Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ram Rattan Singh on 1 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.33/14
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0065742014
State Vs. 1. Ram Rattan Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Saran Pal
R/o C-Block, Phase Ist Goyla Dairy
Near Satya Public School.
Present:- Village Bhagpur, Post Sagoni
P.S. Dannahar, Distt. Mainpuri
U.P.
2. Chander Bhan @ Bantu Pal
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal
R/o Krishan Ka Makan
Village Pochanpur, Sector-23
Dwarka, New Delhi.
Present:- Village Gagas Pur,
P.S. Bevar, District Mainpuri,
U.P.
3. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Dass
R/o C-Block, Phase-Ist Goyla Dairy
Near Satya Public School.
Present:- Village Nangla Bihari
Post Airwa District, Mainpuri
U.P.
4. Baby
W/o Sh. Chanderbhan @ Bantu Pal
R/o Krishan Ka Makan
Village Pochanpur, Sector-23
Dwarka, New Delhi.
SC No.33/14 Page 1 of 20
Present:- Village Gagas Pur,
P.S. Bevar, District Mainpuri,
U.P.
5. Surjit Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Saran Pal
R/o C-Block, Phase Ist Goyla Dairy
Near Satya Public School.
Present:- Village Bhagpur, Post Sagoni
P.S. Dannahar, Distt. Mainpuri
U.P.
6. Sudama
S/o Sh. Ram Saran pal
R/o C-Block, Phase Ist Goyla Dairy
Near Satya Public School.
Present:- Village Bhagpur, Post Sagoni
P.S. Dannahar, Distt. Mainpuri
U.P.
7. Rohtash @ Lokender
S/o Sh. Ram Saran Pal
R/o C-Block, Phase Ist Goyla Dairy
Near Satya Public School.
Present:- Village Bhagpur, Post Sagoni
P.S. Dannahar, Distt. Mainpuri
U.P.
Date of Institution : 12.03.2014
FIR No. 69/14 dated 10.02.2014
U/s. 376/328/342/323/506/366/354/509/34
P.S. Sector-23, Dwarka.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 27.09.2014
Date of pronouncement : 01.10.2014
SC No.33/14 Page 2 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. The accused abovenamed have been chargesheeted by the prosecution for the offences u/s. 323/328/342/354/366/376/ 506/509/34 IPC.
2. According to case of the prosecution accused Chanderbhan @ Bantu and his wife Baby knew the prosecutrix namely 'P' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) and had been pressurizing her to marry accused Ram Rattan Singh. They had told her that accused Ram Rattan Singh is plying an auto rickshaw and belongs to a good family but she was not feeling at home with such proposal. On 20.01.14 prosecutrix was brought to Dwarka Court, Sector-10 by accused Bantu, accused Baby, accused Ram Rattan Singh and his brother-in-law accused Mukesh despite her resistance and after making her to sign certain papers, she was told that her court marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh has been performed. Thereafter, accused Bantu, Baby and Ram Rattan Singh administered her something mixed in sweets, upon taking which she felt intoxicated and didn't remember what happened. Next day, she found herself in the house of accused Ram Rattan Singh in Goyla Dairy and also realised that accused Ram Rattan Singh had committed rape upon her during the night. She later on came to know that accused Ram Rattan Singh is not plying any auto rickshaw but runs a cycle repair shop only. Accused Ram Rattan Singh and his four brothers misbehaved with her. She could tell the name of only one brother i.e. Surjeet. She was confined in a house in Goyla Dairy by Ram Rattan Singh and his brothers where she was beaten and SC No.33/14 Page 3 of 20 threatened that if she tried to escape, she would be killed. They told her that they have bought her. Accused Ram Rattan Singh used to have physical relations with her daily against her consent and also used to threaten her. She also came to know that accused Bantu and Baby had sold her to Ram Rattan Singh for monetory consideration and no marriage at all had taken place in Dwarka Court. Ultimately, prosecutrix got an opportunity to escape on 06.02.14 at about 8.30 a.m. and reached Village Pochanpur, Sector-23, Dwarka. She could not lodge a complaint in the Police Station as she was intensely frightened.
3. It is further case of prosecution that the prosecutrix appeared in the police station on 10.02.14 and submitted a written complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Savita. She took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital and got her medically examined. The prosecutrix showed her both the crime spots and she prepared their rough site plan. She also seized the undergarments of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of rape incident. She recorded the statements of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. The statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was got recorded on 11.02.14. Accused Ram Rattan Singh, Sudama, Rohtash, Surjit, Chanderbhan, Baby and Mukesh Kumar were arrested on the same day i.e. 11.02.14 at the instance of the prosecutrix. All the accused made confessional statements admitting their guilt and also pointed out the crime spots separately. All the accused were taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination and their blood samples were obtained which was seized by the IO. The exhibits were then sent to FSL for forensic examination.
SC No.33/14 Page 4 of 204. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and put before the concerned Ld. Magistrate. Upon committal of case to Court of Sessions, charge u/s. 366/34 IPC was framed against accused Ram Rattan Singh, Chanderbhan, Mukesh Kumar and Baby on 24.04.14. On the same day, charge u/s. 328 r/w Section 34 IPC was framed against accused Ram Rattan Singh, Chanderbhan and Baby. Further charge u/s. 323/34 IPC, u/s. 342/34 IPC and u/s. 506/34 IPC was framed against accused Ram Rattan Singh, Surjit, Sudama and Rohtash on the same day. Charge u/s. 376 IPC was also framed on the same day against accused Ram Rattan Singh. The accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held. At trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.09.14 wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. Accused Ram Rattan Singh further stated that the prosecutrix had voluntarily solemnised marriage with him and had willingly stayed with him after the marriage. He also stated that after the marriage physical relations took place between them with her consent and he never committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. One Vinod Kumar was examined by the accused in their defence as DW-1 but deposed that he had attended the marriage ceremony between accused Ram Rattan Singh and the prosecutrix on 20.01.14 in Vaishno Mata Mandir, Goyla Dairy.
5. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire material on record.
SC No.33/14 Page 5 of 206. Ld. APP submits that it is established from the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly the prosecutrix herself that she was not willing to marry accused Ram Rattan Singh and her marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh was solemnised forcibly after making her unconscious by administering sweets laced with some intoxicated substance to her. She submits that the so called marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Ram Rattan Singh is not legal marriage and therefore the sexual intercourse between the two after the marriage tantamount to offence of rape. She also submits that the evidence on record established that the accused Chanderbhan @ Bantu and his wife accused Baby had received money from accused Ram Rattan Singh in lieu of the prosecutrix meaning thereby that they had sold the prosecutrix to him and the brothers of the accused Ram Rattan Singh had also misbehaved with her during the period of her confinement in the room of accused Ram Rattan Singh. She submits that all the accused are liable to be convicted.
7. To the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the accused submit that the testimony of PW-1, the Notory Public who had attested the deed of marriage as well as the affidavits of the parties to the marriage coupled with the photographs of the marriage ceremony Ex. PW3/D1 to Ex. PW3/D11, which have been admitted to be genuine by the prosecutrix in her examination, and the testimony of DW-1 clearly establish that the prosecutrix was conscious when she signed the aforesaid documents and also during the marriage ceremony and that she was a willing party to the marriage. He submits that it is evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix herself that she had married the accused Ram Rattan Singh SC No.33/14 Page 6 of 20 knowing that he owns several auto rickshaws but later on came to know that he does not own any auto rickshaw and runs the cycle repair shop. He further submits that it is not a case of abduction or forcible marriage or rape but the case of marriage which ran into rough weather as the income and trade of the husband i.e. accused Ram Rattan Singh was not according to the expectation of the prosecutrix. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused much less beyond reasonable doubt and hence all the accused are liable to be acquitted.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-3. The relevant portion of her examination in chief is reproduced hereunder:-
"I had come to Delhi in July, 2013 and had been doing the job of cooking in various houses at Delhi. I was staying in a house in Village Pochanpur, Sector-23, Dwarka. I was staying alone. Accused Baby and her husband i.e. accused Chanderbhan @ Bantu, who are present in court today, were residing as tenants in the house adjacent to my house at Pochanpur. Baby and Bantu used to tell me to solemnise marriage but I was not willing to marry. Once they have shown a boy also to me but I did not like him. After some days she showed me another boy which also was not to my liking. The name of that boy was Ram Rattan, who is one of the accused and is present in the court today. Baby insisted upon me to marry Ram Rattan saying that he is a good boy, is plying an auto rickshaw and earns about Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, still I refused to marry Ram Rattan. However, Baby used to pressurise me to marry Ram Rattan.
On 20.01.14, I had gone to Ranjit Vihar, Sector-22, Dwarka for work. It was morning time. When I was doing my work in a house there, I received a call from accused Bantu on my mobile phone asking me to come downstairs as he wants to talk to me. I SC No.33/14 Page 7 of 20 requested my employer lady to allow me to go for two minutes. Initially she did not agree to my request but upon my insistence she permitted me to go. Accordingly, I went downstairs. I found accused Bantu, accused Mukesh and accused Baby present there. They were having an auto rickshaw also with them. They again started pressurising me to marry accused Ram Rattan saying that after the marriage I would not have to do the said work and I would be maintained by Ram Rattan properly. They brought me forcibly to their house in the auto rickshaw. Meanwhile, I received call on my mobile phone from my employer lady but accused Bantu snatched my mobile phone and told my employer lady that I would not come to work.
In the house of accused Bantu, they again pressurised me to marry accused Ram Rattan but I again showed my disinclination for marriage. I told them to give me a few months to decide on this issue but they were not ready to give me any time and they wanted me to solemnise marriage there and then. I wanted to talk to my parents and accordingly I went to the roof of the house to make a phone call but the accused followed me there also and hence I was not able to make a call to my parents. They had told me that they would talk to my parents but I did not give the number of my parents to them. Thereafter, they brought me to Court. In the court they offered me some sweets. On consuming the sweets I became unconscious. They took my signatures on some documents. When I regained consciousness I found myself in the room of accused Ram Rattan. Ram Rattan and his three brothers were also present in the room. I do not know the names of Ram Rattan's brothers. However, they are present in the court today. (The witness points towards accused Rohtash, Sudama and Surjit present in the court saying that they are the three brothers of accused Ram Rattan who were present in the room). Thereafter, accused Ram Rattan committed rape upon me. He kept me confined in that room for 10 days and during that period he used to continuously commit rape upon me. His brothers accused Rohtash, Sudama and Surjit SC No.33/14 Page 8 of 20 tried to molest me and also had issued threats to me. They used to beat me.
After 10 days I escaped from that room and reached Ranjit Vihar. However, accused Ram Rattan followed me up to there. From Ranjit Vihar I went to a room of my friend in Pochanpur. However, accused Ram Rattan met me on the way and took me forcibly again to his room. He gave beating to me and threatened me that in case I made an attempt to escape again, he would break my legs. I pleaded before him to set me free but he did not listen to my request.
On 06.02.14, I again escaped from that room at about 8.30 p.m. and reached the room of my friend at Pochanpur. I tried to hide myself from the eyes of accused. However, Ram Rattan and his brothers used to make calls to me and threatened me that they would not spare me if they see me at any place. In the morning of 07.02.14, I went to the house of Baby and requested her to help me getting back my goods but she declined to provide any help to me. I told her and her husband Bantu that I would call police but they started laughing at me saying that what can police do to them."
9. She further deposed that she got prepared a written complaint from a lawyer and submitted the same in police station on 10.02.14. She proved the said complaint as Ex. PW3/A. She also proved her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW3/B. She further deposed that her kurta, pajama and undergarments were seized by the IO on 11.02.14 vide memo Ex. PW3/C and the accused Baby and Bantu were arrested in her presence on 10.02.14 vide arrest memos Ex. PW3/D and Ex. PW3/E. Upon perusal of the Court file, she pointed out the original Deed of Marriage Ex. PW1/A and original affidavit Ex. PW1/C saying that her signatures were taken by the accused on these two documents. She identified her signatures on these two documents at various points. She was SC No.33/14 Page 9 of 20 declared hostile on certain points by the Ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP she admitted that she came to know later on that accused Ram Rattan Singh does not have any auto rickshaw but has a small cycle repair shop. She also admitted that accused Ram Rattan Singh had told her that she had been sold to him by accused Bantu and accused Baby in lieu of money.
10. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused she admitted that accused Ram Rattan Singh, Mukesh Surjit, Sudama and Rohtash were not arrested in her presence and she does not know where from they had been arrested. She further deposed that nobody told her that accused Baby and accused Bantu had sold her to accused Ram Rattan Singh and she only realised the same when accused Ram Rattan Singh had committed rape upon her. She did not know the name of the lawyer who had prepared the complaint Ex. PW3/A. She has gone to that lawyer at the instance of her friend Preeti and met him in the house of Preeti on 10.02.14. She has studied upto 5th or 6th class and knows that a call can be made to police at Tel. No. 100 in case of adversity. She was confronted with her complaint Ex. PW3/A and statement Ex. PW3/B wherein she had not mentioned that the accused had brought her forcibly from her place of work on 20.01.14 to the room of accused Ram Rattan Singh. She was also confronted with her complaint Ex. PW3/A wherein she had not mentioned that accused Baby and Bantu had told her that accused Ram Rattan Singh is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and would maintain her as a queen. She was shown photographs Ex. PW3/D1 to Ex. PW3/D11 during the course of her cross-examination. She admitted that in one photograph she is seen putting a flower SC No.33/14 Page 10 of 20 garland around the neck of Ram Rattan Singh, in another photograph Ram Rattan Singh is seen applying vermilion on her forehead and in some photographs she as well as Ram Rattan Singh are seen having garlands in their hands. She also stated that accused Mukesh is seen in two photographs but she did not know the other persons seen in the photographs. According to her, the saree which she is seen wearing in these photographs, was given to her by accused Baby and the same was purchased from a shop in Palam Colony in her presence and was selected for her by accused Baby. Accused Mukesh and accused Bantu were also with them at that time. She stated that the saree was purchased about 5 or 6 days before 21.01.14 and one sweater as well as a shawl also had been purchased for her on that day from Palam Colony. Accused Mukesh had also given her a box of sweets and Rs. 100/- in cash on that day. She further deposed that on 20.01.14, she was taken from the Court to Goyla Dairy in same auto rickshaw in which they had arrived there. She did not know which of the accused had purchased sweets. The sweets were offered to her by the accused while going to Goyla Dairy in the auto rickshaw. She came to know in the morning of the next day that she is present in the house of Ram Rattan Singh and that she has been raped. She found the brothers of Ram Rattan Singh and 2/3 ladies also present in the house. Only a small room was in the occupation of the Ram Rattan Singh and it was situated on the first floor of the house. There were four rooms on that floor and another four rooms on the ground floor and all were occupied by the tenants.
11. She further deposed that she came to know from telephonic conversation of accused Ram Rattan Singh with SC No.33/14 Page 11 of 20 somebody else that he is not plying any auto rickshaw but is running a cycle repair shop. According to her, accused Ram Rattan Singh had gone for work only two or three days during the 10 days of her confinement in his room. He used to leave at about 8.30 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. and used to return at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. She did not know where the brothers of accused Ram Rattan Singh had been residing as she had not visited their rooms; she thought that they are also residing in the same house as they used to visit the room of Ram Rattan Singh and take meals there sometimes. She remain in the house of Ram Rattan Singh for 15 days. She was having mobile phone with her for last 5 days which had been returned to her by accused Baby on her persistent requests. She had made calls to her four or five friends requesting them to save her but she did not make any call to her parents or to her brothers or to her sisters. She also did not make any call to the land ladies in whose house she had worked as a maid. She did not know the name of photographer who had taken photographs Ex. PW3/D1 to Ex. PW3/D11. She also did not know how many photographs in total were taken by the photographer. She did not know the person who applied vermilion on her forehead as seen in photograph Ex. PW3/D5. She did not know who had given her bangles to wear which are seen in photographs Ex. PW3/D4 and Ex. PW3/D5. She stated her mobile number as 7834870245. She further denied all the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Counsel.
12. PW-1 is the Notary Public having her seat at Dwarka Court. She deposed that on 20.01.14 a boy named Ram Rattan Singh and a girl named 'P' had come to her alongwith a lawyer for attestation of their Marriage Deed and two affidavits, one sworn by SC No.33/14 Page 12 of 20 Ram Rattan Singh and other sworn by girl 'P'. The Marriage Deed was having joint photograph of both Ram Rattan Singh and 'P' and they were identified by the lawyer who was accompanying them. They were also accompanied by two witnesses namely Sunil Kumar and Chanderbhan. She deposed that on being satisfied about the identity of Ram Rattan Singh as well as 'P', she attested the Marriage Deed as well as the two affidavits. She identified her seal and signatures at Point A on these three documents and proved these as Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. She deposed that she had made entry about the attestation of these documents in her register and produced the relevant page of her register as Ex. PW1/D having mention regarding the attestation of these documents at Sl. No. 627, 628 and 629. She had obtained a joint photograph of Ram Rattan Singh as well as 'P' which she had pasted on her register opposite the aforesaid signatures. She had also taken the signatures of witness Sunil Kumar and Chanderbhan. She also had taken the signatures of 'P' as well as Ram Rattan Singh on her register. In the cross-examination she deposed that 'P' was made aware that aforesaid documents were regarding her marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh and she had voluntarily signed those documents as well as the register. According to her 'P' was in a smiling mood and did not appear under any kind of pressure or threat or inducement.
13. PW-2 is the owner of house no. C-156/7, Phase-I, Qutub Vihar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 23.01.14 he had let out a room on the fourth floor of the said house to accused Ram Rattan Singh and his wife 'P'. After about 10 or 15 days, police officials came to his house and took away both of them. In the SC No.33/14 Page 13 of 20 cross-examination he deposed that he does not reside in the aforesaid house as he has let out all the rooms to the tenants but visits the said house daily in the mornings and evenings. He further deposed that the brothers of accused Ram Rattan Singh did not reside in that area and he had never seen them. He further deposed that 'P' used to move around freely in the house and also used to go to the room of brother of Ram Rattan's brother in law (Jija) who also used to reside in his house as a tenant.
14. The prosecution case is that accused Bantu, accused Baby, accused Ram Rattan Singh and accused Mukesh had brought the prosecutrix forcibly to Court on 20.01.14 and after making her sign certain papers, she was told that her Court Marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh has been performed. Thereafter, she was administered something mixed in sweets by the accused as a result of which she felt intoxicated and did not remember what happened. Next day, she found herself in the house of accused Ram Rattan Singh in Goyla Dairy and also realised that the accused Ram Rattan Singh had committed rape upon her during the night.
15. The prosecutrix has deposed in this Court that accused Baby had been insisting upon her to marry accused Ram Rattan Singh but she had refused to solemnise marriage with Ram Rattan Singh. She has further deposed that on 20.01.14 accused Bantu, accused Mukesh and accused Baby brought her from her workplace in an auto rickshaw forcibly to their house and started pressurising her to marry accused Ram Rattan Singh but she refused to yield to their pressure. Thereafter, they brought her to SC No.33/14 Page 14 of 20 Court where they offered her some sweets on consuming which she became unconscious and they took her signatures on some documents. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in the room of accused Ram Rattan Singh and thereafter accused Ram Rattan Singh committed rape upon her. He also kept her confined in his room for 10 days and during that period used to continuously commit rape upon her. In the cross-examination, she has deposed that after taking her signatures on four or five papers in Court on 20.01.14, she was taken to Goyla Dairy and was offered sweets in the auto rickshaw while going to Goyla Dairy. She came to know in the morning of the next day that she is present in the house of Ram Rattan Singh and that she has been raped.
16. In the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW3/B, the prosecutrix has stated that when accused Baby told her that accused Ram Rattan Singh owns various auto rickshaws and earns Rs. 1500/- daily, she became greedy and gave her consent for the marriage for the sake of Baby's happiness and thereafter she was taken to Court where she was made to sign on certain papers and was told that her marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh has been solemnised.
17. It is thus manifest that the prosecutrix has given contradictory statements regarding what had happened between her and the accused on 20.01.14. In the FIR, she states that she was given sweets laced with some intoxicating substances in the Court after her signatures were taken on certain papers whereupon she felt intoxicated and does not remember what SC No.33/14 Page 15 of 20 happened thereafter. However, in her testimony as PW-3 she has deposed that immediately on being brought to Court, the accused offered her some sweets on consuming which she became unconscious and they took her signatures on some documents. In the cross examination, she deposed that the sweets were offered to her in the auto rickshaw on they way back from Court to Goyla Dairy. In the FIR as well as in her testimony before this Court she has stated that she was not willing to marry accused Ram Rattan Singh whereas in the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had given her consent for the marriage with accused Ram Rattan Singh on getting knowledge that he owns various auto rickshaws and earns Rs. 1500/- daily. Therefore, there is no consistency in the statements of the prosecutrix in this regard which indicates that she is not a credible and trustworthy witness.
18. Apart from that, a look at the photographs Ex. PW3/D1 to Ex. PW3/D11 shown to the prosecutrix during her cross examination and upon perusal of her cross examination in this regard coupled with the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, it is manifest beyond doubt that she was fully conscious throughout the marriage ceremony and the preparations for marriage had started a few days before 20.01.14. In the aforementioned photographs the prosecutrix and accused Ram Rattan Singh are seen having garlands in their hands while in standing position and putting garlands around each other's neck and taking rounds around the sacred fire. The face of the prosecutrix is clearly visible in most of these photographs and she does not appear to be in a disappointed or terrified state of mind. The prosecutrix has admitted that these photographs pertain to her marriage with SC No.33/14 Page 16 of 20 accused Ram Rattan Singh and she alongwith accused Ram Rattan Singh and other relatives are seen in these photographs. The photographs do not give even a slightest possible indication that the prosecutrix was either unconscious or in intoxicated state or that she was forced to go through the marriage ceremony.
19. The testimony of DW1 too supports the version of the accused that a proper marriage had taken place between prosecutrix and accused Ram Rattan on 20.01.14 with the consent of the prosecutrix. According to him, the marriage was performed in Vaishno Mata Mandir, Goyla Dairy and around 40-50 persons had attended it. He stated that after the marriage, accused Ram Rattan treated them with dinner at his rented house. He also stated that bride 'P' was in fully conscious state during the whole marriage ceremony and also took dinner in his presence. There is nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve him. His presence in the marriage ceremony cannot be doubted as he is seen at Point 'X' in photograph Ex. PW3/D1.
20. Hence it is limpid that the marriage had taken place with the will and consent of the prosecutrix and she was fully conscious throughout the marriage ceremony. The evidence on record further demonstrates that the marriage was performed according to requisite Hindu rites and ceremonies.
21. It is important to note here that prosecutrix has not mentioned about this marriage ceremony either in her examination in chief or in her statements recorded during the SC No.33/14 Page 17 of 20 course of investigation. Her contention has been that her signatures were taken on a couple of documents in Court and was told that her marriage with Ram Rattan has taken place. However, these photographs Ex. PW3/D1 to Ex. PW3/D11, admitted to be genuine by the prosecutrix, show that a proper marriage ceremony had taken place which was attended by many guests. It appears that she had mischievously conceded this fact from police and from this Court in order to ensure false implication of the accused in this case.
22. More importantly, the prosecutrix had admitted in the cross examination that the saree which she is seen wearing in these photographs was given to her by accused Baby and it was purchased from a shop in Palam Colony in her presence about 5 or 6 days before 20.01.14. She has further deposed that accused Baby, Bantu and Mukesh had purchased one sweater and shawl also for her on the same day and accused Mukesh had given to her a box of sweets and Rs. 100/- in cash on that day.
23. It is thus evident that the marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Ram Rattan was not a marriage on paper only, as claimed by prosecutrix. And it was not a one day affair only. Infact the preparations for the marriage had started a few days before 20.01.14 when a bridal saree, sweater and shawl were purchased for the prosecutrix in her presence from a shop in Palam Colony. She was also given a box of sweets and Rs. 100/- in cash as gift by accused Mukesh on the same day.
24. The above noted admissions made by the prosecutrix SC No.33/14 Page 18 of 20 herself in her cross examination demolish the prosecution case in totality.
25. The testimony of PW-1 clearly shows that the prosecution was fully conscious and had voluntarily signed the marriage deed Ex. PW1/A as well as the affidavit Ex. PW1/C and the register of PW-1.
26. The deposition of PW-2, the landlord, conveys that the prosecutrix was living willingly and happily with accused Ram Rattan.
27. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was having her mobile phone no. 7834870245 with her during last five days of her captivity in Ram Rattan's room. However, she didn't make any call at Tel. No. 100, even though she knew that a call should be made at Tel. No. 100 in the times of distress. She admits having made calls to her friends requesting their help but she didn't make a call either at Tel. No. 100 or to her family members i.e. parents, brother and sister. This only indicates that prosecutrix had performed marriage with accused Ram Rattan without informing her family members and therefore she was reluctant to talk to them after marriage. This also indicates that she had not been confined forcibly in the room of accused Ram Rattan but was staying there willingly as his legally married wife and hence she did not make a call at Tel. No. 100.
28. In her examination in chief, prosecutrix has stated that accused Ram Rattan had told her that she has been sold to him by SC No.33/14 Page 19 of 20 accused Bantu and Baby. However, in the cross examination, she deposed that nobody told her that accused Baby and Bantu had sold her to Ram Rattan and she realised the same when Ram Rattan raped her. These contradictory statements too show that she is telling only a lie. There is no other evidence on record to show that prosecutrix had been sold to accused Ram Rattan.
29. The evidence led by the prosecution itself establishes beyond doubt that the prosecutrix had solemnised marriage with Ram Rattan voluntarily and with her consent and was staying with him as his wife after the marriage. They co-habited also as husband and wife. However, somehow the prosecutrix did not want to continue with this marriage. She thus ran away from his room. She did not go to any police station and did not make any call at Tel. No. 100 at that juncture also. As she intended to conceal the factum of marriage and put an end to her relations with Ram Rattan, she consulted a lawyer and prepared a false complaint containing concocted story of forcible marriage and rape. This Court does not see any iota of truth in the prosecution case. The witnesses of prosecution itself have falsified its case. The prosecution case is nothing but a concocted story developed by the prosecutrix in consultation with her lawyer.
30. Accordingly, all the accused are hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 01.10.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.33/14 Page 20 of 20