Delhi District Court
State vs . Shyam Sunder on 23 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 28/14
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0038142014
State Vs. Shyam Sunder
S/o late Sh. Ramswaroop,
R/o H-53, Peethu Para Road, Pamadi,
Tehsil Basua, Thana Bandi Kuni,
Distt. Dousa, Rajasthan.
Date of Institution : 11.02.2014
FIR No. 434/13 dated 09.12.2013
U/s. 328/376 IPC
P.S. Palam Village
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 13.02.2015
Date of pronouncement : 23.02.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused Shyam Sunder has been facing trial for having committed offences punishable u/s. 328 IPC and u/s. 376 IPC.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the accused had SC No. 28/14 Page 1 of 19 promised to marry the prosecutrix 'R' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) and then one day committed sexual intercourse with her in his house at Palam after administering some stupefying substance to her. Thereafter, he stayed continuously with the prosecutrix from 13.02.13 to 31.07.13. However, he did not marry the prosecutrix and upon her insistence to marry, he beat her and left her. The prosecutrix submitted a written complaint in the police station on 09.12.13 on the basis of which FIR was registered and the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Asha. She took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital where she was medically examined. She recorded the statement of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of prosecutrix u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded on 10.12.13. The accused was granted anticipatory bail by the concerned Sessions Court and hence was formally arrested by the IO on 22.01.14.
3. After the completion of investigation IO prepared the charge sheet and submitted the same to the concerned Ld. Magistrate. Upon committal of case to the Court of Sessions, charge u/s. 328 IPC and u/s. 376 IPC was framed against the accused on 30.04.14. Accused denied the charges and hence trial was held. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.01.15 wherein he denied the prosecution case. He stated that he was having a love affair with the prosecutrix since 2008 and they had been staying together in a live-in relationship since the year 2009 at Alwar and then at Sadh Colony, Palam, New Delhi where they were having consensual physical relations. He also stated that he had told prosecutrix that he would be able to SC No. 28/14 Page 2 of 19 marry her only after the marriage of his sisters and despite that he solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix on 30.12.13 at Arya Samaj Mandir at New Delhi. He further stated that he never had any intention to cheat the prosecutrix and never committed rape upon her.
4. The accused examined his friend Raj Kumar as DW-1 and Chief Ticket Instructor Bandikui Railway Station, Rajasthan as DW-2 in his defence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record.
6. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1. The relevant portion of her examination in chief, being a lengthy one, is reproduced herein below:-
"I was studying in Govt. Polytechnic College, Alwar, Rajasthan, from 2007 to 2009 and during that period, accused Shyam Sunder (present in court today and correctly identified) was posted as Head T.C. at railway station Alwar. I used to see him during my travel from Alwar to Delhi and we started talking to each other. I finished my polytechnic course in the year 2010 and took up a job at Rewari, Haryana, in the year 2011. Thereafter I took up another job at Rohtak. Meanwhile my father expired in November, 2012. From December, 2012, the accused started making calls to me again. However, I did not answer his calls. The accused had taken my visiting card when he had come to console me on the death of my father in November, 2012. When I did not answer his calls, he started making calls on the mobile number of the Manager of the company, in which I was employed, which was mentioned on my visiting card. The Manager apprised me about the calls of the SC No. 28/14 Page 3 of 19 accused received by him and therefore, I was constrained to take the calls of accused. However, I asked the accused not to make any calls to me.
However, the accused did not stop making calls to me. Accordingly, on 14.1.2013 I came to meet him at Old Delhi Railway Station. I met him and asked him not to make any calls to me. There were heated arguments between us and we also quarrelled with each other. Then I returned to Rohtak. However, thereafter also the accused used to make calls to the Manager of our company. I felt harassed by the acts of the accused in making calls to our Manager and on account of harassment, I left the job and came back to Delhi. Accused met me at Delhi and we went to our native place in District Duasa, Rajasthan, together. The accused told me that I should not take up any job. He told me that he would go to Delhi and would take up a room on rent there and then he would get back to me.
On 13.2.2013 we again met at Bandikui railway station in Duasa, Rajasthan, and came to Delhi together. We took up a room on rent in Palam. However, the accused left during the night. I continued to stay in that room. The accused came to that room again on 15.2.2013 in the afternoon. He was having a 500 ml. Mountain Dew cold drink bottle with him. He poured the cold drink in two glasses and offered one to me. We both consumed the cold drink from the glasses. After consuming the cold drink, I became unconscious. I regained consciousness at about 1 a.m. in the night and found that I was lying in nude condition on the floor of the room on a mat. Accused was also sleeping besides me. He was not wearing any lower garment. I was having pain all over my body. I started weeping. Accused woke up and I asked him what he has done. He told me that he has committed sexual intercourse with me and further told me that there is nothing wrong in it as we would solemnize marriage with each other. He left in the morning. Thereafter accused continued to come to me once or twice in a week and spend nights with me. We used to have physical relations with each other on each such occasion. I used to insist upon the accused SC No. 28/14 Page 4 of 19 to marry me and he used to avoid. Sometimes, he used to say that he would marry me after the marriage of his two sisters and sometimes he would say that he would marry me after the marriage of his four sisters.
During that period, I tried to take up a job but the accused did not permit me to have a job. He used to quarrel me and beat me on this issue. He did not permit me to leave that room. He also did not allow me to talk to anybody on phone. This continued till the last week of July, 2013. The accused had told me that he would return on either 1st August, 2013 or 5th August, 2013 but he did not return. On 05.8.2013 I had gone to Gurgaon railway station and the accused met me there. He told me that his mother has not given her consent for his marriage with me and hence he cannot marry me. In the same month i.e. August, 2013 I went to the house of the accused and met his uncle (Tau) and his paternal uncle (Fufa). They told me that they have no objection if the accused is willing to marry me. Then I made a call to the accused and he asked me to meet him in the house of his another uncle in village Bandikui. I met him there but the accused flatly refused to marry me. Thereafter I kept on making regular calls to the accused but he did not answer my calls.
On 22.9.2013 I had to appear in an examination in Jodhpur. The accused accompanied me to Jodhpur from Bandikui railway station. The accused had physical relations with me in the train itself. That time also, accused told me that even if his mother is not in favour of our marriage, still he would marry me but after the marriage of his four sisters. Thereafter again the accused stopped taking my calls.
I came to Bandikui railway station on 15.10.2013 and met the accused. He was off duty on that day. He again assured me that he would marry me but after the marriage of his two sisters. However, he did not give me any fixed time for our marriage. I told him that I would lodge a complaint against him. We quarrelled with each at the railway station. Thereafter I went to the house of accused and met his mother and sisters. They ill treated me and abused SC No. 28/14 Page 5 of 19 me. Accused returned to his house at about 4 p.m. I was still present there at that time. He beat me and sided with his mother and sisters. I tried to prevail upon the mother of the accused but she did not listen to me. The accused then made a call to my brother Vinesh, who also came to the house of the accused in the evening. He also tried to prevail upon the accused and his mother but the accused flatly refused to solemnize marriage with me. Thereafter the accused showed me a handwritten agreement and pressurized me to sign the same. They threatened me that in case I did not sign the same, they would defame me everywhere and nobody would marry me. I was permitted to read only the last line of the agreement. They did not permit me to go through the whole agreement. Accordingly I had no option but to sign the same.
I have seen the photocopy of agreement dated 05.10.2013 from the court record consisting of two pages. I identify its second page which bears my signature at point A. But I cannot say whether its first page is the same which was shown to me on the aforesaid date as I had not gone through the contents of first page at that time. The agreement is Ex.PW1/A. It also bears the signature of my brother Vinesh at point B. After signing the aforesaid agreement, I alongwith my brother returned home. Thereafter also I made calls to the accused but he did not pick up my calls. In the month of November, 2013 I got served a legal notice upon the accused through my lawyer.
On 08.12.2013 a meeting took place between our family and the family of the accused in a park in Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi. I alongwith my brother and his sons participated in the meeting. Accused alongwith two uncles, maternal uncle and two cousins was present in the meeting. In the meeting, it was decided that I and the accused would solemnize court marriage and both would attend the court on the next date i.e. 09.12.2013. Next day, I made call to the accused but he did not pick up my call. I then made call to his parents and he told me that he is not aware about the accused. I waited for the accused in Rohini SC No. 28/14 Page 6 of 19 court for two hours but he did not turn up. Thereafter I made call to accused's brother Surender and he also was not aware about the accused. I told him that I will file a complaint against the accused. Then I received a call from the accused and he again told me that he is not willing to marry me. He further told me that he would bear one half of the expenses of my marriage if I marry somebody else. Upon hearing this, I reached P.S. Palam. and submitted a written complaint which is Ex.PW1/B bearing my signature at point A. A lady police official Asha Rani made calls to the accused three times asking him to come to the police station but the accused did not come to the police station. Accordingly FIR was registered on my complaint. From police station, I was taken to DDU Hospital where I was medically examined."
7. She further deposed that she was produced before a Lady Magistrate in Dwarka Court on 10.12.13 who recorded her statement Ex. PW1/C. In the cross examination she denied that her father had lodged any missing complaint regarding her in police station and stated that he had only made a call at Telephone no.
100. She further stated that upon getting knowledge about the same, she returned to Village Bandikui and made a statement before the police that she had left home voluntarily and had not gone missing. She denied that she had approached the SDM, Bandikui to tell him that she wants to lodge a complaint against her father. She stated voluntarily that her father had come to know that she has a love affair with the accused and he wanted the accused to marry her and for this reason he wanted to file a complaint against the accused but she did not permit him to do so. She denied that this incident was published in the Daily Newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 23.04.12. She stated that she is having love affair with the accused since the year 2010 and her SC No. 28/14 Page 7 of 19 father came to know about the same on 21.04.12 on which date he lodged missing complaint regarding her. She stated that she stayed with the accused at Palam from February, 2013 to August, 2013.
8. She further deposed that accused met her at Delhi on 11.02.13 and told her to leave job and stay with him. She admitted that the accused took her to the house of his cousin sister at Dwarka where they stayed for the night. She left in the morning for her home and the accused left for job. She again came back to Delhi on 13.02.13 as she intended to take up a job in Delhi. Accused accompanied her from Bandikui that day and took a room on rent in H.No. 2/13, Gali No. 8A, Sadh Nagar, Palam, New Delhi where both started residing together. They stayed in that room till August, 2013 and used to have physical relations with each other during that period. She denied that she had told the landlord that they are husband and wife. She admitted that she got served a legal notice Ex. PW1/D1 upon the accused on 20.11.13 through her Advocate Sh. Pradeep Singh Gahlot and in that notice she had not mentioned the date of rape as 15.02.13. She stated that she has received a reply from the accused to the aforesaid legal notice wherein it was mentioned that accused would solemnise marriage with her after the marriage of his sisters. She admitted that she was residing in the aforesaid room at Sadh Nagar, Palam Village voluntarily on her own will. She deposed that accused reached the room on 15.02.13 at 2.00 p.m. and was having his official bag with him. The accused had brought the cold drink bottle in his bag. The seal of the bottle had already been opened. She stated that the accused poured half of the bottle in a glass. She took the cold SC No. 28/14 Page 8 of 19 drink from the glass whereas the accused took it directly from the bottle. She regained consciousness in the early morning but could not tell the exact time. She did not know what intoxicating substance had been mixed by the accused in the cold drink. She did not raise any hue and cry on regaining consciousness in the morning of 16.02.13.
9. She admitted that the father of the accused expired in December, 2005 and his widowed mother as well as four sisters are solely dependent upon him as none of them is doing any job. She admitted that the two sisters of the accused are of marriageable age. She admitted that the accused had told her that he would marry her only after the marriage of his two sisters who are of marriageable age. She admitted that she engaged in physical relations with the accused despite what accused had told her as mentioned herein above. She admitted that they had consensual physical relations with each other after 15.02.13 also. She admitted that they have solemnised marriage with each other on 30.12.13 at Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. She identified her photograph and her signatures on the marriage certificate Ex. PW1/D and stated that the marriage had taken place with her will and consent and without any pressure or fraud from the side of the accused. She stated that the marriage photographs Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F were taken in the aforesaid temple at the time of marriage.
10. At another place in the cross examination she deposed that the glass in which the accused had poured cold drink for her on 15.02.13 was available in the room. It was made of glassware.
SC No. 28/14 Page 9 of 19The accused did not pour any other substance in the glass except the cold drink. She stated that when she woke up in the morning after regaining consciousness, accused was still sleeping. She woke up the accused and then the accused left the room at about 3.30 a.m. She was having a mobile phone at that time but did not tell anybody about the incident. She did not make any call to anybody after the incident. She further denied all the suggestions put to her by the cross examining counsel.
11. The prosecutrix's brother Mahesh Kumar Verma has been examined as PW-3. He deposed that one day in the month of October, 2013, when he was present at his shop in Bandikui at about 7.00 p.m. he received a call from a person who introduced himself as Shyam. He did not know that person. That person asked him to reach his house immediately as his sister is present there. Accordingly, he reached the house of that person on his motorcycle and saw his sister 'R' present in one of the rooms. Her hair was scattered and there were red marks on her cheeks. She started weeping on seeing her. He became enraged on seeing the condition of his sister, caught hold of Shyam Sunder who was present there and gave him a few slaps. Family members of Shyam Sunder came there soon and they caught hold of him and beat him. He further deposed that accused Shyam Sunder produced a handwritten paper before him on which something was written about settlement. The signatures of his sister had already been taken on the same. Accused threatened him that in case he did not sign it, he and his sister cannot leave from their house alive. Accordingly, he was constrained to sign the said paper at two places. He identified his signatures at Points D and B on the SC No. 28/14 Page 10 of 19 document Ex. PW1/A.
12. In the cross examination, he deposed that he can identify the signatures of his brother Vinesh Verma. He stated that the signatures at Point B on the second page of document Ex. PW1/A is not the signatures of his brother Vinesh. He stated that none of his family members was present in the house of accused when he reached there at about 7.15 p.m. He deposed that after leaving the house of accused, his sister 'R' told him that accused had raped her and had ruined her life. However, he did not ask her to lodge a complaint against the accused.
13. PW-2 Harish Kumar Bairwa is the cousin of accused Shyam Sunder. He deposed that the prosecutrix 'R' alongwith her two brothers Mahesh and Vinesh as well as Vinesh's friend Bharat Sharma had come to their house on 15.10.13. He alongwith his wife Asha and aunt Premlata were present in the house at that time. After deliberations for about one or two hours, an agreement was written by Bharat Sharma in his own hand which was then signed by him, prosecutrix, Mahesh, Vinesh, Bharat Sharma himself, Asha and Premlata. He identified the agreement Ex. PW1/A to be the same having his signatures at Point C.
14. PW-4 Gian Chand is the owner of H.No. RZ-13, Gali No. 8A, Sadh Nagar, Palam, New Delhi in which the prosecutrix and the accused had stayed as a tenant in one of the rooms for about six months. He identified both the accused as well as the prosecutrix who were present in the Court when his testimony was recorded. He further deposed that both had told him that they are husband SC No. 28/14 Page 11 of 19 and wife. He had got conducted their police verification and proved the copy of police verification report as Ex. PW4/A. In the cross examination he deposed that the Form Ex. PW4/A was filled up by accused's wife i.e. the prosecutrix.
15. The initial IO S.I. Asha Rani appearing as PW-7 has deposed in the cross examination that the prosecutrix did not tell her the date when she was drugged and raped by the accused. The prosecutrix had also not told her the name of the substance in which the stupefying substance was mixed which had been administered to her.
16. The IO S.I. Nirmala appearing as PW-8 deposed that she visited Village Bandikui, Rajasthan on 01.01.14 for verification of the settlement document dated 15.10.13 and made inquiries from the persons who had stood as a witnesses to the same and all of them confirmed the execution of the said settlement. She had recorded the statements of witnesses Harish and Mahesh u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. She further deposed that both the prosecutrix as well as the accused had come to the police station on 10.01.14 stating that they have solemnsied marriage with each other. They handed over a copy of marriage certificate as well as two marriage photographs to her which she seized vide memo Ex. PW8/A. In the cross examination, she admitted that Mahesh had stated that he had signed the settlement deed voluntarily and without any force, fraud or coercion. She further stated that the prosecutrix had told her that she had been administered sleeping pills mixed in water but did not give any further description of those pills.
SC No. 28/14 Page 12 of 1917. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused raped the prosecutrix on 15.02.13 in her unconsciousness after administering some intoxicating substance to her and thereafter had been committing sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage.
18. Let me first take up the incident of rape dated 15.10.13. The prosecutrix has not mentioned the date of rape in her written complaint Ex. PW1/B or in her statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/C. She has mentioned the date as 13.02.13 for the first time in her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW8/C recorded on 31.01.14. In her deposition before this Court as PW-1 she has mentioned the date of incident as 15.02.13. There is no explanation on record from her side as to why did not she mention the date in her written complaint submitted in the police station on 09.12.13 or in the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 10.12.13. Further it is not clear as to whether the incident took place on 13.02.13 or 15.02.13. There is no mention about the said incident in the legal notice Ex. PW1/D1 got served by the prosecutrix upon the accused which too makes the incident immensely doubtful. It may also be noted here that in the written complaint Ex. PW1/B and statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/C, the prosecutrix has stated that the accused had made her to eat some intoxicating substance pursuant to which she became unconscious. In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW8/C she has stated that the accused made her to drink deceitfully sleeping pills mixed with water upon taking which she became unconscious. Whereas in her examination in chief before this Court she deposed that the accused administered something to her mixed in cold SC No. 28/14 Page 13 of 19 drink on taking which she became unconscious. It is thus evident that she has been changing her version each time when her statement was recorded and she was called upon to describe the incident. There is no consistency at all in her statements regarding the manner in which she was administered the stupefying substance by the accused. This clearly indicates that no such incident has taken place and she has fabricated a false story in this regard.
19. Moreover, the prosecutrix has deposed in the cross examination that the accused brought the cold drink bottle in his bag and poured half of the bottle in a glass in her presence. He did not pour any other substance in the glass except the cold drink. She took the cold drink from the glass whereas the accused took it directly from the bottle. The glass in which the accused poured cold drink was available in the room itself. This conveys that it is cold drink which was laced with some intoxicating substance. However, if that was the case, the accused too should have became unconscious as he also consumed the cold drink from the bottle after pouring half of it in the glass which was taken by the prosecutrix. Since that was not the case, it is very difficult to believe that any intoxicating substance has been mixed with the cold drink. The conduct of the prosecutrix after the incident also does not indicate that she had been raped by the accused in unconsciousness. She has not mentioned at all as to what made her to realise that she had been raped by the accused during her unconsciousness. By merely saying that she found herself in nude condition in the room and the accused also was not wearing any lower garment cannot be taken to mean that she had been raped.
SC No. 28/14 Page 14 of 19Further, she did not raise any hue and cry on realising that she had been raped. She kept quite even after the accused admitted before her that he had committed sexual intercourse with her. She was having a mobile phone with her but did not make any call to any person including her parents and brothers. She did not tell anybody regarding the incident. Admittedly the accused had not issued any threats to her not to narrate the incident to anybody.
20. Therefore, the evidence on record does not indicate that any such rape incident had taken place.
21. Coming to the second limb of prosecution case that the accused used to have physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. It is admitted by the prosecutrix in her cross examination that they were having consensual physical relations in the rented room at Palam. She has also admitted that she was staying with the accused in the room at Palam voluntarily on her own will. It is also manifest from the evidence on record that the accused used to tell the prosecutrix that he would marry her. However, the prosecutrix has herself admitted in the cross examination that the accused had told her that he would be able to marry her only after the marriage of his two sisters who are of marriageable age. She has also admitted that the widowed mother of the accused and his four sisters are solely dependent upon him. Therefore, I do not see anything mischievous or deceitful in the promise held out by the accused to the prosecutrix that he would marry her only after the marriage of his two sisters. In Indian society it is the moral as well as social responsibility of a brother to see that his sisters get married before SC No. 28/14 Page 15 of 19 his own marriage. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused refused to marry the prosecutrix even after the marriage of his two sisters who were of marriageable age.
22. A settlement deed Ex. PW1/A is on record which appears to have been executed between the accused and the prosecutrix and signed by the two brothers of the prosecutrix Vinesh and Mahesh as witnesses. In this settlement deed, the prosecutrix has declared that she was staying in a live-in relationship with the accused since 2008 and they have snapped the relationship out of their own free will and have decided not to meet each other thenceforth. However, the prosecutrix has deposed that she had signed the same under the threat and pressure of the accused and not voluntarily. She has identified the signatures of her brother Vinesh at Point B on the same. She has deposed that on that day there was a quarrel between her and the accused at the Railway Station and thereafter she went to the house of accused to meet his mother and sisters who ill-treated her and abused her. The accused reached his house at about 4.00 p.m. and he too beat her. Thereafter, accused made a call to her brother Vinesh who came to the house of accused and thereafter her signatures were taken forcibly on the said settlement. Vinesh has neither been cited as a witness in the charge sheet nor has been examined as a witness before this Court. It seems that IO also do not make any inquiry from him during the course of investigation of this case. The IO appearing as PW-8 had deposed that she recorded the statements of only Harish and Mahesh, the other two witnesses to the settlement. According to her, both Harish and Mahesh confirmed to her the execution of the said SC No. 28/14 Page 16 of 19 settlement document.
23. Mahesh has been examined as PW-3. It is not clear from the evidence on record how did he reached the house of the accused on the said date i.e. 15.10.13. According to prosecutrix, she had made a call to her brother Vinesh and only Vinesh had reached the house of accused. This witness Mahesh has deposed that he received a call from the accused upon which he reached accused's house where he found his sister i.e. the prosecutrix in a very bad condition. He slapped the accused upon which accused and his relatives beat him and thereafter his signatures were taken upon a settlement document forcibly. He has deposed in his cross examination that none of his family members was present in the house of accused when he reached there. It is thus evident that the deposition of prosecutrix and her brother Mahesh is totally contradictory to each other in this regard. The most material witness i.e. Vinesh has not been produced before this Court. PW-2, in whose house did the settlement talks place and the settlement was reached has deposed that the prosecutrix and her two brothers Mahesh as well as Vinesh signed the settlement deed in his presence voluntarily and without any force. The IO i.e. PW-8 has admitted in her cross examination that Mahesh had stated to her that he had signed the settlement deed voluntarily. I may also noted here that the prosecutrix had told the Sessions Court on 02.01.14 during the course of hearing of the bail application of the accused that she had signed the said settlement under the pressure from her own family. In view of the aforesaid contradictory and inconsistent statements coming on record regarding the execution of the settlement deed Ex. PW1/A, it can SC No. 28/14 Page 17 of 19 very safely be said that the prosecutrix and her brothers had signed the same voluntarily and without any force, fear or coercion. This too demolishes the prosecution case in totality.
24. It also needs to be taken note of that ultimately the accused has solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix on 30.12.13 at Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The marriage certificate has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/D and the two marriage photographs as Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F. This lends credence to the defence raised on behalf of the accused that he never intended to cheat or deceit the prosecutrix and he infact wanted to marry her. Thus, in a way, the accused has fulfilled his promise.
25. The aforesaid discussion leads to the irresistible conclusion that there is no truth in the prosecution case. The prosecutrix had lodged a false complaint against the accused probably for the reason that she did not want to wait any further for marriage with the accused knowing fully well that accused was not able to marry her before the marriage of his two grown up sisters. She had used the police machinery to create pressure upon the accused to marry her at the earliest and not to wait any further till the marriage of his sisters.
26. This case is another classic illustration of the misuse of rape laws. The prosecutrix deserves to be prosecuted for having set the police machinery in motion on false information and for giving false evidence before this Court but I refrain from doing so for the reason that the prosecutrix and the accused are legally SC No. 28/14 Page 18 of 19 married couple and in the hope that they would forget their bitterness arisen during the present case and would start living together as husband and wife peacefully.
27. With the result the accused is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 23.02.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No. 28/14 Page 19 of 19