Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Vikash Tyagi on 11 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL FAST
TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 61/14
Unique Case ID No.02405R0193932014
State Vs. 1. Vikash Tyagi
S/o late Sh. Pradeep Tyagi
R/o 4/2833, Gali No.2,
Bihari Colony, Shahdara,
New Delhi.
2. Manish Yadav
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav,
R/o 618/D-1/A-1, Gali Ravidass,
Shahdara, New Delhi.
Date of Institution :25.07.2014.
FIR No.297/14 dated 15.5.2014.
U/s. 376D/506/323/34 IPC
P.S. Dwarka South.
Date of reserving judgment/Order :11.11.2014.
Date of pronouncement :11.11.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused, above named, have been chargesheeted by the Prosecution for the offences u/s 376D/506/323/34 IPC.
SC No.61/14 1 of 12
2. The prosecution's case is that the prosecutrix 'M' (real name has been withheld in order to protect her identity) received a call from accused Vikas on 15.5.2014 at about 3 pm and accordingly reached the fixed place where she met both the accused. They made the prosecutrix to sit in their Alto car and took her to their factory in Vishwas Nagar for having some talks. On reaching there, she was offered some cold drink which was having some bitterness in taste and on her questioning, they told her that they have mixed vodka in the same. She consumed the same and felt intoxicated and thereafter both the accused started teasing her and then committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent. When she raised alarm, both the accused started beating her and put her in their car. She dialled telephone No.181 from inside the car upon which they again beat her. Then they pushed her out of the car in Sec. 9, Dwarka and also threw her bag. They also threatened her that she cannot cause any harm to them as they have committed three or four murders.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that at 1.55 am, during the night on 15.5.2014 information was received in Police Station, Dwarka South from 181 to the effect that some boys have molested a lady near Service Lane in Sec.7, Dwarka and have thrown her in the service lane and she is injured. The information was recorded as DD No.5A and was entrusted to W SI Shiksha for suitable action. Accordingly, SI Shiksha alongwith SI Anil Kumar, lady Constable Babita and Constable Chand reached the spot where they SC No.61/14 2 of 12 found the prosecutrix in injured condition. They took her to DDU Hospital where she was examined and treated. Exhibits given by the doctor in sealed condition were seized by SI Shiksha. The prosecutrix then handed over the written complaint to SI Shiksha on the basis of which, she prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. On the same day i.e. 15.5.2014, prosecutrix was produced before the concerned Magistrate who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Both the accused were arrested and their medical examination was got conducted in DDU Hospital. Exhibits of the case were deposited in the Malkhana.
4. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. The charge for having committed the offences punishable u/s 328/34 IPC, u/s 376D IPC, u/s 323/34 IPC & u/s 506 IPC was framed against both the accused on 13.10.2014. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them and therefore, trial was commenced.
6. The prosecutrix was the star witness for the prosecution. She has been examined today as PW-2. The relevant portion of her deposition is reproduced herein below:-
SC No.61/14 3 of 12 "I know accused Vikas present in court today. I got introduced to him through one of his cousins, whose name I do not recollect at present and whom I knew already. I had become his friend. I do not remember the date and month of the incident. However, it happened two or three months before today. On that day, I had gone to Vishwas Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, to meet Vikas. We met each other at about 7 p.m. in front of a hospital in Vishwas Nagar. I do not recollect the name of the hospital. Vikas had come in his white colour Maruti Alto car. His friend i.e. accused Manish was also with him. We roamed about in his car for some time. Thereafter Vikas suggested that we should go to his factory in Vishwas Nagar and spend time there as it is not proper to roam about in the car in the darkness. He took us to his factory in Vishwas Nagar. Accused Manish had already a bottle of Bicardi liquor with him. Upon reaching the factory of Vikas, they started taking liquor. They offered liquor to me also in a glass and upon their insistence, I took two or three sips from the glass. Thereafter I told them that as it is very late, I should leave. Accordingly we boarded the car of Vikas again and were coming towards my residence at Dwarka. On the way, accused Manish received a call from somebody and he asked me to talk to the person, who had called. I told him why I should talk to him when I do not know the caller. Upon this, they started abusing me. Vikas also abused me saying that why I am not SC No.61/14 4 of 12 talking to that caller as he is like a brother to him. Meanwhile we reached Dwarka. Vikas stopped the car in front of Malaria Institute near the traffic light, Sector-9, Dwarka. I got down from the car but a quarrel took place between myself and Vikas and he started beating me. He beat me severely for the reason that I had refused to talk to the aforesaid caller. I had even said 'Sorry' to him. Vikas then pushed onto the ground, as a result of which I suffered injury on my head. Thereafter both Vikas and Manish fled in the car. Security guards from nearby societies came near me. Upon seeing my condition, a person made a call to the police. Police reached the spot. They took me to P.S. Sector-9, Dwarka. I submitted a complaint to the SHO in my handwriting, which is Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point A. From the police station, I was taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination. The doctor who examined me, took into possession my T-shirt, jeans and undergarments, which I was wearing. From the hospital, I was brought back to the police station, wherefrom I returned home. I was asked to come to the police station the next day also.
The next day I again reached the police station at about 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. From the police station I was brought to Dwarka Court, where I was produced before a Ld. M.M., who recorded my statement."
7. She proved her statement recorded by the ld. MM u/s 164 SC No.61/14 5 of 12 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW2/B. She also deposed that both the accused were arrested in her presence from their factory in Vishwas Nagar on the next day. In reply to the court question, after the contents of her complaint Ex. PW2/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW2/B were read over to her, she deposed that she had mentioned about the intoxication and sexual assault in the said complaint and statement to ld. M.M. falsely as she was not in her complete senses at that time. She could not say how it came to her mind that she should mention about the intoxication and forcible sexual intercourse in her complaint and in her statement to ld. MM. She further deposed that she realised after one or two days of submission of the complaint Ex. PW2/A to police and making of statement Ex. PW2/B to the ld. MM that she has levelled false allegations of intoxication and rape against the two accused but did not visit the police station or the court to say that she has made false accusations against the accused.
8. The prosecutrix was declared hostile by ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by ld. APP, she denied all the suggestions put to her. She denied the suggestion that she had submitted the complaint Ex.PW2/A in her complete senses and that its contents are true and correct. She also denied that she had given a true and correct statement to the Ld. M.M. She denied the suggestion that she was unable to explain why did she level false allegations against the accused in her complaint and in her statement to the Ld. M.M. for the reason that the allegations are not false and SC No.61/14 6 of 12 she was in fact drugged, molested and raped by the accused. She also denied the suggestion that accused Manish and accused Vikas had threatened to kill her and also had declared that she cannot cause any harm to them as they have already committed four murders. She also denied the suggestion that the accused had raped her in the moving car also. She also denied that she had mentioned true and correct facts in her complaint Ex.PW2/A and in her statement to the Ld. M.M. Ex.PW2/B and that she deposed falsely in favour of the accused as she has been been won over by them.
9. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, she was shown a copy of her letter dated 16.5.2014 addressed to SHO PS Dwarka South mentioning that she has levelled false allegations of intoxication and rape against the accused as she wanted to teach them a lesson for the reason that they have refused to drop her at her residence when she was heavily drunk and pushed her out of their house in that condition. She admitted that she had sent this letter to the SHO and proved the same as Ex. PW1/D1. She also admitted her presence in the court of ld. ASJ on 30.5.14 during the hearing of bail application of accused and had told the ld. ASJ that she had written the aforesaid letter dated 16.5.2014 to the SHO voluntarily and without any threat, coercion or pressure from the accused. She also admitted that she had told the ld. ASJ that she was never raped or assaulted by the accused and the accused are innocent. She could not say how she received injuries on her head SC No.61/14 7 of 12 and face.
10. From the aforesaid deposition of the prosecutrix it is abundantly clear that she had made a false complaint of intoxication, gang rape and physical assault against the two accused as she wanted to teach them a lesson for the reason that they had refused to drop her at her residence when she was heavily drunk. It is also manifest from her testimony that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused to their factory at Vishwas Nagar and consumed liquor with them willingly. It appears that she had got drunk and requested the accused to drop her at her residence but they refused to do so and threw her out of the car at Sec.9, Dwarka, which enraged her and she lodged a false complaint against them..
11. It is thus evident that the prosecutrix has deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case. Nothing inculpatory against accused has come in her testimony. There is nothing in her testimony to suggest that the accused had drugged her, gang raped her or physically assaulted her. She has clearly stated in her cross examination that she cannot say how she received injuries on her head and face. It may be that since she was heavily drunk, she could not walk properly and fell on the road as a consequence of which she suffered injuries on her head and face. It cannot be said with certainly that the injuries sustained by her were on account of beatings given to her by the accused.
SC No.61/14 8 of 12
12. Since the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution and there being no other witness to the incident, It was found futile to carry on trial of the case any further. For the same reason, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. The Ld. APP also has fairly conceded that nothing inculpatory has come in evidence against any of the accused.
13. Resultantly, both the accused are liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted as such.
14. However, I feel it pertinent to note here that the present case is a classic example of misuse of provisions of rape. The prosecutrix herein has candidly admitted that she was neither drugged nor gang raped by the accused and she made false accusation against them only in order to teach them a lesson for the reason that they had refused to drop her at her residence. She was unable to say how it came to her mind that she should mention about the intoxication and sexual assault in her complaint and in her statement to the ld. Magistrate. It cannot be said that the prosecutrix had been won over by the accused before she could be called upon to testify before this court as it is manifest from the record and also admitted by her that she had written a letter dated 16.5.2014 just one day after the incident to the SHO PS Dwarka South saying that she has levelled false allegations of intoxication and rape against the accused. On that day, the accused were in custody and they were SC No.61/14 9 of 12 granted bail on the basis of the contents of that letter only when it was produced by their counsel before the ld. ASJ during hearing of bail application on 30.5.2014, on which date, the prosecutrix was also present before the court and told the ld. ASJ that she has written the said letter voluntarily without any threat, coercion or pressure from the side of the accused. She had also told the ld. ASJ that she was neither raped nor assaulted by the accused and they are innocent.
15. It can't be lost sight of that the false accusation of rape causes intense miseries and humiliation to the accused. The rape accused are looked down upon in the society. Rape being the most hated crime in society, men accused of this heinous offence are ostracized from the society. Their plight continues even after their acquittal from the court as nobody takes note of the acquittal. They are treated as rape convicts even during the trial of the case. It is very difficult, nay impossible, to restore the lost honour and dignity of a rape accused after his acquittal from the court. They are never compensated for the emotional distress, humiliation and pecuniary damage suffered by them.
16. The instances where false accusation of rape are levelled against the innocent people, though not rampant but are not uncommon or at least unknown. I think that it is high time that court should shoulder some kind of responsibility and duty towards the persons, who are made to face the trial for false rape charges. Time SC No.61/14 10 of 12 has come to curb such tendency by directing the prosecution and punishment of the women making patently false allegation of rape, to settle personal scores. These kind of false rape cases not only tend to trivialize the offence of rape itself but also play havoc with the crime statistics and consume the precious time of Police as well as Courts.
17. Being conscious of misuse of provisions of rape and the impact, it can have on the accused, following observations were made by the Supreme Court in Rajoo & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 858 :-
".....It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication...... there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
18. In the instant case, the two accused have been made to suffer incarceration in jail for about 15 days and also to face trial on the patently false accusation of intoxication and rape by the prosecutrix. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case where a SC No.61/14 11 of 12 complaint should be filed against the prosecutrix for setting of police machinery in motion on the basis of a false information, which is an offence envisaged u/s 182 IPC. Therefore, the Reader of the Court is hereby directed to submit a proper complaint in this regard to the ld. CMM, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 11.11.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.61/14 12 of 12