Delhi District Court
The Case Of Bharwada Bhoginbhai ... vs State Of on 13 April, 2017
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
S.C No:02/13
FIR No : 138/11
PS: Moti Nagar
Under/section: 376/506 IPC
State
Versus
Baba Bamdev Ram
son of Sh Rajender Prasad
resident of H. No. 3181, Mahendra Park
Near Rani Bagh, Delhi.
Date of receipt of file
after committal : 24/04/2012
Date of judgment : 13/04/2017
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Baba Bamdev Ram has been charge sheeted by Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi for the offences under sections 376 and 506 IPC on the grounds that prosecutrix was raped and threatened by accused.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that prosecutrix came to Delhi about 7 years ago with one Ganga Ram to work as a maid in private house. By the placement agency run by Ms Salmi and John, she was employed at the house of one Mr
-:: Page 1 of 22 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Anurag at Amritsar, where she worked for 5 years. In those five years at Amritsar, prosecutrix was allegedly raped by father in law of Mr Anurag but she could not report the matter to the police there and reported the same to Ms Salmi after coming back to Delhi. In order to help the prosecutrix , Ms Salmi introduced her to the accused and accused took undue advantage of the prosecutrix in the garb of helping her in case of rape against father in law of Mr Anurag, and committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Accused threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise he would kill the prosecutrix. Due to this threat, prosecutrix could not report the matter to police immediately. After some time complaint was made by prosecutrix with police and accordingly FIR no 138/11 was registered in PS Moti Nagar against present accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in court.
3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 15/02/2013, accused Baba Bamdev Ram was charged for offence under sections 376/506 of the IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In evidence prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
5. PW1 Ct Jalita Laka took the prosecutrix to hospital for her medical examination & got her medical conducted.
6. PW2 is Ct Sunil Kumar. He has joined the investigation
-:: Page 2 of 22 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
of the present case with the IO on 02/08/2011. In his presence, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A & personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW3 Dr Akanksha has medically examined the prosecutrix and proved her report as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Dr Sunil Kakkar has medically examined the prosecutrix for determining the age of prosecutrix and proved his report as Ex.PW4/A.
9. PW5 Ms Salmi has deposed that her husband Mr Johan Kumar is running placement agency and she is living separately from her husband. PW5 has not supported the case of prosecution.
10. PW6 Sh Harinder Singh is owner of the property bearing no A189, Sudarshan Park. He has further deposed that ground floor was given on rent to one person. This witness has not identified the accused.
11. PW7 HC Pyare Lal has deposed that on 02.08.2011 he was posted as MHCM in the Malkhana of PS Moti Nagar. On that day SI Vipnesh had deposited two sealed pulandas and one sample seal. Same was entered in register no.19 vide serial no.3044/11. The photocopy of the register is Ex.PW7/A.
12. PW8 SI Rameshwar Oraon has deposed that on 06/04/2011, on the basis of the rukka, he had recorded the FIR of the present case and proved the copy of the same as
-:: Page 3 of 22 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW9 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she was . She has deposed that s brought to Delhi about 7 years ago by Mr.Ganga Ram to work as a maid in private houses. She was left at a placement agency run by Ms. Salmi and Mr. John. They got her employed as a maid in the house of one Mr.Anurag at Amritsar at the salary of Rs.2000/ p.m. where she worked for 5 years. Mr. Anurag had paid her salary to Ms. Salmi but she did not release the same to her. She was brought to Delhi by Ms. Salmi and Mr. Anil in 2011 after Holi. While she was at Amritsar, she was raped several times by the father in law of Mr. Anurag. She had complained to Mr. Anurag's mother. Mr. Anurag's mother threatened to get her kill in case she told about the rape to any one. This continued for about a year and after that she was brought to Delhi. She could not contact the police or talk to anyone about her continuous rape for about one year at Amritsar since she was not permitted to talk to anyone. On reaching Delhi she told about her continuous rape by Mr. Anurag's father in law at Amritsar to Ms. Salmi, who further called accused Baba Bamdev Ram for help. Accused came twice and inquired about the incident from her in the office of Ms. Salmi. After two days, he came again and made inquiries from her. He took her to a separate room and raped her. She tried to shout but he put his hand on her mouth. Thereafter, he left
-:: Page 4 of 22 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
after raping her. She told about her rape by the accused to Ms. Salmi after 12 days but she told her to remain silent and not to disclose the incident to any one. After few days, she went to the PS to make a complaint. She told about the incident to the police. It was about 12.00mid night thereafter she was sent back with Ms. Salmi. Ms. Salmi called accused and he continued to rape her on several occasion .
14. She is employed in Bachpan Bachao Andolan and had been married to Mr 'N'.(name withheld to protect the identity of prosecutrix but mentioned in file). She had given her statement to the police, which is Ex.PW10/A. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW11/A was recorded by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate. She was taken to a hospital where she was medically examined.
15. PW10 Mr Muni Raj Kuashik has deposed that he is running NGO in the name of Adiwasi Vikas Samiti. He is working as a President of Adiwasi Vikas Samiti. On 02.06.2011, prosecutrix along with Mr. Vinod Tyagi and one more person came to his office. He knew Mr. Vinod Tyagi who was also running an NGO at Karampura. Prosecutrix told him that earlier she was working some where in Punjab where she had been raped by father in law of the person(owner/employer of the house) where she was working. Thereafter she was brought to Delhi with one Ms. Salmi and stayed with her in her office. Ms. Salmi was
-:: Page 5 of 22 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
running a placement agency near Moti Nagar. Ms. Salmi called Baba Bamdev in her office. Baba Bamdev was also running some NGO. At that time she was not knowing Baba Bamdev. Prosecutrix narrated the incident of rape to Baba Bamdev which took place with her in Punjab. After that Baba Bamdev left the office of Ms. Salmi. After 23 days of this, Baba Bamdev again came to the office of Ms. Salmi. Baba Bamdev while conducting inquiries from prosecutrix raped her . This fact was told to him by prosecutrix on 02.06.2011 when she came to his office with Mr. Vinod Tyagi and one person. He along with Mr. B.S. Azad, Secretary of Adiwasi Vikas Samiti took prosecutrix to PS Moti Nagar.
prosecutrix
16. Witness had stated that he again went to PS Moti Nagar on 04/06/2011 on receipt of call from Mr Manish Sharma of Bachpan Bachao Andolan. SI Vipnesh was called in the PS, who again conducted inquiries from prosecutrix. P prosecutrix rosecutrix was sent to hospital for her medical examination. On 02.06.2011 when he along with prosecutrix prosecutrix and Mr. B.S.Azad went to PS Moti Nagar. One complaint of prosecutrix prosecutrix in writing was given in PS and the same was on the letter head of Adiwasi Vikas Samiti. The complaint had been kept by the police. On 04/06/2011, police recorded the fresh statement of prosecutrix prosecutrix on which the FIR was registered. After medical examination of prosecutrix, police wanted to hand over prosecutrix in his custody but he
-:: Page 6 of 22 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
requested to the police to send her to CWC but his request was declined by the police and he took prosecutrix to his house. After 45 days of this incident, prosecutrix was again called to PS and she was taken to the hospital for the test of her bony age. Prosecutrix stayed in his house for about 23 months after that she was taken to her native place by her brother.
17. PW11 Sh Rajender Kumar, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C and proved the same as Ex.PW11/C.
18. PW12 Dr Avdesh has medically examined the accused and proved vide MLC as Ex.PW12/A.
19. PW13 Inspector Vipnesh has deposed that on 02/06/2011 prosecutrix along with NGO Muni Raj Kaushik came to the PS. The present case was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, which is Ex.PW10/A. Prosecutrix was sent to hospital for her medical examination.
Statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court.
20. PW14 Dr Deep Shikha has medically examined the prosecurtrix, which is Ex.PW14/A.
21. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
22. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he has denied the allegations. Accused had stated
-:: Page 7 of 22 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, at the instance of Muni Raj Kaushik and Manish Sharma, who are running extortion racket. As accused had made complaint against these persons for extorting money by implicating persons in false cases of rape, accused was implicated in this false case, in pre planner manner, for extorting money from him. Accused had stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defense. But no such defense evidence was led by accused, despite various opportunities given to him, hence vide order dated 18/01/2017, defense evidence was closed.
23. I have heard arguments from Sh Satvinder Singh, Ld Defense counsel for accused as well as from Sh Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P for the State.
24. It is submitted by Ld Defense counsel that all the material witnesses in this case have turned hostile. PW5 Ms Salmi, who has allegedly introduced the accused with the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW6 Sh Harinder Singh, who was landlord of the house where the incident is alleged to have taken place, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. It was also submitted by Ld defense counsel that even the testimony of PW9 (prosecutrix) is full of contradictions and there are variations in the statement, which makes the statement of the prosecutrix unreliable. Hence, it is prayed by Ld defense counsel that accused be acquitted, for the offences, he is
-:: Page 8 of 22 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
charged with.
25. On the other hand, Sh Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P had submitted that in the present case, although several witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution but testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, clear and points towards the guilt of the accused Baba Bamdev to such an effect that accused should be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. With these submissions, it is prayed by Ld Additional P.P that accused be convicted.
26. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the parties and gone through the file.
27. In the present case allegations against accused Baba Bamdev Ram is of committing offence of rape punishable under section 376 IPC on the person of the prosecutrix on 06/05/2011 at the address mentioned in the file. The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix was brought to Delhi from her native place for working as maid. She was left at the placement agency run by PW5 Ms Salmi, who got her employed at Amritsar at the house of Mr Anurag. Prosecutrix worked there for about five years but no salary was given to her. It is also stated by prosecutrix that while she was living in Amritsar, she was raped several times by father in law of Mr Anurag. Lateron, after five years, prosecutrix came back to Delhi she informed about this fact of rape committed by father in law of Mr Anurag to PW5 Ms Salmi. On this
-:: Page 9 of 22 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
occasion, prosecutrix was introduced to the accused through PW5. Prosecutrix was introduced to accused for help in respect to the rape committed upon her at Amritsar. As per the case of the prosecution, while inquiring about the incident, accused committed rape upon prosecutrix. The prosecutrix informed this fact to PW5 Ms Salmi but she also asked prosecutrix to remain silent & not to disclose the incident to anyone. After few days, prosecutrix went to PS and made complaint through Muni Rak Kaushik ie PW10.
28. In the present case, accused has taken the defense that prosecutrix has falsely implicated him in the present case at the behest of PW10 Sh Muni Raj Kaushik and Vinod Tyagi. It was further tried to be proved by the defense that earlier one case has been registered against accused Baba Bamdev and two other persons at PS Rani Bagh,FIR no. 175/11, also at the instance of PW10 Sh Muni Raj Kaushik, Vinod Tyagi and other persons. It was also emphasized by Ld defense counsel that prosecutrix is in the habit of levelling false allegation against a person. Earlier she had levelled false allegations against father in law of Mr Anurag but later on she had compromised the matter with him after taking money, thereby defense tried to be set up by accused is that prosecutrix was involved in the racket to extort money and accused has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix at the instance of Muni Raj Kaushik, Manish Sharma and Vinod Tyagi in order to
-:: Page 10 of 22 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
extort money from accused.
29. Firstly I will discuss the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is sole testimony against the accused and thereafter I will discuss the defense taken by the accused in order to disprove the case of the prosecution.
30. It is settled legal position that conviction of the accused in rape case can be based on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and refusal to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule amounts to adding insult to injury. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 dealing with the uncorroborated testimony of a victim of sexual assault, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelieve of suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society".
31. In the case of State of Punjab vs Gurmeet Singh reported in 1996 Cr.L.J 1996, Crl. L J 172, the Hon'ble Apex Court took a view that the courts dealing with the rape cases shoulder a greater responsibility and they must deal with such cases with utmost sincerity. Relevant para of the said
-:: Page 11 of 22 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
judgment is reproduced as under:
"...The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an 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 prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reasons the Courts find it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony,it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation.."
32. Thus, as per Gurmeet Singh's case ( mentioned above), it is the duty of the courts dealing with rape cases to ensure that within the parameters of law, specially Evidence Act, the dignity and honour of the victim should be maintained and this type of cases should be dealt with great sensitivity. In a series of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of the prosecutrix should not be treated as the testimony of accomplice. Rather it is to be treated at par with
-:: Page 12 of 22 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
the testimony of victim or injured. Minor discrepancies and insignificant contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not fatal in nature, should not be given undue weightage to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. By this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon and in such like case, there is no necessity of seeking corroboration of statement of the prosecutrix in material particulars.
33. In the case (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases113Kaini Rajan vs State of Kerala Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "conviction can be based on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if her version does not arouse doubt in mind of court. When facts and circumstances cast a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It would be unsafe to convict the accused relying on uncorroborated version of prosecutrix"
34. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rohit Bansal vs State in Crl. Appeal No. 660 of 1999 passed by Hon'ble Mr Justice G.S. Sistani and Hon'ble Ms Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Hon'ble High Court has observed:
"It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspire confidence and is accepted by the court, as such, conviction can be based on the solitary
-:: Page 13 of 22 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances".
35. In the present case, prosecutrix has been examined as PW9. She was crossexamined at length by Ld defense counsel for accused. In the entire cross examination of the prosecutrix, main stress of the Ld defense counsel has been on the point whether the prosecutrix was raped by father in law of Mr Anurag at Amritsar or not and whether the prosecutrix has compromised the matter with him or not. In respect to the present incident and allegation, only suggestions have been given to the prosecutrix that she has falsely implicated the accused but all these suggestions have been specifically denied by the prosecutrix. In the examination in chief recorded on 27/04/2013, prosecutrix had specifically stated that, "accused came twice and inquired the incident from her in the office of Ms Salmi. After two days, he came again and made inquiries from her. He took her to a separate room,
-:: Page 14 of 22 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
closed the door and raped her. She tried to shout but he put his hand on her mouth. Thereafter, he left after raping her". Prosecutrix has also stated in her examination in chief that accused raped her on several occasions thereafter and she wants the accused to be punished.
36. In the crossexamination various questions have been asked by Ld counsel for accused about the family of the prosecutrix, about the manner in which she came to Delhi and worked at Amritsar but no substantive questions has been put to the prosecutrix which could shatter her testimony. In the entire cross examination conducted on different dates and time, prosecutrix had been firm in making the statement that she was raped by father in law of Mr Anurag at Amritsar for which she had made complaint to PW5 Ms Salmi. She has also stated that she was raped by accused when Ms Salmi had called him to help her in the matter against father in law of Mr Anurag. No where, the testimony of the prosecutrix is shaking in regard to the allegation that rape was committed by accused against her.
37. It was also argued by Ld defense counsel that prosecutrix in cross examination has stated that she was present at her employer's house when allegedly she was stated to have been raped ie on 06/05/2011 and therefore, it is not possible that the incident could have taken place. But no direct suggestion has been given to the prosecutrix that on
-:: Page 15 of 22 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
06/05/2011 she was not present at Sudershan Park where she has alleged the incident to have taken place. In the absence of any specific suggestion being given to the prosecutrix in this regard, I am of the opinion that defense has not been able to create dent in the story of the prosecution. Even, to the question that she was working on 06/05/2011 at the house at Malviya Nagar, she had voluntarily stated that she used to take leave from her employer, whenever she has to attend the court. Therefore, it has no where been disproved by defense that prosecutrix has no opportunity to be present at Sudershan Park or that she was not there at all hence no incident of rape could have taken place.
38. Lengthy cross examination of the prosecutrix, conducted by Ld defense counsel, is, with a view to prove that there was conspiracy between PW10 Mr Muni Raj Kaushik, Vinod Tyagi and husband of the prosecutrix, who is working with NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan to frame the accused falsely. All these suggestions given to the prosecutrix have been denied by her. She had specifically stated that earlier she was not knowing PW10 Sh Muni Raj Kaushik and she came to know him only when she had gone to his office for lodging the complaint.
39. Detailed cross examination of prosecutrix on the point that she was raped by father in law of Mr Anurag at Amritsar clearly shows that this fact of rape had not been denied by
-:: Page 16 of 22 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
accused. Only defense taken by accused in this regard is that after taking some money from him, i.e. Father in law of Mr Anurag, Prosecutrix had compromised the case with him. Mere suggestion given by Ld defense counsel to prosecutrix in this regard shows that factum of rape, by father in law of Mr Anurag, of prosecutrix is admitted by defense and secondly the defense is saying that after taking money, prosecutrix had compromised the case of Amritsar. Thus, the truthfulness of allegation of rape of prosecutrix at Amritsar is not challenged by defense. This itself proves the case of prosecution that, prosecutrix was raped at Amritsar & in order to seek help in that case, she came in contact with accused through PW5 Ms Salmi, but instead of helping her, accused had sexually assaulted her and had threatened her to keep her mouth shut.
40. It is also important to mention here that while PW9 ( prosecutrix) was cross examined on 01/06/2013, she had admitted the suggestion of Ld defense counsel that she became pregnant due to rape committed on her person at Amritsar. She had also stated that PW5 Ms Salmi had given her some pills, due to which her pregnancy was aborted. This fact is corroborated by the document Ex.PW14/A, ie MLC of prosecutrix, where she had given description of her rape at Amritsar, fact of her pregnancy & the medical termination of pregnancy about two weeks prior to conduction of medical examination.
-:: Page 17 of 22 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
41. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion, that it has been proved by prosecutrix and admitted by accused that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault even at Amritsar, hence the defense taken by accused that prosecutrix had falsely implicated him to extort money, becomes groundless and baseless.
42. Coming to the conspiracy theory, tried to be established by the accused, I am of the opinion that accused has not been able to prove the conspiracy theory between Sh Muni Raj Kaushik, Vinod Tyagi, prosecutrix and husband of the prosecutrix. The contention of the defense has been that accused was running placement agency and other persons ie PW10 Muni Raj Kaushik, Vinod Tyagi etc were also running placement agency and there was rivalry between two, due to which, accused has been falsely implicated in the case at PS Rani Bagh, FIR no. 175/11 & has also been falsely implicated in the present case. In order to prove the conspiracy, it was essential for the defense to prove that accused had implicated Muni Raj Kaushik & other persons in a criminal case or that accused had lodged any complaint against PW10 or other person and as a counter blast Muni Raj Kaushik and Vinod Tyagi etc have implicated him in the present false case but no such evidence has been led by the defense. Only suggestions have been given to PW9 (prosecutrix) and PW10 Muni Raj Kaushik for proving the existence of any conspiracy,
-:: Page 18 of 22 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
which were denied by PW9 and PW10 clearly. No specific evidence was led by accused to prove that any conspiracy was hatched between PW10 (Muni Raj Kaushik), Vinod Tyagi or Manish Sharma or husband of prosecutrix to falsely implicate accused in present case. Admittedly accused was earlier involved in case FIR no 175/11 at PS Rani Bagh. Defense taken by accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C is that PW10 Muni Raj Kaushik and Manish Sharma were running an extortion racket & since accused had made complaint against them, they inturn had filed present false case against accused through present prosecutrix. But no such complaint lodged by accused against PW10 or any other person, has been placed or proved on record. Even the record of case, FIR No. 175/11, lodged against accused, herein, had not been filed on record by accused despite various opportunities given to him. Thus, I am of the opinion that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was some rivalry between accused on one hand and PW10 and other persons on other hand, or that due to this rivalry, accused was falsely implicated by prosecutrix in present case at the instance of PW10. Accused had even not been able to establish any relation between prosecutrix & Muni Raj Kaushik, which could prove that the allegation levelled by prosecutrix against accused are motivated. No suggestion was given to prosecutrix that PW5 Ms Salmi had never introduced
-:: Page 19 of 22 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
her to accused, or that due to this reason, there was no occasion for accused to commit rape upon prosecutrix. In the absence of any such suggestion, it can be safely presumed that accused had not denied that he was introduced to prosecutrix by PW5 Ms Salmi for helping prosecutrix, in case of rape committed against her at Amritsar. This again strengthens the correctness of case of prosecution.
43. As regards the medical evidence, admittedly, the incident was old, when the complaint was lodged with the police, therefore, no medical evidence could be collected or proved.
44. As regards, delay in lodging the FIR, I am of the opinion that poor girl (prosecutrix), who had come from native village to work as maid, was solely depending upon her agent "PW5" in the present case as she had no other relation living in Delhi. When she ( prosecutrix) was subjected to sexual assault, PW5 was the only person to whom she could inform about the incident. Admittedly she had informed PW5 about the rape by the accused but PW5 told her to keep quite and not to disclose this fact to anybody. The court has to see the plight of the prosecutrix, who was raped at Amritsar and when she came back to Delhi and complained about the rape to PW5 Ms Salmi, who was responsible for safety of prosecutrix, PW5 got the accused involved in this case. But instead of helping prosecutrix, accused had also raped her. At this time, PW5 had not provided any help to the prosecutrix.
-:: Page 20 of 22 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
Therefore, prosecutrix had no option but to keep quite and wait for the time to gather courage to report the matter to the police, which she did in the present case. PW10 Muni Raj Kaushik had been examined by the prosecution to prove that he has taken the complainant to the PS. PW10 had specifically stated that he was running NGO with the name of Adivasi Vikas Smiti and the prosecutrix was brought by Vinod Tyagi at the office of Adivasi Vikas Smiti and told him about the rape of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix told him about the rape committed by the accused. Then he took the prosecutrix along with Vinod Tyagi to PS Moti Nagar. On the first date, FIR was not registered but again they have visited the PS Moti Nagar on 04/06/2011 and at that time FIR was registered. In the detailed cross examination of PW10 also, defense has not been able to create any dent in the testimony of PW10. PW 10 had specifically stated that he was not aware of the prosecutrix at the time when FIR no 175/11 of PS Rani Bagh was registered. Even the FIR no 175/11 of PS Rani Bagh has not been proved/placed on record. Accused has not led any defense evidence to prove any relationship between PW10 Muni Raj Kaushik and PW 9 ( prosecutrix) or between PW 9 ( prosecutrix) & Vinod Tyagi. Accused had also not been able to prove any reason or motive for his false implication in present case by prosecutrix.
45. In view of my above discussion, & considering the
-:: Page 21 of 22 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
testimony of prosecutrix as a whole, chain of sequence and the conduct of the prosecutrix, I am of the opinion that testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable, clear, cogent and unambiguous. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in view of Kaini Rajans's case and Rohit Bansal's case (mentioned above), I am of opinion that testimony of PW 9 ( prosecutrix) inspires confidence and is trustworthy & the accused is therefore liable to be convicted on the basis of testimony of PW 9 ( prosecutrix). Hence the accused Baba Bamdev Ram is convicted for the offence punishable under section 376/506 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 13th April, 2017 Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-:: Page 22 of 22 ::-