Delhi District Court
State vs . Dr. Kailash Chandra, on 24 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.176/13.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0257852013.
State Vs. Dr. Kailash Chandra,
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh,
R/o H. No.1461, Saini Mohalla,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.7.2013.
FIR No.109 dated 27.4.2013.
U/s. 506/323/376(2) IPC.
P.S. Najafgarh.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 20.5.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 24.5.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been facing trial for the offences punishable u/s.323 IPC, u/s.376(1) IPC or u/s.376(D) IPC and u/s.506 IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix namely 'M' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) had been working as a Nurse in Kailash Medicare Centre, Saini Mohalla, Najafgarh, being run by the accused. The prosecutrix was staying alone as divorce proceedings between herself and her husband were pending in the court. Her 8 years old son was staying with her parents. The accused took advantage of the SC No.176/13. Page 1 of 20 loneliness of the prosecutrix and had been establishing physical relations with her for one year before the registration of FIR on the false pretext of marriage. The accused given beatings to the prosecutrix on 23.4.2013 and when she was about to lodge complaint against him, the accused promised to marry her and did not allow her to lodge the complaint. The accused then took the prosecutrix to Mata Vaishno Devi where they remained for two days and during that period also, he committed sexual intercourse with her. They returned to Delhi on 27.4.2013 at 10 a.m. and kept her in the house of a relative at Vipin Garden. At about 9 p.m. the accused brought the son of the prosecutrix from the house of her parents and handed over him to the prosecutrix. Thereafter the accused took away the prosecutrix and her son and dropped them on the road near Dwarka More at about 12 midnight. The accused threatened her that if she complains to the police, he would kill her.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that at about 12.20 a.m. in the night intervening between 26.4.2013 and 27.4.2013, an information was received in the police station from Control Room from a lady caller to the effect that she had been confined in a room at some unknown place by Dr. Kailash and his wife and Dr. Kailash has run away after committing rape upon her. This information was recorded as DD No.3A, which was entrusted to SI Yogender for suitable action. Accordingly, SI Yogender Kumar alongwith lady Const. Suman reached the spot and removed the prosecutrix to RTRM Hospital. Meanwhile, SI Kavita also reached RTRM Hospital on the directions of senior officers. At that time, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was going on in the SC No.176/13. Page 2 of 20 hospital. After the medical examination of the prosecutrix was over, she recorded her statement and got the FIR registered on the basis of the same. Thereafter, IO SI Kavita alongwith Const. Satyawan reached Kailash Medicare Centre and arrested the accused. Accused was got medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded. The exhibits given by the IO at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused were later on sent to FSL for forensic examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was prepared by the IO and laid before the concerned Ld. M.M.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s.323, u/s.376(1) IPC or u/s.376(D) IPC and u/s.506 IPC were framed against the accused on 07.10.2013. Accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held. At trial, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 11.4.2013 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. He denied that the prosecutrix was employed as a Nurse in his hospital at any point of time. According to him, the prosecutrix had worked as a Receptionist in his hospital for some period in January, 2013. He denied that he had taken the prosecutrix to Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrimage. He further stated that the prosecutrix had been deputed in his hospital by M/s. Dwarka Path Lab for sample collection and when he came to know that the prosecutrix is involved in some financial bunglings, he intimated M/s. Dwarka Path Lab about the same and asked them to terminate the SC No.176/13. Page 3 of 20 services of the prosecutrix, upon which the prosecutrix got annoyed and filed a false complaint against him to teach him a lesson.
6. The accused has examined Sh. Ashok Routh, the proprietor of M/s. Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital, Deenpur, Najafgarh, as DW1 and his wife Sunita Devi as DW2 to prove his innocence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 on 19.11.2013. She deposed that she was introduced to the accused by her friend Shammi about 2½ years ago. She joined hospital of accused i.e. Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital as a Nurse on 05.4.2011 and worked there for 8 months. Thereafter the accused transferred her to his another hospital at Najafgarh. The accused was having his residence also in the same premises, in which he ran the hospital. She further deposed that she joined her duties as a Nurse in the said hospital as usual at 8.30 a.m. on 04.3.2012. At about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m., accused gave her some fruits and asked her to keep those in his room upstairs. As soon as she went upstairs and was keeping the fruits in the kitchen of the accused, the accused also came upstairs and bolted the door of the floor from inside. He came inside the kitchen and caught her from behind and took her to his bedroom. He laid her on the bed. When she asked him what he was doing, the accused told her that he SC No.176/13. Page 4 of 20 loves her and nothing is going to happen. He bolted the door of the room from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse upon him. Accused requested him not to lodge any complaint against him as he loves her and would marry her. She deposed that at that time, she was already married but was residing separately from her husband and divorce proceedings were pending in the court. She had informed the accused about the divorce proceedings. She deposed that after the aforesaid incident of forcible sexual intercourse, the accused continued to have sexual intercourse with her for about 1½ years regularly on the assurance that he would solemnize with her as soon as her marriage with her husband would get dissolved by decree of divorce.
9. She further deposed that on 23.4.2013 at about 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., she told the accused that she wants to leave his services, upon which he as well as his wife quarrelled with her and gave beatings to her. She made a call at telephone no.100 from the hospital itself. Police reached the hospital and took her to the police station. Accused and his wife reached there and requested her not to lodge complaint against them and again assured her that he would solemnize marriage with her. The wife of the accused also assured her that she would obtain divorce from him so that accused can marry her. Accordingly, she decided against lodging the complaint. Accused and his wife brought her to the hospital from the police station and on reaching there, they alongwith their two sons gave her merciless beatings in the hall of the hospital after pulling down the shutter. It was 4 a.m. in the morning of 24.4.2013 at that time. She again made a call at SC No.176/13. Page 5 of 20 telephone no.100. PCR personnels reached the hospital and took her to the police station. Again the accused reached there and told her that he has left everything and has come to live with her. Thus she did not lodge the complaint against the accused. From the police station itself, the accused took her to Evergreen Restaurant in Dwarka where they took food. Accused also purchased some clothes for her. In the same evening, they left for Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrimage by bus. The accused applied vermilion on her forehead in Mata Vaishno Devi temple and promised that he would solemnize marriage with her as soon as they reached Delhi. There also, the accused had physical intercourse with her a couple of times They returned to Delhi in the morning of 26.4.2013 and the accused dropped her in the house of his paternal aunt (Bua) at Vipin Garden and himself went to his residence. After sometime, she made a call at the mobile phone of the accused and the call was answered by his wife. Accused's wife did not permit her to tak to the accused and asked her what she wanted. She told the wife of the accused that she wants to be reunited with her son as the accused had separated her son from her. Accused's wife asked her to reach Najafgarh so that she can meet her son there. Accordingly, she reached Najafgarh. Accused and his wife and an Advocate also reached there. From there, they all reached her parental house at village Ghumanhera. Her son was present there with her parents. Her parents initially refused to handover her son to her but later on they relented and handed over her son to her. Thereafter, accused dropped her as well as her son near Metro Pillar No.810 at Dwarka. The accused and his wife threatened her that if she lodged any complaint, they would kill her. As soon as they left them, she made a call at telephone no.100. PCR officials SC No.176/13. Page 6 of 20 reached there and took her to police station where her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. From the police station, she was taken to RTRM Hospital where her medical examination was conducted. She also proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/B. She also proved her four statements recorded in the police station on 23.4.2013 as Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. She also admitted that she had given another statement in the police station on 26.4.2013 and identified her signature at point A on its photocopy which is Mark-A.
10. In the cross examination, she deposed that she is a graduate but has not obtained any diploma in nursing. According to her when she was appointed as a nurse in Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital, accused was its proprietor and one Mr. Shekhar was its Incharge. She worked there for 8 months but accused had not issued her any appointment letter. The total strength of the staff in the hospital was 6 or 7. There was no permanent doctor in the hospital. The doctor used to come there on call. One Sushila was also working as Nurse in the hospital. There was a sweeper by name Seema. She was doing the job of Nurse-cum-Receptionist. She admitted that she has not mentioned in her statement to the police as well as to the Ld. M.M. that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her for the first time on 04.3.2012. She deposed that on that day, she did not know that a person already married cannot solemnize second marriage before the dissolution of first marriage. She admitted that the complaint Mark-A is in her handwriting, in which she had stated that her father also had attempted to ravish her. She stated that she had lodged this complaint against her father at the instance of the SC No.176/13. Page 7 of 20 accused. The said complaint was written by her in P.S. Chhawla in the evening on 26.4.2013 but she did not mention therein that the accused too had committed rape upon her. She deposed that statements Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/E were made by her at the instance of and on the pressure of the accused as well as his wife but she did not mention about the same in her statement recorded in this case Ex.PW1/A which is the basis of the FIR. She did not remember the name of the hotel, in which she and the accused had stayed at Katra. She deposed that the wife of the accused was not present in the house on 04.3.2012, when the accused had sexually assaulted her for the first time. One employee named Darshan was present in the hospital at that time. She did not apprise either the said employee Darshan or accused's wife about the incident when she met them later on.
11. In further cross examination, she deposed that she was not doing any job in Dwarka Path Lab. However, at the request of its owner, she was collecting blood sample of patients in Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital, which was then collected by the agent of Dwarka Path Lab. She did this work from August, 2012 to December, 2012 and then again from February, 2013 to April, 2013. She was paid by Dwarka Path Lab for aforesaid work but denied that she was on the pay roll of the said Lab. She denied the suggestion that there are CCTV cameras installed on all the three floors of the house of the accused. She stated voluntarily that CCTV cameras are installed only in a portion of the ground floor. She denied that after registration of the present case, she had demanded Rs.10 Lacs from the accused and the demand was later on reduced by her to Rs.4 Lacs at the time of hearing of bail SC No.176/13. Page 8 of 20 application of the accused. She denied that she had sent demand of money to the accused through his friends Naveen and Shekhar.
12. Sh. Vishnu Dutt, the father of the prosecutrix, has been examined as PW2. He deposed that the prosecutrix was working in the clinic of the accused since March/April, 2012 till the registration of the present case. He did not know the nature of job of the prosecutrix in the clinic. According to him, the prosecutrix was married to one Yogender but she has separated from him and divorce proceedings between the two were going on in the year 2012. Meenakshi had a son from the loin of Yogender and son's custody is with her. He deposed that during the course of employment of the prosecutrix with the accused, she used to remain in a terrified state at home and whenever he asked her the reason for the same, she did not tell them anything.
13. PW7 is Mrs. Savita, who was employed as a helper in the clinic of the accused in Saini Mohalla, Najafgarh. She deposed that a girl named 'M' was already working in the clinic of the accused when she joined and the said girl 'M' left the job in April, 2013. She deposed that her duty hours in the clinic are from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The duty hours of 'M' were from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 'M' used to collect various samples of the patients on behalf of the laboratory. In her cross examination, she admitted that 'M' was working in Dwarka Path Lab owned by one Ashish. She further deposed that the accused was having one daughter and one son and his mother also stays with him. She had never seen the accused misbehaving or sexually assaulting 'M'.
SC No.176/13. Page 9 of 2014. The IO SI Kavita has appeared as PW13. In her cross examination, she has admitted that during the course of investigation, she had collected certain DD entries and the complaint dated 26.4.2013 of the prosecutrix from P.S. Chhawla which are already Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Mark-A. She further deposed that the accused resides on the first floor of his house and has his clinic on the ground floor. There were CCTV cameras installed on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. About 6 to 8 CCTV cameras were on both the floors. She had watched CCTV cameras footage but did not seize the same as nothing incriminating against the accused was found in the footage. She did not see the prosecutrix 'M' in any of those cameras footage. She further deposed that the prosecutrix could not give her any clue about her travel to Katra, Jammu, alongwith the accused and therefore, she did not visit that place.
15. Before discussing the evidence led by the prosecution, as noted herein-above, it would be appropriate to know what the witnesses examined by the accused in his defence i.e. DW1 & DW2 had to say.
16. DW1 Sh. Ashok Routh has deposed that he is the proprietor of M/s. Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital, Deenpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, and proved the registration certificate of the hospital as Ex.DW1/A. He deposed that the prosecutrix 'M' had worked in the aforesaid hospital under him for about 8 months i.e. from July/August, 2011 to March, 2012. Accused was available to their hospital on call and he used to come to the hospital whenever his services were needed. He further deposed that he SC No.176/13. Page 10 of 20 terminated the services of 'M' on account of her improper conduct as he received the complaint that various peoples visit her in the hospital during duty hours alongwith Breadpakora and spend time with her. Thereafter, she used to visit the hospital on behalf of Dwarka Path Lab to collect samples of the patients. They used to make calls to Dwarka Path Lab and the Lab officials used to send the prosecutrix for collection of samples. She had visited the hospital for the last time for the said purpose in the month of February, 2013. He further deposed that one day in the month of June, 2013 the prosecutrix made a call to him saying that she has filed a rape case against the accused Dr. Kailash. She requested him to get the dispute compromised with the accused but he expressed his inability to do so. In the cross examination, he deposed that he did not make any deep inquiry into the complaint received by him against the prosecutrix and as such he cannot tell the names of the persons who used to come to the hospital to meet her. He had started receiving complaints against the prosecutrix just one month after she joined the hospital. He did not inform the police officials that the prosecutrix had approached him for helping her to compromise with the accused.
17. DW2 is the wife of the accused. According to her, she got married to the accused in the year 1999 and they have two children, a daughter aged 8 years and a son aged 14 years. She deposed that her husband runs a clinic by the name 'Kailash Medicare Centre' in the ground floor of their house no.1461. The first floor and the second floor are being used by them for residence purpose. She deposed that the prosecutrix was never employed in their hospital and she used to come to their hospital SC No.176/13. Page 11 of 20 daily from Dwarka Path Lab for collection of the samples of the patients and used to remain in the hospital from 8 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. She further deposed that in the month of January, 2013 the prosecutrix had approached her and made oral request to privide her a job in the hospital saying that it is very difficult for her to visit the hospital for sample collections. The prosecutrix told her that she is in possession of experience certificate from Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital where she had worked earlier but she did not produce any such experience certificate. In the month of March, 2013, they received complaints against the prosecutrix that she used to collect full amount from the patients for sample test but used to deposit less amount in Dwarka Path Lab saying that the discount has been given to the patient on the asking of the accused. Accordingly, they made complaint against the prosecutrix to Mr. Ashish, the owner of Dwarka Path Lab.
18. She further deposed that in the evening of 22.4.2013 or 23.4.2013, when they were in the process of closing the clinic, prosecutrix made a call to her husband Dr. Kailash Chandra saying that why have they complained against her to Mr. Ashish. Just within one minute of the aforesaid call, prosecutrix reached the clinic and started quarrelling with them. She started abusing them while as they were trying to understand what the matter was. Within five minutes, police also reached their clinic. However, she had not made call to police during those five minutes. Police officials took herself, her husband and the prosecutrix to the police station. In the police station, inquiries were made from them and thereafter they returned home. Next day prosecutrix made a call to her husband again at 6 a.m. saying that they have harassed her SC No.176/13. Page 12 of 20 and she is outside the clinic alongwith police. They found that police officials were outside their clinic and they took them to the police station again. There again the prosecutrix withdrew her complaint which she had made against her husband and they returned home.
19. She further deposed that on 26.4.2013 the prosecutrix called on the mobile phone of her husband which was with her. At that time as her husband had dropped her at the school of their children where there was a function. When she (DW2) picked up the phone, prosecutrix told her that she does not have any complaint against them and she only wants our help in getting back the custody of her minor child, which had been kept by her parents with them. Prosecutrix told her that her parents trust only them and they alone can help her. She (DW2) told her that they cannot provide any help to her in this regard. Prosecutrix insisted upon her to permit her to talk to her husband i.e. accused but she told her that she is in the school and her husband is not with her. During the same night at about 11.30 p.m., police officials again reached their house and told them that prosecutrix has made a complaint that her husband Dr. Kailash Chandra has raped her. Police officials apprehended her husband and took him to the police station.
20. She further deposed that after about one and a half months, Dr. Shekhar of Kailash Ram Raheem Hospital came to her and told her that the prosecutrix is demanding money for settling the dispute. At the time of hearing of bail application of her husband also, prosecutrix had approached her and again SC No.176/13. Page 13 of 20 demanded money from her in front of the IO for compromising the matter. However, she did not agree to pay any money to her for the reason that she has lodged a false complaint against her husband and they did not have any spare money to pay to her.
21. In the cross examination, she deposed that she was not working anywhere in March, 2012 and was a housewife. She took up a job in St. Mary School, Dwarka, in April, 2013 and proved the appointment letter issued to her as Ex.DW2/P1. She denied that the prosecutrix 'M' had joined her husband's clinic as a Nurse on 04.3.2012. She could not say whether the prosecutrix was a regular employee of Dwarka Path Lab but stated that the prosecutrix was deputed to their clinic by Dwarka Path Lab for collection of samples. She could not tell the total amount of money misappropriated by the prosecutrix. She deposed that when they made complaint to Mr. Ashish, he assured that he would talk to the prosecutrix about the same and in case she does not mend her ways, he would stop her visiting to their clinic. She deposed that they had made complaint to Mr. Ashish in the end of March, 2013 and the prosecutrix stopped visiting their clinic about 10 to 15 days thereafter. They permitted her to visit their clinic during that period. They wanted to give her a second chance. They orally informed the police officials about the embezzlement done by the prosecutrix when they had been taken to the police station on 22.4.2013 and 22.4.2013. They did not submit any written complaint against the prosecutrix. She admitted that Mr. Ashok is the owner of Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital.
22. The prosecutrix claims to have appointed by the SC No.176/13. Page 14 of 20 accused as a Nurse in his hospital namely Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital on 05.4.2011. She further deposed that after about 8 months, the accused transferred her to his another hospital at Najafgarh. However, I do not find any evidence on record from the side of the prosecution to show that the prosecutrix had been appointed as a Nurse by the accused in his hospital. To the contrary evidence has come on record in the nature of testimony of DW1 to the effect that he is the owner of Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital and the prosecutrix had worked in that hospital under him for about 8 months from July/August, 2011 to March, 2012 on behalf of Dwarka Path Lab and her job was to collect samples of the patients. The prosecutrix has herself admitted in her cross examination that at the request of owner of Dwarka Path Lab, she was collecting blood samples of the patients in Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital and she did this work from August, 2012 to December, 2012 and then again from February, 2013 to April, 2013. According to the deposition of DW2, the wife of the accused, the accused is running a clinic by name M/s. Kailash Medicare Centre and the prosecutrix used to come to their hospital daily from Dwarka Path Lab for collection of samples of the patients. She deposed that the prosecutrix was never employed in their hospital. She further deposed that the prosecutrix had approached her in the month of January, 2013 with an oral request to provide her a job in the hospital and she had told her to come alongwith experience certificate issued to her by Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital but the prosecutrix did not produce the said experience certificate.
23. When the prosecutrix herself admits that she was collecting blood samples of the patients in Kailash Ram Rahim SC No.176/13. Page 15 of 20 Hospital on behalf of Dwarka Path Lab from August, 2012 upto April, 2013, there was no occasion for the accused to employ her as a Nurse in his hospital w.e.f. 05.4.2011. Her employment in Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital commenced from July/August, 2011 and continued till March, 2012.
24. According to the prosecutrix, she was raped for the first time by the accused on 04.3.2012 during the course of her employment as a Nurse in the hospital of the accused. As already noted, there is no convincing evidence led by the prosecution to demonstrate that the prosecutrix was in fact working as a Nurse under the accused on 04.3.2012. DW1 has categorically deposed that the prosecutrix worked in his hospital i.e. Kailash Ram Rahim Hospital from July/August, 2011 to March, 2012. No other Nurse or any employee working in the clinic of the accused has been examined by the prosecution to establish that the prosecutrix was working as a Nurse in the said clinic on 04.3.2012. On the other hand, PW7, the witness of prosecution itself has admitted in the cross examination that the prosecutrix was working for Dwarka Path Lab owned by one Ashish. She too had seen the prosecurix in the clinic of accused since October, 2012 only and not before that. Therefore, when it is not established on record that the prosecutrix was working as a Nurse with the accused on 04.3.2012, the allegations of rape also stands falsified. Even otherwise also, the incident of rape dated 04.3.2012 has come up for the first time in the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded in this court. She has not stated anything about the said incident either in the FIR or in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B. Thus it is clear improvement upon her previous statement and does not merit any SC No.176/13. Page 16 of 20 consideration. It may also be noted that the IO (PW13) has deposed in her cross examination that about 6 to 8 CCTV cameras have been installed by the accused on both floors of his house. She had watched the CCTV cameras footage but did not find anything incriminating against the accused in the same. If the incident dated 04.3.2012 would have been true, some part of it i.e. the prosecutrix going upstairs to the residential area of the accused, entering inside the flat and the accused then following her into the flat would have been caught in any of the CCTV cameras. That not being the case herein the incident is to be disbelieved.
25. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had been establishing physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. Admittedly, the prosecutrix had not obtained divorce from her husband when the aforesaid acts of alleged intercourse with the accused took place. She was familiar with the family of the accused and was having knowledge that the accused is a married person having children. It is not her case that the accused had represented to her that he is unmarried or that she did not know that the accused is a married person. This being the situation, it was abundantly clear to the prosecutrix that her marriage with the accused is not possible in any event or atleast in near future as both were married. There was no certainty that her marriage would be necessarily dissolved by a decree of divorce. The accused had at no point of time told her that he would obtain divorce from his wife nor had he initiated any step towards that direction. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that the prosecutrix was induced by the accused to have sexual SC No.176/13. Page 17 of 20 intercourse with him on the basis of any promise of marriage. Even if it is presumed that in fact, such promise was extended by the accused, the prosecutrix was fully aware that the same was impossible to be fulfilled. Thus there is no convincing evidence on record to suggest that the consent of the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with the accused was tainted and not voluntary. In fact, it is also doubtful whether the accused had engaged in any physical relations with the prosecutrix at all.
26. The deposition of the prosecutrix that the accused had taken her to Mata Vaishno Devi on 24.04.2013 and had sexual intercourse there also with her after applying vermilion on her forehead, seems to be a fabricated story. According to the prosecutrix, they left Delhi in the evening of 24.04.2013 by bus and returned in the morning of 26.04.2013. She also deposes that they stayed in a hotel at Katra but does not specify as to for how much time. This means that they returned to Delhi in just 36 hours after having 'Darshan' of Mata Vaishno Devi. This is simply impossible. The bus travel from Delhi to Katra takes usually 14 hours and it is a five hours trek from Katra to the temple of Mata and it does not take less than two or three hours in completing the 'Darshan' after having ritual bath etc. Adding the time consumed in waiting at Bus Stand at Delhi and Katra for the bus, purchase of tickets, time spent in having meals etc., it is certain that one cannot return to Delhi after having 'Darshan' of Mata Vaishno Devi in less than two complete days i.e. 48 hours, if all goes well. Then too, one would have no time to stay in a hotel. Here the prosecutrix says that they stayed in hotel also at Katra where accused had sexual intercourse with her. It can be imagined only SC No.176/13. Page 18 of 20 and can never happen in reality.
27. It is evident from the record that the prosecutrix had been making false calls at telephone No.100 time and again alleging one thing or other against the accused. A DD entry No. 81B was recorded pursuant to her call dated 22.04.2013 at 8.43 pm to the effect "quarrel in Saini Mohalla behind Kailash Medical Center". She made again call at telephone No.100 on 23.04.2013 at 6.12 pm saying that she is being beaten by Dr. Kailash in a closed room, which was recorded as DD NO. 5A. She made two calls at telephone No.100 on 26.4.2013 at 9.21 pm and 9.49 pm regarding some quarrel at Gumanhera, which were recorded as DD No.32A and 38A. Ironically, in none of these calls did she say that she has been raped by the accused. After making these calls, she has given statement Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E and Ex. PW1/F saying that accused has not done anything wrong to her, she does not want any action on her call, she does not want her medical examination and she does not want to disclose her address.
28. Mark 'A' is the photocopy of the complaint submitted by the prosecutrix to SHO, PS Dwarka on 26.04.2013 alleging that she has been beaten by her father and brothers and they have threatened to kill her as well as her son. She admits her signatures on it at point 'A'. She has also deposed that it is in her handwriting and overwriting at points 'A' 'B' and 'C' has been made by her. Therefore, I find that this document has been sufficiently proved and is hereby marked as Ex. 'J'. In this complaint she has not levelled any allegation against the accused at all though she claims that she was with the accused throughout on that day after SC No.176/13. Page 19 of 20 return from Mata Vaishno Devi Pilgrimage. Intriguingly she makes a call on telephone No.100 on the same night at 12.20 am alleging that she was raped by the accused, which was recorded as DD No. 3A and the Police machinery got into motion resulting in the registration of FIR in this case. It is amply clear that the call had been made by the prosecutrix in a state of desperation and frustration as she had been thrown out by her father as well as brothers and she found a soft target in the accused to vent her anger.
29. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no truth in prosecution case. It is based upon the imaginary tales of the prosecutrix. The testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be highly improbable. The same is neither credible nor trustworthy. Her testimony does not find corroboration from any other evidence or record. To the contrary, the deposition of defence witnesses makes the prosecution case unbelievable and unreliable.
30. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 24.5.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.176/13. Page 20 of 20