Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 1 Of 11 ::- on 20 November, 2014
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014
State versus
Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku
Son of Mr. Amarjeet Singh
Resident of House No. 1753,
C Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 656/2014.
Police Station Punjabi Bagh
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet :09.10.2014
before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this :21.10.2014.
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on :20.11.2014.
Date of judgment :20.11.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State is on leave.
Mr. Ateeq Ahmed, Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
Accused has been produced from judicial custody.
Ms. Jasbir Kaur and Mr. Manjeet Singh, counsel for accused.
Prosecutrix has been produced from Nirmal Chhaya along
with SI Lalita.
Mr. Avinder Singh, counsel for the prosecutrix.
Ms. Poonam Sharma, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
IO/SI Babita is present.
************************************************************
Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014
FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 1 of 11 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there."............ Kurt Cobain *************************************************************
1. The charge sheet has been filed against the accused Mr.Ravin- der @ Rinku, by Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 09.08.2014 at about 11.30 pm in a room at Church Road Punjabi Bagh/open ground near church, Punjabi Bagh, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name mentioned in file but withheld to protect her identity).
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 09.10.2014 and after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 21.10.2014.
3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under section 376 of the IPC was framed against accused Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku vide order dated 21.10.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 2 of 11 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she came to Delhi from her native village about 5 years ago and was staying initially with her sister, Ms. Basanti, at Khizrabad, near New Friends Colony, Delhi, where her sister is running a placement agency. She was working in Model Town as a cook in a private house but as she did not like the job and had left the same and was returning to her sister's office in August,2014 at about 8.00 p.m but she did not remember the date. She further deposed that on the way, one policeman saw her and took her to Police Station Punjabi Bagh where she had signed on some documents. She did not know anything about the case and did not want to say anything.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her. She has been cross examined at length but nothing material for the prosecution has come forth.
8 In her cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 3 of 11 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
Prosecutor, the prosecutrix has admitted that her signatures are at point A on the statement (Ex. PW1/A) and that she was working as a house maid in house no. 186, Model Town, Gujranwala Park since April 2014 through Basanti Placement Service, Khijrabad, Delhi under Mr. Babu and that she did not like the work due to which she had taken her clothes and was returning to the placement services at about 8.30 p.m on 09.08.2014. She has voluntarily stated that she had not made any statement to the police. She has denied the suggestion that she had told the police that she had taken a bus from Model Town and was waiting at Punjabi Bagh Bus Stand when one Sardar boy aged about 28-30 years who was wearing a black coloured turban came on a black coloured motorcycle, inquired from her where she was going and offered her to leave her there on which she went with him and he took her to Punjabi Bagh Church wali road to a room in a isolated area where he raped her. She was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A portion C to C , where it is so recorded. She has further denied the suggestion that she had told the police in her statement that she had tried to save herself but the man had closed her mouth with his hand and had raped her and thereafter he had left her at Punjabi Bagh main road park where he asked the residents of the jhuggi basti to allow her to sleep there and he escaped from there. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A portion D to D, where it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she had told the police that she can identify the Sardar boy and someone had phoned the police at 100 no. and police had got her medical examination conducted as the said sardar boy had enticed her, taken her to a room and raped her and legal action should be taken against him. She has been confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A portion E to E, where it is Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 4 of 11 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she had made the
statement to the police as elaborated in (Ex. PW1/A). She has admitted the suggestion that she was taken by the police to the SGM hospital and her blood and other samples as well as clothes were taken by the doctor and MLC (Ex. PW1/B). She has denied the suggestion that she had told the doctor that on 09.08.2014 at 8.00 p.m when she was going to the agency she had met someone from Sikh community who had taken her on his bike and had raped her. She has been confronted with MLC (Ex. PW1/B) where it is so recorded from portions X1 to X2 and Y1 to Y2. She has admitted that she was produced by the police in Tis Hazari Courts where her statement under section 164 Cr.PC was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Ex. PW1/C) and she had made this statement at the instance of her well wishers, on their wrong advise. Infact, no one had committed any offence against her and she was not raped by anyone. She had seen the site plan (Ex. PW1/D) and voluntarily stated that she had not shown any place of incident to the police as no offence was committed against her. She had seen the arrest memo (Ex. PW1/E) and voluntarily stated that no one was arrested in her presence. She had seen the personal search memo (Ex. PW1/F) and voluntarily stated that no one was arrested in her presence. She was made to sign on some document in the PS and she was not told about the contents of the documents nor the same were read over to her. She has further stated that she had seen today through the screen, the man who is sitting in the Court room with a policeman but she had never seen him earlier and he has not committed any offence against her. She has stated that she had not made any statement under section 161 Cr.PC to the police and had only signed on some documents which were Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 5 of 11 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
not read over to her nor their contents were explained to her. The statement dated 10.08.2014 is (Mark A), the undated statement (Mark B) and the statement dated 26.09.2014 (Mark C) were not made by her. She had not told the police that the site plan was prepared at her instance and she pointed out the place of incident where the culprit had raped her and she had identified the man who had raped her and the IO and a constable had apprehended him in her presence and from there they were brought to the hospital. She was confronted with Mark A, where it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she had told the police that in November, 2013, she had come to Delhi with her paternal uncle (chacha) who had got her employed at 12/24, West Patel Nagar where she worked 4-5 months. Mr. Piyush was living there with his wife, brother, sister in law, their daughter and parents of Mr. Piyush and she had told the police in April 2014 when wife of Mr. Piyush had gone to her paternal home and family was sleeping and Mr. Piyush had come near her room for applying oil (tel laga do) and after that he came to her room and raped her and threatened to kill her and if she disclosed about the incident to anyone. When she told this incident to the sister in law of Mr. Piyush, she called the placement agency and sent her back from there and she was employed elsewhere. Out of fear she did not disclose this incident. She was confronted with the statement Mark B, where it is so recorded. She has further denied the suggestion that she had told the police on 26.09.2014 that she had joined in the investigation in the present case and that a Sardar boy was apprehended on 10.08.2014 on her pointing out, who during investigation has disclosed his name to be Ravinder @ Rinku R/o house no. 1753, C Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She was confronted with the statement Mark C, where it is so Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 6 of 11 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
recorded. She has denied the suggestion that the accused who is present in the Court today is the culprit who had raped her and voluntarily stated that she was not raped by anyone and the accused has not committed any offence against her. She had also deposed that she can identify her clothes which were taken by the doctor. (The substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the clothes of the prosecutrix be sent to FSL for examination. At this stage, the defence counsel, after taking instructions from the accused, have submitted that they are not disputing the fact that the doctor had taken the clothes of the prosecutix at the time of her medical examination and they admit the same and do not dispute the identification of the clothes). She has denied the suggestion that on 09.08.2014 at about 11.30 pm in a room at a Church road, Punjabi Bagh/open ground near Church, Punjabi Bagh, accused Ravinder @ Rinku had committed rape upon her and she was deliberately not identifying the accused nor deposing against him as she had been won over by him and had made her statements before the police as well as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate truthfully. She has further denied the suggestion that she had not made the statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the instance of some well wisher but had made the same voluntarily and had stated the true facts before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and also denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
9. In her cross examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has admitted that the accused has not committed any offence against her. She admitted that accused has not raped her on 09.08.2014 at about 11.30 pm in a room at a Church Road, Punjabi Bagh/open ground near Church, Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 7 of 11 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Punjabi Bagh and accused Mr.Ravinder @ Rinku is innocent.
10. The prosecutrix, PW1 has not deposed an iota of evidence of prosecutrix being attempted to be raped by accused Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku She has not even mentioned the word "rape" by accused Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku in her examination in chief nor has deposed anything incriminating against him. In fact, she has not identified the accused nor attributed any criminal role to him.
11. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
13. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 8 of 11 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witness, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty of raping the prosecutrix. There is no material on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was ever raped by accused Mr.Ravinder @ Rinku. No case is made out against the accused Mr.Ravinder @ Rinku as there is no incriminating evidence against him. In fact, the prosecutrix has deposed that she had never seen accused Mr.Ravinder @ Rinku, nor has identified the accused nor deposed that he has committed any offence against her.
17. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 9 of 11 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that she had not seen the accused prior to her evidence and that the accused has not committed any offence against her. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
18. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Mr.Ravinder @ Rinku is guilty of the charged offences under section 376 IPC. There is no material on record to show that on 09.08.2014 at about 11.30 pm in a room at Church Road Punjabi Bagh/open ground near church, Punjabi Bagh, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name men- tioned in file but withheld to protect her identity).
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix as well as the eye witnesses makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. In fact, the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused has not committed any offence against her.
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku due to complete lack of evidence for the offence under section 376 IPC .
21. Consequently, the accused, Mr. Ravinder @ Rinku is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 376IPC . Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 10 of 11 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
22. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
23. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
24. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence or where the prosecutrix is hostile, as in the present case, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
25.One copy of the judgment be given to the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
26.After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 20th day of November, 2014. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************* Session Case Number :117 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0492782014 FIR No.656/2014, Police Station Punjabi Bagh Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Ravinder @ Rinku -:: Page 11 of 11 ::-