising crime rate-particularly violent crime against women has made the criminal sentencing by the courts a subject of concern. Today there are admitted disparities. Some criminals get very harsh sentences while many receive grossly different sentence for an essentially equivalent crime and a shockingly large number even go unpunished, thereby encouraging the criminal and in the ultimate making justice suffer by weakening the system's credibility. Of course, it is not possible to lay down any cut and dry formula relating to imposition of sentence but the object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it. In imposing sentences in the absence of specific legislation, Judges must consider variety of factors and after considering all those factors and taking an overall view of the situation, impose sentence which they consider to be an appropriate one. Aggravating factors cannot be ignored and similarly mitigating circumstances have also to be taken into consideration."
Learned counsel for convict Joginder submits that he has two daughters and one son and also having old aged mother. He is the only bread earner of his family. No other case is pending against him nor he has faced trial of any other case. He has already undergone five years custody in this case. He has faced trial of this case for the last about 10 years and has appeared regularly. Learned counsel submits that a lenient view be taken and convict be released on already undergone period. In support of his contention, learned defence counsel has relied upon Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 413 , wherein it has been held that :
"The appellant is not a 'habitual' and has no vicious antecedents except this fugitive, randy molestation which is bad enough in a society where women are often socially weak and sexually victimised. It may be marginally extenuatory to mention that modern Indian conditions are drifting into societal permissiveness on the carnal front promoting proneness to pornos in life, what with libidinous SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 52/55 'brahmacharis', womanising public men, lascivious dating and mating by unwed students, sex explosion in celluloid and bookstalls and corrupt morals reaching a new 'high' in high places. The unconvicted deviants in society are demoralisingly large and the State has, as yet, no convincing national policy on female flesh and sex sanity. We hope, at this belated hour, the Central Government will defend Indian womanhood by stamping out voluptuous meat markets by merciless criminal action. Isolated prosecutions and annual suppression rhetoric will stultify the law where the vice is widespread and the larger felons are often let loose.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon Suresh Balkrishna Nakhava V. State of Maharashtra, 1998 CRI. L.J. 284, wherein it has been held that :
"We are also convinced that this is a matter in which settlement in terms referred to above is all the more in the interest of the prosecutrix who comes from a poor family and would have something to fall back upon even if as a result of earlier happenings in her life she is not in a position to get married. The fact that the female child born to her has been given in adoption in a good family the name of which family has been kept secret as per the rule by the said institution has also weighed with us to some extent. The evidence on record also clearly establishes that Punam had attained the age of puberty about a year before the first act of sexual intercourse and even the said act was with her consent and therefore the question of upholding the conviction under Section 342 of IPC does not arise at all. However the facts clearly establish that Punam was under the age of 16 years at the relevant time and in spite of her consent the act would amount to an offence of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC and punishable under Section 376 of IPC. A reference to Section 376 of IPC shows that although the minimum sentence is prescribed, the Court is empowered to award lesser punishment for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. The reasons mentioned above, specially the fact that even the first act of sexual intercourse was with consent and that the female child born out of these acts has been given in adoption in good family and is settled and also taking into account that substantial amount is deposited by the accused which may be utilized for Punam's future maintenance even if she is not married, we are inclined to accept that this and other reasons stated in detail in earlier part of this judgment are sufficient and can be said to be adequate and special reasons for awarding lesser sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC."
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon Sevaka Perumal V. Sate of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1463.
Learned defence counsel for convict Raj Kumar submits that convict has been married last year only and his wife is pregnant. Convict is running a milk dairy having aged parents to maintain and he is the only bread earner of his family. It is SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 53/55 further contended that parents of convict remained unwell. He has already undergone four years and eight months custody in this case. He has faced trial of this case for the last about 10 years and has appeared regularly. Learned counsel submits that a lenient view be taken and convict be released on already undergone period.
Learned defence counsel further submits that convict has five sisters and he has to also look after the customs.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that after the rape, prosecutrix committed suicide and according to the suicide note, she became pregnant. Hence, maximum sentence as provided be imposed.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, family backgrounds alongwith age and antecedents are not adequate and special reasons to impose lesser sentence than minimum sentence provided. The judgments relied upon by learned defence counsels are not in respect of gang rape. Accordingly, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. More so, considering the fact that prosecutrix committed suicide after sometime.
Convict Brijesh has remained in custody for four years, nine months and 24 days in this case.
Convict Raj Kumar has remained in custody for four years, eight months and 13 days in this case.
Convict Joginder has remained in custody for five years and 12 days in this case.
Offence U/s. 376(2)(g) of IPC is punishable with RI for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment is imposed upon each convict for the offence U/s. 376(2)(g) of IPC with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each convict shall further undergo sentence of 2½ years simple imprisonment.
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 54/55Benefit of Section 428 of CrPC be given to each convict.
Fine not deposited.
Out of fine, compensation of Rs. One lac be given to the parents of the deceased, if no appeal is preferred within the prescribed period.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 3rd of August, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 53/1 & 66/1 55/55