Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar -:: Page 1 Of 80 ::- on 17 July, 2013
-:: 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 : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
State
Versus
Mr.Raj Kumar
Son of Mr.Om Prakash,
Resident of EE-2619, Jhangir Puri, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 151/10
Police Station Uttam Nagar,
Under sections 193, 376, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 28.01.2011.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 21.02.2011.
in the Sessions Court
Date of transfer of the file to this Court : 19.01.2013.
ASJ (SFTC)-01, West, THC, Delhi.
Arguments concluded on : 17.07.2013.
Date of judgment : 17.07.2013.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
is on leave.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State.
Accused on bail with counsel, Mr.Bhanu Partap Singh.
Ms.Shubra Mehnidiratta, counsel for the Delhi Commission for
Women.
Prosecutrix in person with counsel Mr. P.K.Garg.
**************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar,
Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 1 of 80 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
"To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater intuition, is she not more self- sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her, man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart than woman?"----Mahatma Gandhi.
1. Rape is a dark reality in Indian society like in any other nation. This abnormal conduct is rooted in physical force as well as familiar and other power which the abuser uses to pressure his victim. Nor is abuse by known and unknown persons confined to a single political ideology or to one economic system. It transcends barriers of age, class, language, caste, community, sex and even family. The only commonality is power which triggers and feeds rape. Disbelief, denial and cover-up to "preserve the family reputation" are often then placed above the interests of the victim and her abuse. Rape is an abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the victim is known to the culprit, as in the present case, who is allegedly subjected to unwanted physical contact by a perverted male adult on the pretext of marriage (who is already married) and whose trust is betrayed by a man in whom she reposes maximum trust so much so as to surrender herself before him into a physical relationship and then he walks out of her life.
2. "Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 2 of 80 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because of lately crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasize that the courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation." The Supreme Court has made the above observations in the judgment reported as State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, JT 1996 (10) SC 550.
PROSECUTION CASE
3. Mr.Raj Kumar, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi for the offence under sections 193/376/420/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, he fraudulently or dishonestly married with the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) representing himself to be bachelor as he was already married person and induced the prosecutrix for her marriage with him and he had furnished false document i.e. affidavit showing himself to be a bachelor and for the purposes of inducing the prosecutrix to get married with him. He had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the consent of the prosecutrix to such act was obtained under the impression of her being legally wedded Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 3 of 80 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
wife and so it was not a free consent as it is obtained under a fraud. He had also threatened the prosecutrix with threat to her life if she made a complaint to the police.
4. Initially the complainant/ prosecutrix had filed a complaint before the police on which action was not taken and then she filed a complaint case before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which was assigned to the Court of Ms.Shelly Arora, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and the present FIR was registered on the directions of the Court and the matter was investigated by the police and the chargesheet was filed.
CHARGE SHEET AND COMMITTAL
5. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 28.01.2011 and after its committal, the case was assigned to the Court of the learned predecessor vide order dated 21.02.2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. Further, the case has been transferred and assigned to this Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) -01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 19.01.2013 vide order bearing number 20/372-512/F-3(4)/ASJ/01/2013, dated-04.01.2013 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.
CHARGE
6. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 420, 468, 376 and 506 of the IPC was framed against the accused by the learned predecessor vide order dated 29.07.2011 to which he pleaded not guilty and Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 4 of 80 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix as PW1; HC Krishan Kumar, the Duty Officer who had recorded the formal FIR of the case, as PW2; Dr.Y.N.Maurya, who had medically examined the accused, as PW3; HC Anil Kumar, MHCM, as PW4; Pandit Deepak Shastri, who had performed the marriage of the prosecutrix and the accused, as PW5; Mr.Sunil Kumar, a witness of the marriage, as PW6; Ms. Madhu, wife of the accused, as PW7; Mr. Sohan Lal, a public witness, as PW8; Mr.Sunil Dutt, Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Aditi Garg, learned Metropolitan Magistrate as PW9; ASI Sushma, the Investigation Officer of the present case, as PW10; Ct.Parveen who had taken the accused to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for medical examination as PW11; HC Narender Kumar, the witness of investigation as PW12; and Ms. Deepa Verma, FSL Expert, who had given a FSL report, as PW13.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C.
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., recorded on 30.04.2013, the accused has controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against him submitting that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He was never married with the prosecutrix. He never had any relations with her at any point of time. He drinks liquor and due its influence he is blackmailed by the prosecutrix and she is trying to extort money from him.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 5 of 80 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
10. The Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence under sections 420, 468, 376 and 506 of the IPC submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable.
11. The counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has requested for his acquittal submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on the record. The prosecutrix was fully aware that the accused is an already married man when she made him consume liquor and made him sign on some documents whereby he was supposedly married to her. In fact, he is not married to the prosecutrix. There is a delay in lodging of the FIR which otherwise is also without the details.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION, ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS
12. As per the allegations of the prosecution, accused Mr.Raj Kumar on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar fraudulently or dishonestly married with the prosecutrix (PW1) representing himself to be a bachelor as he was already married person and induced the prosecutrix for her marriage with him; he had furnished false document i.e. affidavit showing himself to be a bachelor and for the purposes of inducing the prosecutrix to Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 6 of 80 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
get married with him; he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the consent of the prosecutrix to such act was obtained under the impression of her being legally wedded wife and so it was not a free consent as it is a obtained under a fraud; and he had also threatened the prosecutrix with threat to her life if she made a complaint to the police.
13. The accused induced the prosecutrix to marry him on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar and marriage certificate (Ex-PW1/A) was issued. He has also filed his affidavit stating that he is a bachelor (Ex.PW1/C) and filled a form (Ex-PW5/B). He lived with the prosecutrix after the marriage at Mangol Puri for about a month and then shifted to Uttam Nagar where he stayed for three months with the prosecutrix and had physical relations with her during this period. At that time, he was working in Delhi Jal Board at Ashok Vihar and left the prosecutrix stating that he had to submit some papers for his job and did not return for about two months. One day in the evening, he returned and after few months his wife Ms. Madhu (PW7) and his brother also came there and his wife started quarreling with the prosecutrix stating that she is his legally wedded wife and she snatched some money and gold ring from the prosecutrix. On the next day, he left the prosecutrix and did not return. The prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the CAW Cell, Nanak Pura where he appeared and fought with the prosecutrix and ultimately the officials of CAW Cell directed her to approach the Court. The prosecutrix did not know before marrying him that he was already married and had two children. The prosecutrix filed a complaint case (Ex-PW1/B) before the Ld.MM and had filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She had also lodged the complaint (Ex-PW1/D) with the Police Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 7 of 80 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
Commissioner on 20.01.2009 for taking action against the accused and his wife. On the orders of the Ld.MM in the complaint case filed by the prosecutrix, the FIR (Ex-PW2/A) was registered by Duty Officer HC Krishan Kumar (PW2) and the investigation was marked to IO SI Sushma. On 08.05.2010, ASI Sushma and HC Narender arrested him from his residence at EE-2619, Jahangir Puri vide arrest memo (Ex-PW10/A) and the personal search was taken vide personal search memo (Ex-PW10/B). On 08.05.2010, he was taken by Ct.Praveen (PW11) for his medical examination at DDU hospital, where he was medically examined by Dr.Y. M. Maurya (PW3) vide MLC (Ex. PW3/A) and one sealed pulanda and one sample seal were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW10/C). The prosecutrix produced marriage certificate, photocopy of documents regarding marriage and 5 photographs (Ex-P1 to Ex-P5) which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex-PW6/A). On 05.08.2010, the IO collected the documents i.e. marriage certificate (Ex- PW1/A) and affidavit of accused dated 22.07.2008 (Ex-PW1/C) regarding marriage of the prosecutrix from Arya Samaj Road vide seizure memo (Ex- PW5/A). On 05.12.2010, the accused appeared with his wife in the PS and his wife produced a copy of the marriage card (Mark A), copy of ration card, copy of election I card of his wife (Mark E), copy of election I card of accused (Mark F) and petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the prosecutrix against the accused (Mark G) which were seized vide seizre memo (Ex-PW10/D). On 08.05.2010, the IO obtained his specimen signatures on 5 sheets (Ex-PW10/E collectively) and the same were examined by Ms. Deepa Verma (PW13) vide FSL report (Ex-PW13/A) which was filed in the Court with the application of the IO (Ex-PW10/F). On 08.05.2010, the IO had deposited one sealed pullanda and one sample seal in Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 8 of 80 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
the Malkhana with HC Anil Kumar MHCM (PW4) vide entry No. 4411 in register No.19 (Ex-PW4/A). Pandit Deepak Shastri (PW5) had performed the marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix and had handed over the affidavit of the accused (Ex-PW1/C) to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex-PW5/A) and had issued the marriage certificate (Ex-PW1/A). The register regarding marriages performed in temple from 2008 to 2010 had been deposited in PS Timar Pur on the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FIR no. 256/10 PS Timar Pur vide seizure memo (Mark A). The entry register (Ex-PW5/B) regarding marriage of both parties duly signed by them and also therein thumb impression of both parties were produced in evidence. On 05.12.2010, the prosecutrix in the presence of Mr.Sunil Kumar (PW6) had handed over to the IO the photographs of marriage with the accused (Ex- PW6/B1 to B5) and marriage certificate (Ex-PW1/A) which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex-PW6/A).
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
14. It is necessary to elaborate the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution in brief.
The Most Material Witness-Prosecutrix
15. PW1, the prosecutrix, has deposed that earlier she was married to Mr.Madan Lal and he died in the year 2000. She has three children from the wedlock and they were living separately after their marriages and she was living alone. In the year 2006, accused Raj Kumar met her in a religious procession and he started visiting her at her house. Accused used to tell her that he was unmarried and that he wanted to marry her and that he wanted to Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 9 of 80 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
be her support. Accused kept on visiting her house for about one year and she agreed to marry him. At that time she was living in a rented house at Uttam Nagar and she shifted to Mangolpuri and after about one month of shifting in Mangolpuri, accused married her on 22.07.2008 in Arya Samaj Mandir and a marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) was issued to them which has her photograph at point A and photograph of accused at point B. The marriage was solemnized in the presence of two witnesses namely Mr. Sunil Kumar, who is her relative and Ms. Kusum Lata who also signed the marriage certificate. Accused had furnished some papers at the time of their marriage but she did not see those papers. She lived with the accused in the rented house at Mangolpuri for about one month. Accused lived with her as her husband in that house and they had sexual relationship also during that period. After about one month, she and accused shifted to Uttam Nagar and there also we lived for about three months and had sexual relationship as husband and wife. After three months of living with her in rented house of Uttam Nagar, accused left her by saying that he was going to take steps to submit some papers for his job. At that time, the accused was working in Delhi Jal Board at Ashok Vihar Delhi. Accused did not return home for about two months thereafter. One day in the evening, the accused returned to her house and after few minutes his wife and her brother also followed him to her house. The wife of accused started quarrelling with her that she was his legally wedded wife. At that time, the accused was having some money and gold ring with her. Wife of accused snatched that money and ring and went away. On the next day, the accused left her and accused has not returned to her since then. She lodged a complaint before CAW Cell Nanakpura and accused was called there and in women cell also, the wife of accused quarreled with her and ultimately Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 10 of 80 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
officials of CAW Cell directed her to move to the Court for her grievances. She had no knowledge before marrying the accused that accused was already married and also had two children. If she had known that the accused was already married, she would not married with him. Accused has played a fraud upon her and developed sexual relationship with her on the basis of that fraud. She lodged complaint (Ex.PW1/B) before learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
16. She has been cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor wherein she has admitted to be correct that the accused has given an affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) that he was bachelor as on 22.07.2008. She has admitted that she had lodged a petition also in Court under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. She has admitted that in the petition accused had replied that she was not legally wedded wife. She has admitted that the accused and his wife used to threaten her. She has admitted that she has lodged the complaint (Ex.PW1/D) to police commissioner on 20.01.2009 to take action against accused and his wife.
17. She has been cross examined at length on behalf of the accused.
Public Witnesses
18. PW5, Pandit Deepak Shastri, had deposed that he had performed various marriage as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. He had brought the summoned record pertaining to the marriage of Raj Kumar son of Mr. Om Parkash with the prosecutrix (name withheld) daughter of Mr. Jagdish Prasad. As per the record, one advocate namely Ms. Kusum Lata had brought them and Raj Kumar had given an affidavit that she was widow and she had Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 11 of 80 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
annexed death certificate of her husband along with the affidavit. After performing the marriage as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, he had issued a certificate of marriage vide registration number 1421/08.
19. On 05.08.2010 police official of PS Uttam Nagar had come to her and had enquired about the marriage of the prosecutrix with Raj Kumar. At that time, he had handed over original affidavit of Raj Kumar to the police officials. He had seen the original affidavit of Raj Kumar on record (Ex.PW1/C) which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A). He had also seen the original marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) placed on record. The certificate has been witnesses by Ms.Kusum Lata, Advocate and Mr.Sunil Kumar and they were also present at the time of performing various ceremonies of marriage. A register is maintained regarding the marriages performed by the Mandir. The registers of marriages performed by the Mandir from 2008 to 2010 have been deposited in PS Timar Pur on the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FIR No.256/2010 of PS Timar Pur vide seizure memo (Mark X). At this stage, HC Prem Chand, MHCM PS Timarpur produced the marriage register of the year 2008. As per the reference no. 1421/2008 Mr. Raj Kumar son of Mr. Omparkash R/o EE-2619, Jahangir Puri, Delhi performed marriage with the prosecutrix daughter of Mr. Jagdish Prasad, R/o B-261, New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. There were two attesting witnesses of the said marriage namely Mr. Sunil Kumar and Ms. Kusum Lata. Entry register (Ex.PW5/B) regarding the marriage of both the parties duly signed by them and also thumb impression of both the parties on the said register.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 12 of 80 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
20. In his cross examination, PW5 has deposed that they used to perform marriages after seeing the identity proof of the persons whose marriage is to be performed. The ID proof of witnesses is also seen and copies of the aforesaid documents was also obtained before performing marriage and kept on record. Whenever a case is registered, they handed over a set of documents received from the parties to the police. Accused Raj Kumar submitted his ID of Delhi Jal Board along with affidavit at the time of his marriage whereas the prosecutrix had submitted a copy of election card. The copy of ID of witness Ms. Kusum Lata, advocate Delhi Bar Association was also taken at the time of marriage. He had not given any other document to the IO as mentioned by him in his statement. He has admitted regarding registration Arya Samaj Seva Samiti, same has not been mentioned on the printed format (Ex.PW5/B). Seal impression regarding the same has been affixed. He has admitted that it has not mentioned on Ex.PW5/B that their Samiti is registered for performing marriage of the parties. He had signed on Ex.PW5/B when it was prepared however today white fluid has been put on his signature. He has admitted that his signature is very short about 1 inch long and the signature on which the fluid has been put is approximately 2.5 inches long. He has admitted that the photographs (Ex.P1 to P5) do not show any phera ceremony or sindoor ceremony. The affidavits of the parties were not prepared in his presence. He has denied that he did not perform any marriage of accused Raj Kumar with the proseuctrix. He has denied that EX.PW5/B is a fake document. He has denied that he along with prosecutrix and witnesses prepared a forged documents regarding marriage of accused Raj Kumar with the prosecutrix. He has denied that he did not hand over the forged documents to the IO at the time of investigation as he was not having Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 13 of 80 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
those documents. Whatever IO asked him to hand over, he handed over those documents. He has denied that Ex.PW5/B does not bear his signature. He has denied that he is deposing falsely in connivance with the prosecutrix.
21. PW6, Mr. Sunil Kumar, had deposed that he is the son in law of the elder sister of the prosecutrix. Daughter of elder sister of the prosecutrix namely Ms. Madhu was married to him about 18 years ago. He knows accused Raj Kumar since he attended the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused Raj Kumar at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi on 22.07.2008. At the time of marriage, accused Raj Kumar had told him that he was unmarried. At that time, the prosecutrix was a widow and her husband Mr.Madan Lal had died a long time back. He had signed marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A). Later on, they came to know that this marriage was performed on misrepresentation made by accused Raj Kumar that he was unmarried and that in fact accused Raj Kumar was already married to one Ms. Madhu. On 05.12.2010, the prosecutrix had handed over photographs of her marriage with accused Raj Kumar in his presence along with the original certificate of marriage which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW6/A). The photographs (Ex.PW6/B1 to B5) and the marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) were handed over to the IO. Had the prosecutrix known that the accused was already married, she would not have married him. Accused has cheated upon the prosecutrix by misrepresenting himself to be unmarried. He was not produced by the prosecution for his cross examination on behalf of the accused as he expired and therefore his evidence cannot be read nor considered.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 14 of 80 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
22. PW7, Ms. Madhu, had deposed that accused Raj Kumar is her husband. She was married to him about 24 years ago and she has two children from this wedlock who are aged about 23 years and 21 years. After marriage, they used to reside at Ranjit Nagar Near Shadipur Depot and the prosecutrix also used to reside in their neighbourhood there. The prosecutrix used to pass through their house for going to main road. The prosecutrix and her husband were on visiting term with them. The prosecutrix had even attended her marriage. Her husband Mr. Raj Kumar had not married with the prosecutrix.
23. She has been cross examined by prosecution and she has denied that the prosecutrix had stopped residing in the neighbourhood of accused Raj Kumar before the marriage of accused Raj Kumar with her. She did not know if her husband Raj Kumar married the prosecutrix on 22.07.2008 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies in Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi by misrepresenting him to be unmarried. She has denied that accused resided with the prosecutrix as her husband after performing the said marriage and she also denied that she is deposing falsely in the Court in order to save accused who is her husband.
24. PW8, Mr. Sohan Lal, had deposed that the house no. C-1107, Hastsaal Road, Uttam Nagar is owned by his father, Mr. Baradi Lal. The prosecutrix of the present case belongs to their community and she took one room on third floor on rent from his father for a sum of Rs.1500/-. At the time of giving the room, the prosecutrix was alone and thereafter accused namely Mr.Raj Kumar started living with her. Both of them stayed in the rented room for about 3 months. He was not aware that the prosecutrix was Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 15 of 80 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
married with accused Raj Kumar. He did not meet police in connected with this case nor he had made any statement to the police.
25. He has been cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor and denied that statement (Mark PW8/A) was recorded by the police at his instance. He has denied that he had stated the police that accused Raj Kumar and the prosecutrix were married. (He was confronted with statement portion A to A of statement Mark PW8/A, where it has been so recorded). He has admitted that the prosecutrix had taken room on rent on 23.07.2008.
26. In cross examination, PW8 has deposed that his father is still alive. No rent agreement was prepared before letting out the premises. They had not issued any rent receipt to the prosecutrix regarding renting out of the premises. He could not produce any documentary proof to show that his father had let out a room to the prosecutrix. He has denied that his father never let out any room to the prosecutrix nor accused Raj Kumar remained with her in that room. He has denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of prosecutrix as she belongs to his community.
Medical Witness
27. PW3, Dr.Y.N.Maurya, Medical Officer, had medically examined the accused Mr.Raj Kumar and has proved the MLC of the accused (Ex.PW3/A).
Forensic Witness
28. PW13, Dr. Deepa Verma, Asstt Director (Documents), FSL, had Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 16 of 80 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
examined the documents in connection with case FIR No.159/2010 and prepared the report (Ex.PW13/A).
Official Witness
29. PW9, Mr. Sunil Dutt, Ahlmad had deposed that while he was posted as Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Shelly Arora, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on 24.08.2009 a complaint case titled as the prosecutrix (name withheld) versus Raj Kumar had been assigned to the Court of Ms. Shelly Arora, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06, West and the CC No.401/04/09 was given to the file. The Court was later succeeded by Ms. Harleen Singh, Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. He had seen the complaint made by the prosecutrix against Mr.Raj Kumar, accused/respondent already exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. The complaint case file was also committed to Session Court on 28.02.2011 where the main case was pending. He has also seen the order of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate regarding committal proceeding dated 28.02.2011 on the file today. Thereafter, the complaint case was clubbed with the main case.
Police Witnesses-Formal
30. PW2, HC Krishan Kumar, duty officer who had recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PW2/A) in the present case. After registration of the FIR, the investigation of the case was handed over to WASI Sushma.
31. PW4, HC Anil Kumar, is the MHCM. He has proved the relevant entries in register number 19 and 21 (Ex.PW4/A) pertaining to the FIR No. 151/2010, PS Uttam Nagar regarding the deposit of the samples pertaining to Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 17 of 80 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
the accused.
32. PW11, Ct.Parveen has deposed that on 08.05.2010, he investigated the present case with ASI Sushma. He accompanied her to DDU hospital for medical examination of accused Raj Kumar. Accused was medically examined from DDU hospital. Doctor handed over a sealed pullanda containing blood sample of accused and one sample seal which he handed over to the IO who seized the same through seizure memo through seizure memo (Ex-PW10/D).
Police Witnesses-Material
33. PW10, ASI Sushma, is the Investigation Officer of the case and has deposed that on 07.05.2010 while she was posted as ASI at PS Uttam Nagar, one complaint was received in the PS vide orders of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for registration of case. The said complaint was put up before SHO, who made endorsement upon the same for registration of the FIR and investigation was marked to her of the said complaint. She received the copy of complaint as well as copy of FIR from duty officer. On 08.05.2010, she along with HC Narender went in search of accused Raj Kumar at his residence at EE-2619, Jahangir Puri. Accused met the police team at his house and he was interrogated. After interrogation accused was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW10/A) and his personal search was taken vide personal search memo (Ex.PW10/B). After his arrest, accused was brought to PS. She deputed Ct. Pradeep for medical examination of accused. She called complainant through HC Narender in the PS. Prosecutrix/complainant reached PS along with her elder sister and some of relatives. She asked the prosecutrix Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 18 of 80 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
to produce her marriage certificate and photocopy of documents regarding marriage. She had given 5 photographs (Ex.P1 to P5) to her, which were seized through seizure memo (Ex.PW6/A). She has also seen the photocopy of marriage documents i.e. Marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar and affidavit of prosecutrix as well as of accused Raj Kumar on judicial file (Mark A, B and C). In the meanwhile, Ct. Pradeep brought accused after his medical examination to PS and he handed over one sealed pulenda having blood sample of accused as well as one sample seal which she seized through seizure memo (Ex.PW10/C). She also asked to complainant to get her medical examination but she refused. She also recorded the statement of complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C in the PS. She was allowed to go thereafter. Thereafter, the accused was produced before Ld. Duty MM, Tis Hazari and he was remanded to JC but could not be sent to Tihar Jail as it was about 8.00 pm and therefore was kept in the lock up of PS Uttam Nagar for the night. On the next day, he was sent to JC. On 05.08.2010, she collected documents regarding marriage of prosecutrix from Arya Samaj Mandir through seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A). She has seen the marriage certificate and affidavit of accused dated 22.07.2008 in the judicial file (Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/C respectively). She recorded statements of witnesses. On 05.12.2010, the accused was called to PS, he appeared along with his wife Ms. Madhu. The wife of accused had produced the copy of marriage card as well as photocopy of ration card and copy of petition under section 9, HMA, which she seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW10/D). The photocopy of marriage card of accused Raj Kumar with Ms. Madhu is Mark D. The copies of election I-card of Ms. Madhu as well as accused Raj Kumar are Mark E and F. The photocopy of petition under section 9, HMA filed by Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 19 of 80 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
the prosecutrix against accused is Mark G(which runs into 05 pages). On 08.05.2010, she obtained specimen signatures of accused on 05 sheets collectively exhibited as Ex.PW10/E and sent the same for comparison along with affidavit of accused regarding his marriage with prosecutrix to FSL Rohini. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, file was put up before SHO who submitted the challan before the Court. During trial, she filed the FSL report, now marked as Mark H, in the Court through her application (Ex.PW10/F). She has been cross examined at length.
34. PW12, HC Narender Kumar had deposed that on 08.05.2010, he joined investigation of the present case with ASI Sushma. The police team went to the house of accused in area of PS Jahangir Puri. The house No. of accused was EE-2619 Jahangir Puri. Accused was found standing outside the house. He was interrogated by the IO and arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex-PW10/A) and his personal search memo (Ex-PW10/B) was also prepared. After his arrest accused was brought to PS and from there he was sent for his medical examination.
35. The accused and his counsel have preferred not to cross examine PWs 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13. Their evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to have been admitted as correct by the accused.
36. PW6 Mr.Sunil Kumar was examined in chief on 08.05.2012 and his cross examination was deferred on that day as the defence counsel was not available. Thereafter, he was never produced again in the Court by the cross Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 20 of 80 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
examination due to which his evidence remains incomplete as the defence could not cross examine him. It cannot be read and considered while adjudicating the matter.
TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENCE WITNESESS
37. It is essential also to elaborate in bried the evidence of the witnesses of the defence.
38. DW1, Ms. Sharda, has deposed that she knows Raj Kumar as he and his family were resided at New Ranjit Nagar. She also knows Madan Lal @ Maddi and his wife, the prosecutrix, as Madan Lal was her brother and the prosecutrix is her Bhabhi. Accused Raj Kumar and Madan Lal were friends and they were on visiting terms. Even she was on visiting terms with accused Raj Kumar and his family. The prosecutrix was fully aware that accused is a married man and she had even attended his wedding with her family and had also gifted some money to the wife of the accused in her 'Muh Dikhai Ceremony' (bride seeing ceremony). The prosecutrix has lied that she did not know that accused is married. She has been cross examined at length.
39. DW2, Mr. Raj Kumar, the accused has deposed that earlier he used to reside at house no C-34, New Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. Mr. Madan Lal with his wife, the prosecutrix, and his three children were residing at house no. B-261, New Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. He and Madan Lal were friends and were on visiting terms. He had attended the marriage of Mr. Madan Lal. Mr Madan Lal, his wife i.e the prosecutrix and his children had Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 21 of 80 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
attended his marriage which was in the year 1988 as it was about 25 years ago. She was fully aware that he is married. About 4 years ago, Mr. Mukesh son of Mr. Madan Lal and Mr. Sunil son in-law of Mr. Madan Lal had met him and told him that Mr. Madan Lal had expired as he had shifted his residence about 15 years ago from New Ranjit Nagar to Jahangir Puri. He was not in touch with Mr. Madan Lal and his family and therefore he was not aware about his death. He and his wife Ms. Madhu had gone to meet the prosecutrix after coming to know about the death of Mr. Madan Lal. He helped the prosecutrix financially as he had observed that she had financial constraints. One day the prosecutrix and her son Mr. Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr. Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of himself with the prosecutrix. After sometime, he came to know that the prosecutrix filed a criminal case of rape against him.
40. In his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, DW2 has deposed that he has shifted from house no. C-34, New Ranjit Nagar to Jahangir Puri for the last 15 years. He had been residing at Ranjit Nagar since his childhood. He had attended the marriage of Mr. Madan Lal which took place about 35-36 years ago. Mr. Madan Lal was also living at Ranjit Nagar since childhood. He did not have any photograph of his marriage that the prosecutrix along with her husband and children had attended the marriage in the year 1988. No photographs of marriage were taken on occasion of his marriage with Ms. Madhu. He has denied that the prosecutrix had not attended his marriage in the year 1988, therefore he is not able to produce any photograph showing her presence in his marriage. He has denied Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 22 of 80 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
that the prosecutrix was unaware that he was a married man. He had not lodged any complaint in any P.S or before the Court regarding the fact that prosecutrix and her son Mr. Mukesh along with her son in -law Mr. Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of himself with prosecutrix. He has denied that he is deposing falsely with regard to the abovesaid fact and therefore matter was never reported to the police or before the Court. He has admitted his signatures at point A in Ex. PW5/B and at point Y in Ex. PW1/A and his signatures at point in Ex. PW1/C. He has also identified his photographs at point B in Ex. PW5/B as well in Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/C. He has denied that he had solemnized the marriage with prosecutrix Sharda on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar disclosing the fact he was bachelor. All these documents are false and fabricated at the instance of Mr. Sunil and Mr. Mukesh. He came to know about the abovesaid documents when the case against him had been filed by the prosecutrix. He had not made any statement before the police during investigation or at the time when the case was lodged against him regarding the fact that above said false and fabricated documents were procured by Mr. Sunil and Mr. Mukesh. He has denied that Pandit Deepak Shastri of Arya Samaj Mandir had performed his marriage with the prosecutrix on 22.07.2008 in the presence of two attesting witnesses Mr. Sunil Kumar and Ms. Kusumlata, Advocate on the basis of the affidavit Ex. PW1/C filed by him. He has admitted that the prosecutrix has filed case under section 9 Hindu Marriage Act in the Court and he had filed a written statement through his advocate as well as the affidavit before the Court. Copy of the same is placed in a judicial file and it is Ex. DW2/DA bearing his signatures at point A, B and C. He was forcibly made to drink Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 23 of 80 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
liquor by Mr. Sunil and Mr. Mukesh thereafter he was taken to Uttam Nagar by them and under the influence of liquor these photographs of his were taken along with the prosecutrix. He has denied that he was fully conscious of the fact that he was married to prosecutrix and at that time the photographs Ex. P1-Ex.P-5 was taken and he was not under the influence of any liquor. He has denied that on 2207.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, he had married prosecutrix representing myself to be a bachelor and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her after obtaining her consent under the impression of her being legally wedded to him. He has denied that he had threatened the prosecutrix with threat to her life if she made any complaint to the police. He has denied that he is deposing falsely.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
41. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 24 of 80 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not
dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concretized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
42. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
OFFENCES OF RAPE, CHEATING, FORGERY AND THREAT
43. It would be relevant to elaborate the relevant provisions for which the accused has been charged.
44. Section 375 of the IPC enumerates six circumstances wherein the sexual intercourse committed amounts to rape which read as under:
First - Against her will.
Secondly - Without her consent.
Thirdly - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 25 of 80 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
or of hurt.
Fourthly - With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
45. Section 506 of the IPC is elaborated herein under as follows:
Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And ift he threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or {imprisonment for life}, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
46. Section 420 IPC does not define cheating. It only provides punishment for cheating. It reads as follows:
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Of fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 26 of 80 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
47. Section 415 IPC defines cheating as:
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation. A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section......"
48. Section 468 of the IPC reads as:
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED
49. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused Mr.Raj Kumar who has been identified by the prosecutrix. It is also not in dispute that they were known to each other prior to the lodging of the FIR. He is also named in the FIR.
AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
50. There is no dispute that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident. In her evidence before the Court on 13.09.2011, she has stated that she is 40 years old. The incident of marriage occurred on 22.07.2008 which makes her age as 37 years at the time of the incident.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 27 of 80 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
51. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecutrux was a major at the time of incident.
VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED
52. The accused has been medically examined by Dr.Y.N.Maurya (PW3) vide MLC (Ex.PW3/B) wherein it is opined that "There is nothing to suggest that pt can't perform sexual act)"
53. This report indicates that the accused is virile and is capable of performing sexual act and is capable of committing the act of rape.
FSL REPORT
54. The affidavit dated 22.07.2008 of the accused and the certificate of marriage dated 22.07.2008 with signatures marked as Q1 to Q3 with the admitted signatures of the accused S1 to S61 were sent to the FSL for examination.
55. The FSL report (Ex.PW13/A) shows that "There is no divergence observed between the questioned and standard signatures and the aforesaid similarities in the writing habits are significant and sufficient and cannot be attributed to accidental coincidences and when considered collectively they lead me to the above said opinion..."
56. PW13, Ms.Deepa Verma, Assistant Director (Documents) FSL has not been cross examined by the accused and therefore her evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to be admitted Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 28 of 80 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
by the accused.
57. The report shows that the affidavit dated 22.07.2008 of the accused and the certificate of marriage dated 22.07.2008 have indeed been signed by the accused.
58. Even otherwise, the accused in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has not disputed the report stating that it is a matter of record. In his evidence as DW2, the accused has also deposed that he had signed on some documents and his photographs with the prosecutrix were taken, under the influence of liquor which he had been made to consume by the prosecutrix and her son and son in law.
59. The execution of these documents is not in dispute. The FSL report also proves that the affidavit of the accused stating that he is a bachelor and the certificate of marriage are signed by the accused.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
60. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has given mainly three word answers by saying "It is wrong" to most of the questions or has denied the evidence against him. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that "I was never married with the prosecutrix. I never had any relations with her at any point of time. I drink liquor and due its influence I am being blackmailed by the prosecutrix and she is trying to extort money from me."
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 29 of 80 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
61. In his evidence as DW2, the accused, has deposed that one day the prosecutrix and her son Mr.Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr.Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix. After sometime, he came to know that the prosecutrix had filed a criminal case of rape against him.
62. The accused has taken two different stands in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence, as mentioned above. On one hand he has stated that he drinks liquor and due its influence, he is being blackmailed by the prosecutrix and she is trying to extort money from him while on the other hand, he has deposed that the prosecutrix and her son Mr.Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr.Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix. The two stands are contradictory.
63. It may also be mentioned here that a third version which also remains unexplained has been given in the written statement of the accused in the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the prosecutrix that "The so called marriage which the petitioner claims was a deep rooted conspiracy hatched by the petitioner in collusion and connivance with her children born from her wedlock with Madan Lal since deceased and by sedating the Respondent might have performed certain acts to create evidence of a marriage."
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 30 of 80 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
64. Further, the accused has not even given suggestions regarding either of the two stands or the third one to the prosecutrix in her cross examination. He has neither suggested to the prosecutrix that he drinks liquor and due its influence, he is being blackmailed by the prosecutrix and she is trying to extort money from him nor he has suggested that the prosecutrix and her son Mr.Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr.Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix.
65. Even otherwise, the first time that he has mentioned about drinking liquor or being blackmailed by the prosecutrix is in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He has also mentioned about the first time that the prosecutrix and her son Mr.Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr.Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix in his defence evidence. He has not even mentioned nor enquired about his affidavit and the certificate of marriage to the prosecutrix in her cross examination.
66. I find that the accused has not even given a cursory suggestion to the prosecutrix to the same effect and has put a different story in his own statement.
67. The accused, admittedly, has not made any complaint to any authority-police or Court that the prosecutrix and her son Mr.Mukesh as well as her son in law Mr.Sunil made him consume a lot of liquor and thereafter Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 31 of 80 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
made him sign on some documents and also took some photographs of the accused with the prosecutrix. Even after filing of this case and during trial, he did not make any such complaint. If he was actually aggrieved, he would have immediately lodged a complaint against the prosecutrix that she is telling lies but he has failed to do so which indicates that he is not telling the truth.
68. Further, after filing of the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Mark G-Ex.PW1/DA) by the prosecutrix, filing of written statement by the accused (Ex.PW1/DB), filing of police complaint dated 20.01.2009 by the prosecutrix, filing of the complaint case, lodging of the present FIR, investigation and trial of this case and even till date, the accused has not filed any petition for annulment of the marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused. This fact also falsifies the defence of the accused.
69. It has been argued that the prosecutrix was aware at the time of her marriage with the accused that the accused is already married to Ms.Madhu, as she had attended his marriage in the year 1988 and had also given "Mooh Dikhai" (gift at the time of bride seeing ceremony) to PW7. PW7, DW1 and DW2 have deposed similarly regarding the same.
70. However, neither any photograph nor recording nor any other proof has been produced to show that the prosecutrix had actually attended the marriage of the accused with Ms.Madhu. What was the alleged "Mooh Dikhai" has also not been disclosed. PW7, Ms.Madhu, wife of the accused, has not even deposed that the prosecutrix had given her any "Mooh Dikhai"
while attending her marriage with the accused.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 32 of 80 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
71. DW1 has infact not supported that version of the accused as she has deposed that "I do not know if accused Raj Kumar had married prosecutrix (name withheld) on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar representing himself as bachelor." She was not even aware about the date of marriage of the accused with Ms.Madhu and the date of marriage of Mr.Madan Lal with the prosecutrix. DW1 also does not depose an iota that the prosecutrix was residing at any point of time in New Ranjeet Nagar. She also did not have proof that she is the cousin of Mr.Madan Lal. There is no reason shown by the accused as to why DW1 did not appear when the case was lodged nor during investigation nor before the learned area Metropolitan Magistrate nor the senior police officers to say that this is a false case and the prosecutrix is leveling false allegations against the accused and that she should be associated in the investigation. Therefore, her evidence does not appear to be reliable and is of no help to the accused.
72. All these facts indicate that he is putting up a false defence. The accused has only attempted unsuccessfully to mislead the Court.
73. The accused has also failed to show any motive or malafide intention on the part of the prosecutrix for implicating him in a false case. He has also failed to show how the prosecutrix would have benefitted by making him sign on documents and by going through a marriage with him. The accused failed to assign any malafide motive to PW1 that she would get him falsely implicated in a rape case. The defence of the accused does not appear to be probable.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 33 of 80 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
74. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no veracity in the defence of the accused.
MENS REA / MOTIVE
75. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
76. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unnameable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
77. In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 34 of 80 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
78. In the present case, a story has been projected by the accused that the prosecutrix had physical relations with him after her marriage with the accused in the Arya Samaj temple on 22.07.2008. Had she known that he is already married, she would neither have married him nor had any physical relations with him. No lady would have physical relations with a man without marriage. Unless there is some kind of incentive like marriage, no lady would enter into proximity with a man that too of such private nature. Both the accused and the prosecutrix are middle aged. It is also not the case that the prosecutrix is a lady of easy virtue or characterless or known to have promiscuous. There is no such suggestion given to the prosecutrix and impliedly it indicates that the prosecutrix is a self respecting lady. The fact the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 35 of 80 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
accused had physical relations with the prosecutrix, by itself, indicates his mala fide intention as he must have given some allurement of marriage to her and only then she would have established physical relations with him. Despite knowing that he was married to Ms.Madhu, PW7, he allured the prosecutrix into marriage by misrepresenting himself to be a bachelor and then had physical relations with her thereby violating her body and soul. By projecting himself to be unmarried, preparing affidavit and documents with false facts that he is unmarried for the purpose of cheating the prosecutrix and making her marry him on false facts and then establishing physical relations with her making her believe that he is her husband and when she found out the truth, threatening her against filing any complaint, the accused had shown that he had ill intentions for committing several offences. He has taken advantage of a widow who was living alone and has exploited her.
79. The prosecutrix has also deposed in her evidence that she had made physical relations with the accused after her marriage to him. The marriage itself is bad as the accused was an already married man and he took advantage of the prosecutrix being a lonely widow whose children were staying separately and allured and enticed her into a farce of a marriage by misrepresenting himself to be a bachelor.
80. All these facts in totality indicate that there was criminal intention and mens rea on the part of the accused.
DELAY IN FIR
81. The contention of the advocate for the accused that there was a Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 36 of 80 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
delay in lodging of the FIR which is fatal is now being taken into consideration.
82. It is claimed by the accused that as the FIR has been lodged on 07.05.2010 and the delay in lodging of the FIR has been not explained by the prosecution.
83. The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR as the criminal action was swung into motion as soon as possible since the prosecutrix was making efforts all the time.
84. I find that it is borne from the record, especially the complaint case and the evidence of the prosecutrix that after 2-3 months of the marriage she came to know that the accused is already married, she approached the police with her complaint (copy of complaint dated 20.01.2009 annexed with the complaint case). She also appeared before the CAW Cell PS Kirti Nagar on 05.03.3009. No action was taken by the police.
85. Then the prosecutrix filed the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Mark G-Ex.PW1/DA) which is dated 27.04.2009 that the accused, husband of the prosecutrix, treated her with cruelty and had deserted her for which she had prayed for restitution of her conjugal rights. The accused denied the marriage in his written statement (Ex.DW2/DA). The petition was dismissed in default on 21.10.2009. Thereafter she filed a complaint case (Ex.PW1/B) on 13.08.2009 and the FIR was lodged on Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 37 of 80 ::-
-:: 38 ::-
07.05.2010.
86. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Delay in lodging of the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. It is therefore that the delay in lodging the FIR be satisfactorily explained. The purpose and object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.
87. In the case reported as State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy. Similar view was taken in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. The State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance s for the accused when accusation of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered , the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 38 of 80 ::-
-:: 39 ::-
or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactory explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay , it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle."
88. Before coming to the merits of the present case, an argument has been raised by the counsel for the accused regarding the delay in registration of the FIR. In this regard I may observe that it is not that every delay in registration of the FIR would be fatal to the prosecution. Once the delay has been sufficiently explained, the prosecution case would not suffer. However, it is necessary for the Courts to exercise due caution particularly in the cases involving sexual offences because the only evidence in such cases is the version put forwarded by the prosecutrix.
89. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, has held that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy.
90. In the judgment reported as Devanand v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2003 Crl.L.J. 242, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
"The above said statement clearly show that at the earliest Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 39 of 80 ::-
-:: 40 ::-
opportunity the prosecutrix had not made any complaint to her mother in this regard. Reading of the examination-inchief reveals that first time she was raped as per her own version after about 30-36 days of coming of the appellant but in any case she admits that she has been raped many a times and she only complained to her mother few days after he had left. The appellant stayed in the house of the prosecutrix for more than year..."
91. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the judgment reported as Babu Lal and Anr v. State of Rajasthan, Cri.L.J. 2282, has held as under:
"No doubt delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cannot normally damage the version of the prosecutrix as held the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements but husband of the prosecutrix is there and report is lodged after one and half months, such type of delay would certainly be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case"
92. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment reported as Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madya Pradesh, 1992 Cr.L.J. 715, has held as under:
"in conclusion, having regard to the conduct of the prosecutrix in not making any kind of complaint about the alleged incident to anybody for five days coupled with late recording of report by her after five days with false explanation for the delay, in the context also of the Lax Morals of the Prosecutrix , it is very unsafe to pin faith on her mere word that sexual intercourse was committed with her by five accused persons or any of them . It is also difficult to believe her version regarding the alleged abduction in jeep. In the circumstances it must be held that the prosecutrix story was not satisfactorily established"
93. I find on perusal of the record that indeed the criminal action was swung into motion as fast as possible. Till the filing of the petition under Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 40 of 80 ::-
-:: 41 ::-
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the prosecutrix was under the impression that she is the legally wedded wife of the accused. She came to know about the denial of marriage when the accused filed the written statement. Then she filed the complaint case in which the FIR was finally lodged.
94. Therefore, upon a complete and careful reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other material on record, it is revealed that the prosecutrix remained initially under the impression that the accused is married to her. Only after realizing that the marriage was a farce, she went to the police.
95. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged after a delay which is fatal to the prosecution story. The delay had been satisfactorily explained.
WITNESSS NOT EXAMINED
96. The fact that the prosecution has not cited some material witnesses in the list of witnesses nor examined them i.e. Ms.Kusum Lata, advocate, witness of marriage and Mr.Baradi Lal, in whose house the accused and the prosecutrix resided, does not wash out the investigation conducted in the case. Their evidence could have been very important to nail the accused even further, but their non-examination does not in any manner absolve the accused of his offence.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 41 of 80 ::-
-:: 42 ::-
STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX IN
TOTALITY WITH OTHER EVIDENCE
97. It is necessary to discuss and analyse the testimony of the most material witness i.e. PW1, the prosecutrix.
98. In the Court, during trial, the prosecutrix, as PW1, in her evidence, has deposed that earlier she was married to Mr.Madan Lal and he died in the year 2000. She has three children from the wedlock and they were living separately after their marriages and she was living alone. In the year 2006, accused Raj Kumar met her in a religious procession and he started visiting her at her house. Accused used to tell her that he was unmarried and that he wanted to marry her and that he wanted to be her support. Accused kept on visiting her house for about one year and she agreed to marry him. At that time she was living in a rented house at Uttam Nagar and she shifted to Mangolpuri and after about one month of shifting in Mangolpuri, accused married her on 22.07.2008 in Arya Samaj Mandir and a marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) was issued to them which has her photograph at point A and photograph of accused at point B. The marriage was solemnized in the presence of two witnesses namely Mr. Sunil Kumar, who is her relative and Ms. Kusum Lata who also signed the marriage certificate. Accused had furnished some papers at the time of their marriage but she did not see those papers. She lived with the accused in the rented house at Mangolpuri for about one month. Accused lived with her as her husband in that house and they had sexual relationship also during that period. After about one month, she and accused shifted to Uttam Nagar and there also we lived for about three months and had sexual relationship as husband and wife. After three months of living Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 42 of 80 ::-
-:: 43 ::-
with her in rented house of Uttam Nagar, accused left her by saying that he was going to take steps to submit some papers for his job. At that time, the accused was working in Delhi Jal Board at Ashok Vihar Delhi. Accused did not return home for about two months thereafter. One day in the evening, the accused returned to her house and after few minutes his wife and her brother also followed him to her house. The wife of accused started quarrelling with her that she was his legally wedded wife. At that time, the accused was having some money and gold ring with her. Wife of accused snatched that money and ring and went away. On the next day, the accused left her and accused has not returned to her since then. She lodged a complaint before CAW Cell Nanakpura and accused was called there and in women cell also, the wife of accused quarreled with her and ultimately officials of CAW Cell directed her to move to the Court for her grievances. She had no knowledge before marrying the accused that accused was already married and also had two children. If she had known that the accused was already married, she would not married with him. Accused has played a fraud upon her and developed sexual relationship with her on the basis of that fraud. She lodged complaint (Ex.PW1/B) before learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
99. She has been cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor wherein she has admitted to be correct that the accused has given an affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) that he was bachelor as on 22.07.2008. She has admitted that she had lodged a petition also in Court under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. She has admitted that in the petition accused had replied that she was not legally wedded wife. She has admitted that the accused and his wife used to threaten her. She has admitted that she has lodged the complaint (Ex.PW1/D) Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 43 of 80 ::-
-:: 44 ::-
to police commissioner on 20.01.2009 to take action against accused and his wife.
100. In her cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW1 has deposed that she has three children from her previous husband, Mr. Madan Lal out of which two are daughters and one son. Her son, Mr.Mukesh, is the eldest and is aged about 28 years now and was earlier employed in DESU as lightman and he got this job on compassionate ground after death of her husband Mr.Madan Lal. She can not say whether Mr. Mukesh is 36 years old now and his date of birth is 22.06.1975 as per the DESU record (Mark X). She is illiterate. She was married to Mr. Madan Lal about three years prior to birth of her son, Mr.Mukesh. She was 17 years of age at the time of her marriage with Mr. Madan Lal. She had been living in the area of Uttam Nagar for about 20/22 years. Mr. Madan Lal died either in the year 2001 of 2002. She has denied that Mr. Madan Lal died in the year 1997. She has denied that she was living New Ranjit Nagar till 1999 and thereafter shifted to Uttam Nagar. The address of New Ranjit Nagar was B-261. The accused was also living in New Ranjit Nagar but she did not know his correct address. The distance between her house and house of accused was 100 meters. She did not know whether the address of the accused was C-34, DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar. She has denied that there was friendship between Mr.Madan Lal and accused Mr.Raj Kumar during their stay in New Ranjit Nagar or that accused and his family members were on visiting terms with her family. Marriage of accused Raj Kumar with Ms. Madhu did not take place in her presence. She has denied that Raj Kumar was married to Ms. Madhu in the year 1988 or that she and her family members had attended that marriage or that she had given 'Muh Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 44 of 80 ::-
-:: 45 ::-
Dikhai' to Ms. Madhu on the next day of marriage of accused with Ms. Madhu. She did not remember from where she got prepared her complaint (Ex.PW1/D) made to the police. She did not know English or Hindi. She did not remember what was the contents of Ex.PW1/D. She has admitted that she had filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She could not say whether the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/DA. At the time of alleged marriage with accused at Arya Samaj, she was residing at Mangol Puri. She has denied that she was residing at B-261, New Ranjit Nagar at the time of alleged marriage. This address must have been noted from her election card at the time of preparation of marriage certificate. The documents of marriage were prepared in the Mandir but she did not know who has prepared these documents. Mr. Sunil is son-in -law of her sister. She did not know the name of the father of Mr. Sunil. Mr. Madan Lal was the name of father of Mr. Sunil but this Mr. Madan Lal is different from her husband. Mr. Sunil is residing in Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar near Gurdwara. The police had made inquiries from her. She did not know on what date the police had recorded her statement. She has admitted that her statement was recorded by the police on 24.05.2010. She has admitted to be correct that she had stated in her statement that no rape was committed upon her. There would be no rape after the marriage. She has admitted that she had refused for my medical examination. It was because for the last three years accused was not residing with her prior to lodging of report. She did not remember whether she had stated to the police in her statement (Ex.PW1/DB) that one day in the evening accused returned to her house and after few minutes his wife and her brother also followed him to her house and that wife of accused started quarreling with her that she was his legally wedded wife and that at that time accused was having Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 45 of 80 ::-
-:: 46 ::-
some money and a gold ring with her and that wife of accused snatched that money and ring and went away and that on the next date accused left her and has not returned to her from that date (she was confronted with the statement of Ex.PW1/DB where it is not recorded). She has admitted that she did not appear in the Court where she filed petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act after one date and she did not know that the same has been dismissed in default. She has denied that she knew accused Raj Kumar because he was living in the same colony where she was residing till 1999. She has denied that the accused did not play fraud upon her or that neither he married with her nor he had any sexual relations as husband and wife with her. She has denied that she knew that the accused was married with Ms. Madhu and having two children from her. She has denied that the accused Raj Kumar never lived with her. She has denied that she is deposing falsely.
101. She has made similar allegations in the complaint case filed by her against the accused.
102. I find that the prosecutrix has failed to give the details of the threat extended to her by the accused (and his wife Ms.Madhu) due which her allegations regarding the same remains vague and unspecific. Further, the effect of the alleged threat, has not been disclosed anywhere. Neither the words used nor the impact of the threat have been furnished by the prosecution. Merely making a bald allegation that she was threatened does not suffice for convicting the accused as she did approach the police and the Court and was not apparently deterred by the alleged threats. The fact that she chose to remain silent regarding the threat, only shows that there was no danger nor Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 46 of 80 ::-
-:: 47 ::-
any threat. There should be some positive corroborating evidence.
103. Therefore, the offence under section 506 of the IPC is not established.
104. It may be observed here that the evidence of the prosecutrix was recorded much later to the incident and lodging of the FIR and the possibility of her forgetting the details regarding the dates cannot be completely ruled out.
105. In the judgment reported as, State of H.P. v. Lekhraj and another, JT 1999 (9) SC 43, it was observed by the Supreme Court of India as under :-
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like................The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial."
106. In the judgment reported as, Surender Singh v. State of Haryana, JT 2006 (1) SC 645, it was observed by the Supreme Court of India as follows:
"It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 47 of 80 ::-
-:: 48 ::-
107. As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the prosecutrix, it may be observed minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. When the discrepancies were comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non- discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
108. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment reported as Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 48 of 80 ::-
-:: 49 ::-
discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a)By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b)Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(c)The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(d)By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(e)In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(f)Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.
(g)A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 49 of 80 ::-
-:: 50 ::-
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
109. There is no reason shown why the prosecutrix would choose the accused only for leveling false allegations of rape and why she would jeopardize her future by doing so especially when there are no allegations of her having any vested interests or mala fide motive.
110. It may be observed here that it is settled principle of law that it is not in every case that the version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent witnesses. In a case where the Court is satisfied that the testimony of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix conviction can also be recorded but in appropriate cases the Court may look for corroboration from independent sources or circumstances. The testimony of the prosecutrix has to be tested on the touch stone of truthfulness and credibility.
PW6
111. Although PW6, Mr.Sunil Kumar, son in law of the sister of the prosecutrix, was examined in chief to prove that he had witnessed the marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix but as he expired during the pendency of the case, he was not produced again for cross examination. Therefore, his evidence cannot be read against the accused.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 50 of 80 ::-
-:: 51 ::-
PW5
112. PW5, Pandit Deepak Shastri, has categorically deposed that he had performed the marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix. As per the record, one advocate namely Ms. Kusum Lata had brought them and Raj Kumar had given an affidavit that she was widow and she had annexed death certificate of her husband along with the affidavit. After performing the marriage as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, he had issued a certificate of marriage vide registration number 1421/08. He had handed over original affidavit of Raj Kumar (Ex.PW1/C) to the police officials which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A). The original marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) was witnessed by Ms.Kusum Lata, Advocate and Mr.Sunil Kumar who were also present at the time of performing various ceremonies of marriage. A register is maintained regarding the marriages performed by the Mandir. The registers of marriages performed by the Mandir from 2008 to 2010 have been deposited in PS Timar Pur on the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FIR No. 256/2010 of PS Timar Pur vide seizure memo (Mark X). (HC Prem Chand, MHCM PS Timarpur produced the marriage register of the year 2008). As per the reference no.1421/2008 Mr. Raj Kumar son of Mr. Omparkash R/o EE-2619, Jahangir Puri, Delhi performed marriage with the prosecutrix daughter of Mr. Jagdish Prasad, R/o B-261, New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. There were two attesting witnesses of the said marriage namely Mr. Sunil Kumar and Ms. Kusum Lata. Entry register (Ex.PW5/B) regarding the marriage of both the parties duly signed by them and also thumb impression of both the parties on the said register.
113. In his cross examination, PW5 has deposed that accused Raj Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 51 of 80 ::-
-:: 52 ::-
Kumar submitted his ID of Delhi Jal Board along with affidavit at the time of his marriage whereas the prosecutrix had submitted a copy of election card. The copy of ID of witness Ms. Kusum Lata, advocate Delhi Bar Association was also taken at the time of marriage. He had signed on Ex.PW5/B when it was prepared, however today white fluid has been put on his signature. He has admitted that his signature is very short about 1 inch long and the signature on which the fluid has been put is approximately 2.5 inches long. He has admitted that the photographs (Ex.P1 to P5) do not show any phera ceremony or sindoor ceremony.
114. It is clear from the evidence of PW5 that indeed the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix was solemnized on 22.07.2008. The accused had submitted his office identity card, his affidavit deposing that he is a bachelor, signed at the relevant places and married the prosecutrix. Even there is a variation in the length of the signature of PW5 on Ex.PW5/B, the same does not shatter its genuineness or sanctity. It is immaterial that there is a difference in the length of the signature of PW5 and the length of the white fluid space as the fluid has been put to cover something which may or may not be large.
115. The fact which emerges from the evidence of PW5 is that the accused and the prosecutrix had appeared before him for their marriage, accused had filled a form and filed an affidavit claiming that he is a bachelor and thereafter the marriage between them was performed by PW5.
116. The issue is not whether the Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti (Regd.) as Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 52 of 80 ::-
-:: 53 ::-
mentioned in the form (Ex.PW5/B) can perform marriages but it is whether the accused projecting himself to be unmarried, prepared such documents and induced the prosecutrix to marry him and then established physical relations with her. It is immaterial that it is not mentioned on the documents that the Samiti can perform marriages as PW5 is a Shastri/Pandit/Priest and he has performed the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix after they completed the necessary formalities like filling the form, submitting identity proof, submitting affidavits, etc.
117. The accused by appearing before PW5, filing the form (Ex.PW5/B) and furnishing his affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) that he is a bachelor has indeed projected himself to be unmarried despite his own knowledge that he is already married to PW7, Ms.Madhu, has made the prosecutrix marry him vide marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A). It is also revealed from the rear side of the affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) that the same of particulars shows that it is purchased in the name of Raj Kumar i.e. the accused and this fact also indicates that the accused must have purchased the stamp paper for the affidavit. There is an active role played by the accused to show that he was unmarried/bachelor when he married the prosecutrix on 22.07.2008.
Photographs Ex.P1 to P5
118. Further, it can be seen from the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5) that the accused and the prosecutrix have got married. Even PW5 is visible in some of the photographs. In Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, even the havan kund is visible where the accused and the prosecutrix are seated and PW5 is performing their marriage. In all the photographs, he accused appears to be conscious of what Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 53 of 80 ::-
-:: 54 ::-
he is doing. In Ex.P3, he has given a full smile with his teeth being visible. The clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix also show that they are attired so for marriage. The photographs do depict the marriage being solemnized.
119. The claim of the accused that he was made to consume liquor and then sign on documents and his photographs with the prosecutrix has already been held to be false, as discussed above. Here it may be mentioned that the accused appears to be very much in his consciousness, alert and oriented in the photographs. He does not seem to be under any kind of liquor or influence.
PW8
120. PW8, Mr.Sohan Lal, has been able to show that the prosecutrix and the accused lived in the rented accommodation owned by his father. The accused has given various suggestions to him but had not even bothered to summon Mr.Baradi Lal, the owner of the premises in his own defence to show otherwise. Even otherwise, the absence of the documentary proof of tenancy and the non-examination of Mr.Baradi Lal do not wash out the evidence of PW8 who has also deposed that the accused and the prosecutrix lived together in the house and this part of his evidence is uncontroverted by the accused.
121. The fact which emerges from his evidence is that he had seen the prosecutrix and the accused living together in the house of his father.
"Rape" Not Mentioned
122. It has been argued by the counsel for the accused that the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 54 of 80 ::-
-:: 55 ::-
prosecutrix has not mentioned rape in her complaint. I find that in her evidence before the Court, the prosecutrix has admitted to be correct that she had stated in her statement that no rape was committed upon her. There would be no rape after the marriage. It is clear from her evidence that as she had gone through the ceremony of marriage with the accused and believed herself to be his wife, when they had physical relations, she did not term it as rape. She has also deposed that had she known that he was already married, she would not have married him nor had physical relations with him. She had given her consent for physical relations under a misconception of facts and believing herself to be his wife. The accused had defrauded her since he was already married and could not have legally married her. Therefore, the physical relations they had would come under the realm of rape.
No Medical Examination Of The Prosecutrix
123. The fact that the prosecutrix had refused for her medical examination is also explained by her when she has deposed that it was because for the last three years accused was not residing with her prior to lodging of report. In such a situation, the medical examination was futile as no medical evidence could have been collected since their physical relations were much prior to her lodging the complaint. Even otherwise, the medical and forensic evidence is only for the purpose of corroboration and by itself cannot be substantive piece of evidence.
Prosecutrix Aware Of Marriage Of Accused
124. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecutrix was fully aware at the time of marriage with the accused that he is already Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 55 of 80 ::-
-:: 56 ::-
married to Ms.Madhu and both were living in the same locality in New Ranjit Nagar and were on visiting terms since the accused and Mr.Madan Lal, the husband of the prosecutrix, were friends. Even the IO has admitted that she had made enquiries in this address and she was told by the occupant that the accused and the prosecutrix used to reside there earlier about 15-20 years ago. The copy electoral card of the prosecutrix submitted at the time of her marriage with the accused shows her address of New Ranjit Nagar.
125. I find that the IO, in her evidence has deposed that in the marriage certificate of the accused and the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/A) the address of the prosecutrix is mentioned as B-261, New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. She had made enquiries in this address and she was told by the occupant that the accused and the prosecutrix used to reside there earlier about 15-20 years ago. She did not know the address where the accused used to reside 15-20 prior to the lodging of the FIR. She can not say whether he used to reside at C-34, DDA Flats, New Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi, 15-20 years prior to the lodging of the FIR. She can not say whether till the year 1999, the prosecutrix with her family was residing at B-261, New Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi and the accused was residing at C-34, DDA Flats, New Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi. There is no proof collected during investigation that the accused was residing in New Ranjeet Nagar. The accused has not shown any document to prove that he was indeed residing at C-34, DDA Flats, New Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi. Their addresses i.e. blocks are different as is clear from the suggestions given to the IO and it cannot be presumed that all the residents of one big area like New Ranjeet Nagar would know everyone living there. Even otherwise, even it is assumed that the prosecutrix and the accused, both, resided in New Ranjeet Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 56 of 80 ::-
-:: 57 ::-
Nagar, then also nothing is shown that they were known to each other so that the prosecutrix could know that he is married in 1988 to Ms.Madhu. However, there is no proof shown by the accused that he was residing in New Ranjeet Nagar at any point of time.
126. Further, even if it is assumed, though not proved at all by the accused, that the prosecutrix was aware of his marriage with Ms.Madhu, then the accused has failed to disclose any reason and justify why he performed the marriage with the prosecutrix and lived with her and also established physical relations with her.
127. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported as Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cri.L.J 880 has held as under :
"....... The approach of the learned trial judge as noticed supra that ordinarily a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied universally . Each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the factual matrix thereof. The law reports are replete with decisions where changes under section 376 and 354 of IPC have been found to have been falsely advanced ( para 16)"
"we are not oblivious that the doctrine " falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India but the evidence led by the parties must be appreciated keeping in view the entirety of the situation.... PW 2 and PW 3 not only failed to substantiate the allegation as regards commission of offence under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 IPC but also implicated the three persons falsely. The statement of the said witnesses should have been accepted with the pinch of the salt and keeping in view the admitted animosity between the parties. The background of the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 57 of 80 ::-
-:: 58 ::-
case vis a vis continuous animosity between the complainant and her husband , on one hand as also the appellents and his other tenants could not have been lost sight of by the learned trial judge( Para 20)"
128. In the judgment reported as Ram Das and ors v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"........ It is no doubt true that the conviction in case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exists no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not find her evidence to be of such quality. It is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained .....There may also be cases where on the account of fear and threats, witness may avoid going to the police station immediately........It is also possible to corrceive the cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to police and seek the legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which may weight in the mind of the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report to the police which may affect her family life and family reputation ...In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of the delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence and court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of such case (para17 )..."
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 58 of 80 ::-
-:: 59 ::-
129. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported as Dinesh Jaiswal v. State of M.P, AIR 2010 SC 1540 has held as under :
"........ Mr. C.D Singh has however placed reliance on Moti lal's case (AIR 2008 SCC (Supp) 882:2008 AIR SCW 4846) (Supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with the proposition and it has been so emphasised by this court time and again but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facia inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one (para 5)......"
130. I find that the prosecutrix, in her evidence, has been able to successfully show that the accused projected himself to be unmarried to the prosecutrix and that he wanted to marry her. Accused married her on 22.07.2008 in Arya Samaj Mandir and a marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A) was issued to them. Accused had furnished some papers i.e. his affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) showing that he is a bachelor and filled a form (Ex.PW5/B) mentioning that he is a bachelor, at the time of their marriage. She lived with the accused in the rented house at Mangolpuri for about one month and they had sexual relationship also during that period. After about one month, she and accused shifted to Uttam Nagar and there also they lived for about three months and had sexual relationship as husband and wife. In order to cheat her, the accused had prepared forged documents and had married her projecting himself to be a bachelor and had physical relations with her. She had no knowledge before marrying the accused that accused was already married and Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 59 of 80 ::-
-:: 60 ::-
also had two children. If she had known that the accused was already married, she would not married with him and had physical relations with him. Accused has played a fraud upon her and developed sexual relationship with her on the basis of that fraud.
131. The fact that the accused had furnished his affidavit (Ex.PW1/C) and filled the form (Ex.PW5/B) that he is a bachelor itself shows that he has forged the same in order to commit the offence of cheating as he was fully aware that he is already married to another woman. By cheating the prosecutrix, using a forged document containing wrong facts that he is a bachelor, he has fraudulently obtained the consent of the prosecutrix for marriage on misconception of facts and had physical relations with her. Has she known that he was already married, she would never have married him and surrendered herself for physical relations with him. It is apparent from the record that the accused prepared his affidavit, filled from and furnished in the marriage certificate that he is a bachelor in order to cheat the prosecutrix as he committed forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, i.e. making the prosecutrix marry him.
132. It has been argued that the accused is illiterate and did not know the contents of the documents signed by him since they were in English language. However, I am of the considered opinion that it was only the accused who stood benefitted by projecting himself to be married as he got access to body of a woman who would not surrendered herself to him had she known that he was already married, the accused now cannot take advantage of his own wrong. His signatures as well as photographs are on his affidavit, Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 60 of 80 ::-
-:: 61 ::-
form and marriage certificate are not in dispute and are also proved and he cannot now claim ignorance about the same. Even in the photographs Ex.P1 to P5 which are of marriage he is seen and does not appear to be under any kind of influence of liquor or power, as observed above.
133. The counsel for the accused has argued that PW5 has admitted that the photographs Ex.P1 to P5 do not show phera ceremony or sindoor ceremony. However, I find that these photographs indeed are of marriage Even the havan kund is visible in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Other photographs also depict marriage being performed. Although phera ceremony or sindoor ceremony are not seen in the photographs but the same does not lessen the fact that the marriage was obviously performed.
134. It is a case of heinous crime of rape, which carries grave implication for the accused, if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that of a high standard and not mere possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and not merely dwell upon the shortcoming of defence.
135. As has been held by Apex Court in a catena of judgments that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so the court must test the credibility of the witness by Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 61 of 80 ::-
-:: 62 ::-
reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the court as wholly truthful, and must appear to be natural and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
136. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and believable despite the so called contradictions or inconsistencies in the same as they are too minor and insignificant and do not strike at the root of the case. It cannot be expected from a middle aged lady with whom marriage is performed by a man and consequential physical relationship would remember all the dates and details especially when she is suddenly made aware that she is not a legally wedded wife of the accused. She has to deal with the discomfort and face the battery of questions due to which there is a possibility that she may get mixed up or confused about the dates and details.
137. The prosecution has been able to prove in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses that the accused had cheated the prosecutrix by telling her that he is unmarried and married her in Arya Samaj temple and for the purpose of defrauding her he prepared forged documents to show that he is a bachelor. After the marriage which was neither legal nor valid as the accused had a married and living spouse, Ms.Madhu, the accused had physical relations with the prosecutrix making her believe that he is her lawfully married husband so it was not a free consent as it is obtained under a fraud. Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 62 of 80 ::-
-:: 63 ::-
138. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove its case under sections 420, 468 and 376 of the IPC against the accused.
INVESTIGATION
139. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The FIR has been proved by the duty officer. The MLC of the accused has been proved by the doctor. The FSL report has been proved by PW13. There is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has not been conducted properly, fairly and impartially.
140. The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the IO. There is nothing on the record to show that their testimonies are false or not reliable.
141. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation. Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important as prosecutrix has not only deposed regarding the manner of commission of the crime but has also elaborated all the details and has assigned a clear and specific role to the accused.
142. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 63 of 80 ::-
-:: 64 ::-
has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
143. It may also be observed here that the accused has also failed to show that he is not the person who had raped the prosecutrix under the garb of marriage and made her go through a marriage ceremony which is neither lawful nor valid since he was already married. It is an admitted fact that the documents i.e. affidavit (Ex.PW1/C), marriage certificate (Ex.PW1/A), form (Ex.PW5/B) show that he is a bachelor are signed by him and are also not in dispute by the accused and are also proved by the prosecution. The forensic expert has also proved the handwriting of the accused on the same. The accused has failed to make any complaint to the police or the Court that the documents were got signed from under the influence of liquor. He has also not filed any petition for annulment of the marriage with the prosecutrix. The accused has also failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or falsify the prosecution version or show that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and credible.
CONCLUSION
144. It s clear from the record that the evidence of the prosecutrix is free from blemishes. It is worthy of credence and trust. Nothing has been shown by the accused to indicate that the prosecutrix had any vested interest in leveling false allegations against him.
145. The prosecution has been able to prove in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses that the accused had cheated the prosecutrix Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 64 of 80 ::-
-:: 65 ::-
by telling her that he is unmarried and married her in Arya Samaj temple and for the purpose of defrauding and cheating her, he prepared forged documents to show that he is a bachelor. After the marriage which was neither legal nor valid as the accused had a married and living spouse, Ms.Madhu, the accused had physical relations with the prosecutrix making her believe that he is her lawfully married husband so it was not a free consent as it is obtained under a fraud.
146. Strength can be drawn from the case reported as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (SC), 1983 A.I.R.(S.C.) 753, wherein the Apex Court observed:
"The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical. It is conceivable in the Western Society that a female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons such as :-
(1) The female may be a 'gold digger' and may well have an economic motive to extract money by holding out the gun of prosecution or public exposure.
(2) She may be suffering from psychological neurosis and may seek an escape from the neurotic prison by phantasizing or imagining a situation where she is desired, wanted, and chased by males.
(3) She may want to wreak vengeance on the male for real or imaginary wrongs. She may have a grudge against a particular male, or males in general, and may have the design to square the account.
(4) She may have been induced to do so in consideration of economic rewards, by a person interested in placing the accused in a compromising or embarrassing position, on account of personal or political vendetta.
(5) She may do so to gain notoriety or publicity or to appease her own ego or to satisfy her feeling of selfimportance in the Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 65 of 80 ::-
-:: 66 ::-
context of her inferiority complex.
(6) She may do so on account of jealousy.
(7) She may do so to win sympathy of others.
(8) She may do so upon being repulsed.
10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statements or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural Society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites."
147. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 66 of 80 ::-
-:: 67 ::-
148. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the evidence of the prosecution especially the prosecutrix is reliable, believable and trustworthy and the prosecution has established the case of cheating, forgery and rape. The facts of the case are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
149. The prosecution has successfully proved that on 22.07.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, he fraudulently or dishonestly married with the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) representing himself to be bachelor as he was already married person and induced the prosecutrix for her marriage with him and he had furnished false document i.e. affidavit showing himself to be a bachelor and for the purposes of inducing the prosecutrix to get married with him. He had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the consent of the prosecutrix to such act was obtained under the impression of her being legally wedded wife and so it was not a free consent as it is obtained under a fraud.
150. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, FSL report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 67 of 80 ::-
-:: 68 ::-
circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. All the facts relevant in respect of the offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 376 of the IPC have been properly proved. The offence under section 506 of the IPC is however not proved.
151. In view of the foregoing reasons, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Raj Kumar regarding the commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 376. The prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Raj Kumar regarding the commission of offence punishable under section 506 of the IPC.
152. Accordingly, the accused, Mr.Raj Kumar, is hereby convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 376 and is acquitted for the offence under section 506 of the IPC.
153. Let him be heard of the point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 17th day of July, 2013. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
*************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 68 of 80 ::-
-:: 69 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
State
Versus
Mr.Raj Kumar
Son of Mr.Om Prakash,
Resident of EE-2619, Jhangir Puri, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 151/10
Police Station Uttam Nagar,
Under sections 193, 376, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 28.01.2011. the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Date of receipt of file after committal : 21.02.2011. in the Sessions Court Date of transfer of the file to this Court : 19.01.2013. ASJ (SFTC)-01, West, THC, Delhi.
Date of judgment : 17.07.2013. Arguments on sentence concluded on : 17.07.2013. Date of order on sentence : 17.07.2013.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is on leave.
Mr.Anil Kumar , Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict has been taken in judicial custody after judgment of conviction.
Mr.Bhanu Partap Singh, counsel for the convict.
Ms.Shubra Mehnidiratta, counsel for the Delhi Commission for Women.
Prosecutrix in person with counsel Mr. P.K.Garg.
*************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 69 of 80 ::-
-:: 70 ::-
ORDER ON SENTENCE
"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. In pursuance of judgment dated 17.07.2013 as passed by this Court convicting the accused namely Mr.Raj Kumar for offences punishable under sections 376, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), I have heard the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the convict as well as the convict on the point of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convict and also perused the case record.
2. It has already been observed in the judgment that this case is a glaring example of the growing menace of sexual abuse. Rape is an abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the victim is subjected to unwanted physical contact by a perverted male who marries her projecting himself to be a bachelor when he is an already married man and then also has physical relationship with her.
3. "The psychological harm on the victim is massive as it evokes doubts, raises questions for which answers are not easy to get. The victim may suppress emotions or be filled with feelings of rage, guilt and shame. It is difficult for such victims to trust others later on in life. The victim needs to Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 70 of 80 ::-
-:: 71 ::-
stand up for himself/herself and not allow the trauma to make them psychologically and socially weak. Active social support from family, friends, guidance centres and counselors can bring the victim's faith in the goodness of human beings back." ---Dr.Sanjay Chugh, Senior Consulting Psychiatrist.
4. The victim lacks self-confidence and is always under a sense of guilt and denial. It's not about the body. It's more about the mind. Sexual abuse is a rape of the mind and thought processes.
5. The Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that he does not deserve any leniency keeping in view the offence committed by him.
6. The convict and his counsel, on the other hand, have requested for a lenient view to be taken against him and for his release on probation as the convict hails from a modest family. He is aged 46 years and is married with two major children. He is a Government employee and works as a Safai Karamchari in Delhi Jal Board. He was in custody w.e.f. 08.05.2010 to 04.06.2010. He is a first offender and has never committed any offence earlier. It is also submitted that he shall not commit any offence in future.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions from both the sides, the family circumstances of the convict and perusing the case record, I consider it proper to award a substantive sentence upon the convict. Rape in itself is Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 71 of 80 ::-
-:: 72 ::-
abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the convict under the guise of marriage with the prosecutrix has violated her person and soul by having physical relationship with her. He has subjected the prosecutrix to unwanted physical contact as had she known that he was already married, she would not have married him nor had any physical relations with him. Her consent was obtained by fraud and on mis-conception of facts.
8. Keeping in view the offence committed by the convict, I am not inclined to take a lenient view against him and release him on probation. He has projected himself to be unmarried, executed and forged documents to show that he was a bachelor, cheated and defrauded a widow into marriage with him and had physical relations with her by obtaining her consent for the same on misconception of facts and cheating. She was helpless, defenceless, vulnerable and an easy prey. He has violated the very sanctity of the relationship of marriage.
9. I am of the considered opinion that the convict should be awarded a substantive, stern and firm sentence because he has defiled her. As per social morality which attaches highest importance to the chastity of a woman, the outrage and breach of her privacy and modesty is a heinous offence. Keeping into consideration the fact that the act of rape is an act of a perverted man, the minimum sentence provided of seven years or a lesser imprisonment should not be awarded to the convict. I do not find any mitigating factors.
10. The object of sentence should be to protect the society and to deter Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 72 of 80 ::-
-:: 73 ::-
the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The welfare and interest of other women in the society also needs to be protected for the reason that if the convict is released, they may be subjected by him in a similar offence with them.
11. It has been held in the judgment reported as State of Karnataka v. Raju, 2007 (11) SCC 490, as follows:
"The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused . It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent. ? To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The legislative mandate to impose a sentence, for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life and also to fine reflects the intent of stringency in sentence."
12. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 73 of 80 ::-
-:: 74 ::-
13. In AIR 2000, Supreme Court, 1470, the Supreme Court held has under:
Socio-economic, status, religion, race caste or creed o the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court.
14. In the judgment reported as Shri Bodhisattwa Gautm v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:"
The entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions."
15. In the present case, the convict has been convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 420, 468 and 376 of the IPC. Due to the crime committed against her by the convict, the prosecutrix must Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 74 of 80 ::-
-:: 75 ::-
have undergone immense pain and agony, violating her person and giving her a lifelong trauma.
16. A view which is likely to result in victimization or exploitation of innocent ladies needs to be avoided and the Courts need to take a view which would discourage unscrupulous from taking advantage of innocent or vulnerable ladies by alluring them and having physical relations with them on an invalid marriage. If a view otherwise is taken, it will amount to putting premium on the mis-conduct of a men which is not only highly reprehensible and abhorable but also criminal in nature. If this allowed to happened it will enable immoral and dishonest persons to exploit girls by alluring them with marriage, alluring them to have physical relations with them by making them believe that they are married and there is nothing wrong in having relations with a person who is her husband and later on turn their back at her in a comfortable belief that the law being on their side, they can easily get away with their misdeeds. The Court can not and should not give such a licence to those who keep on looking for opportunities to exploit the sentiments and vulnerability of Indian women who perceive marriage as a pious bonding and not as a union of two bodies. Allowing such persons to go scott free after exploiting poor and helpless women in this manner could not have been the intention of the legislature which considered rape to be such heinous as to attract imprisonment upto life.( Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 01.02.2010 in Nikhil Parasar versus The State Govt NCT Of Delhi in bail application no.1745/2009.)
17. Sexual violence apart from the being a dehumanizing act is an Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 75 of 80 ::-
-:: 76 ::-
unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) the Courts, are therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A society sensitized judge is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions (Reliance can be placed upon 2004 IX AD (S.C.) 5 and Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922).
18. Recently, crime against women generally and rape in particular is on the increase and the society also appears to be concerned for the honour of women. In this backdrop, this Court is required to treat the issue with more sensitivity. The object of sentence is not only required to be reformative but it should also be punitive, preventive and deterrent. The offences against women are on a rise and there is an urgent need to curb this tendency by awarding deterrent punishment to perpetrators of this grave offence. Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 76 of 80 ::-
-:: 77 ::-
19. In the present case, the act of the convict is most deplorable, both legally and morally. It is time for realization that certain category of sexually depraved behaviour is totally unacceptable in the Indian Socio-Legal System which seeks to protect the chastity the first virtue of a woman and such behaviour can prove to be costly as has happened in the present case. The victim is a middle aged widow who reposed trust in the convict and on so called marriage, surrendered before him into a physical relationship. Then the convict shattered her faith and trust in him since he was already married.
20. Keeping in view the ghastly and inhuman act of the convict, a substantive and stern sentence is required to be imposed upon the convict so that it is not only in commensuration with the gravity of the crime but also serves as an example for the others who might also venture on the same forbidden path. The convict does not deserve any leniency.
21. Therefore, considering these aggravating facts, I hereby sentence Mr.Raj Kumar, the convict as follows:
for offence under section 376 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
for offence under section 420 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
for offence under section 468 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 77 of 80 ::-
-:: 78 ::-
for five years and a fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
22. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules. The convict is in judicial custody. He is sent to judicial custody for serving the remaining sentence.
23. The entire amount of fine, if realized, is awarded to the prosecutrix as compensation for the benefit of the prosecutrix.
24. Further, this Court directs that the State shall pay to the prosecutrix/victim an appropriate sum as victim compensation in terms of Rules 3 and 5 read with Entry 2 to the schedule of the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme 2011 (notified on 02.02.2012) read with section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. The terms of the scheme entitle every rape victim to minimum compensation of Rs.2 lacs and a maximum compensation of Rs.3 lacs. Having regard to the facts of the case and the circumstances of the prosecutrix/victim, the Government of NCT is directed to pay an appropriate amount of compensation to the victim. 75 % of the amount shall be deposited in a fixed deposit, in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheme, in a nationalized bank for a period of three years and the remaining 25 % shall be available for utilization and initial expenses by the victim/prosecutrix.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 78 of 80 ::-
-:: 79 ::-
25. These directions shall be complied within six weeks. The Delhi Legal Services Authority, which is the designated body under the said Scheme, shall oversee the implementation of these directions. The State shall ensure that the victim is duly informed within one week. The victim/prosecutrix who is present in the Court with her counsel is directed to appear before the Delhi Legal Services Authority on 25.07.2013 for the said purpose.
26. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
27. A copy of the judgment dated 17.07.2013 and a copy of the order on sentence dated 17.07.2013, duly attested, besides the complete set of copy of the relevant case record, in compliance of directions of the High Court, be given to the convict, namely, Mr.Raj Kumar, free of cost immediately.
28. A copy of the judgment dated 17.07.2013 and a copy of the order on sentence dated 17.07.2013 also be given to the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
29. After completion of the formalities and expiry of the period of limitation, the ahlmad is directed to consign the file to the record room.
Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 79 of 80 ::-
-:: 80 ::-
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
this 17th day of July, 2013. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
*************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 60 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0078472011.
FIR No. 151/2010, Police Station Uttam Nagar, Under section 193, 376,420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Raj Kumar -:: Page 80 of 80 ::-