Delhi District Court
Fir No. 1171/2015 Ps Uttam Nagar State vs . Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page No. 1 Of 45 on 29 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: 04, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-001069-2015
SC No. 56628/2016
FIR No. 1171/2015
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 384/385/365/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Rajrani @ Ranu
W/o Sh. Padam Singh
R/o R-2/52, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
2. Balram
S/o Sh. Moola Ram
R/o Village Jheetheri, PS Nagar
Teh. Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur, Rajasthan
3. Sonia @ Riya
W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar
R/o H.No. 85, Krishna Nagar,
Gopal Park, New Delhi. ............. Accused persons
Date of Institution of case : 02.02.2016
Date of decision : 29.10.2022
Final order : Accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 1 of 45
are convicted for the offences
punishable u/s 120B IPC, u/s 365
IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC and u/s 389
IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC.
&
Accused Rajrani @ Ranu is
acquitted for the charges framed
against her u/s 120B IPC, u/s 365
IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC, u/s 389 IPC
r/w sec. 120B IPC and u/s 395 IPC
r/w sec. 120B IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2015, intimation about the incident was received at the police station and DD no. 73A was marked to HC Sita Ram who on receipt of said DD went to the place of incident i.e. Nawada Metro Station but he could not find complainant over there. Accordingly, he made a phone call at mobile no. 9910264427 and upon the said call, the complainant revealed his name as Rajender Sharma and told HC Sita Ram that he would be reaching at police station. Accordingly, HC Sita Ram returned to police station where he met complainant Sh. Rajender Shrama. In the said police station, complainant Sh. Rajender Sharma gave his statement to HC Sita Ram. Accordingly, HC Sita Ram prepared rukka and rukka was handed over to Duty officer for registration of FIR. Accordingly, Duty Officer registered FIR No. 1171/2015 for offences punishable u/s 384/385/365/34 IPC and investigation was marked to HC Sita Ram. During investigation, HC Sita Ram prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 2 of 45 complainant Rajender Sharma and on the identification of complainant Sh. Rajender Sharma, IO HC Sita Ram arrested accused Rajrani @ Ranu and recorded her disclosure statement. During investigation, IO had obtained one day PC remand of accused Rajrani and during police custody remand, accused Rajrani @ Ranu led IO and W Ct. Sudesh to her house bearing no. R-2/52, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and from inner single bed room she got recovered one carry bag of light brown and dark brown colour and one passbook of Andhara Bank which was seized by the IO. IO had also seized the mobile phone of accused Rajrani and at the instance of accused Rajrani, the investigating team went to house no. RZ T- 137, Jain Colony, Part-I, Bindapur, Delhi from where accused Balram was apprehended and after interrogation he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. IO had also seized one mobile phone make Karbon belonging to accused Balram. Thereafter, both the accused were produced before concerned court and were sent to JC.
2. During investigation, on 28.09.2015, accused Sonia @ Riya was also arrested and her disclosure statement was recorded and she was also sent to Judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, IO prepared charge-sheet for offences punishable u/s 384/385/365/395/34 IPC against accused persons namely Rajrani @ Ranu, Balram and Sonia @ Riya with an averment that upon arrest of remaining accused persons/co-accused persons and upon the recovery of case property, supplementary chargesheet would be filed.
3. The said charge-sheet was filed before concerned Ld. M.M. on 03.11.2015. The Ld. M.M. took cognizance of the offences and after making compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Ld. M.M. committed the matter to Sessions Court and on 02.02.2016 the present FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 3 of 45 case was assigned to this Court for trial by Ld. District & Sessions Judge.
4. On 27.03.2016, order on charge was passed by the then Ld. ASJ, West, THC, Delhi and the charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC & 365 IPC read with Section 120B IPC & 389 read with Section 120B IPC and 395 read with Section 120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular and they were asked as to whether they wanted to plead guilty or claim trial. After understanding the charges, accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses in total i.e. PW1 ASI Rajpal, PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma, PW3 ASI Krishna, PW4 W/Ct. Sudesh, PW5 Ct. Sita Ram, PW6 ASI Bajrang and PW7 W/ HC Mamta.
6. On 15.07.2019 prosecution evidence was closed. On 02.08.2019, statement of all accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused Rajrani has submitted that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and that she had gone to school of her son at Mohan Garden to attend function scheduled from 1 PM to 5 PM and her house was locked at time of alleged incident. Accused Balram has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and that he was known to PW2 prior to this case and he never invited PW2 for any lunch. He also stated that he visited the house of PW2 once or twice during friendship. Accused Sonia @ Riya has submitted that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated and that she met PW2 for the first time in January-February 2015 for the purposes of getting a job in Whirlpool company and PW2 asked her Rs.50,000/- for the said job.
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 4 of 45 She further submitted that PW2 made a call to her on 06.09.2015 and asked her to come at Dwarka Mor metro station, thereafter, co- accused Balram and PW2 took her in some flat near Dwarka Mor where PW2 asked her to make physical relation if she could not arrange Rs.50,000/- for job. She further submitted that she refused and a quarrel took place and she also threatened PW2 that she would make complaint to the police and thereafter, she left that place. She further stated that she only threatened PW2 for his gesture and did not call police. The accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
7. The brief of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial are as under:-
8. PW1 ASI Rajpal has deposed that in the intervening night of 07/08.09.2015, he was posted as H. Ct. at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi. On that day, he was deputed as DO from 12:00 mid night to 08:00 am. At about 12:55 am, on receipt of (DD No.8A) rukka from H. Ct. Sita Ram, he got recorded the FIR Ex.PW1/A through computer operator and made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. He had also issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to H. Ct. Sita Ram for investigation. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given.
9. PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma deposed that he had retired from Whirlpool India, Faridabad and presently doing nothing due to ill health. He further deposed that on 07.09.2015 at about 11:30 am, he was present at Preet Vihar Metro Station where he had gone to deposit money in his account at Andhara Bank. He stated that there was rush in the said bank and in the mean time, he received a call of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 5 of 45 his friend Balram who invited him to come at his house for lunch and that earlier also from the last two three days, Balram was inviting him for lunch continuously but he was avoiding the same. He stated that two three months prior to the said date also, Balram was compelling him to come to his house for lunch/dinner but he was avoiding the same. He further deposed that Balram was a carpenter by profession who was introduced to him by a property dealer. PW2 further deposed that Balram had come to him for carpenter work but he was not having any carpenter work at his home.
10.He further deposed that on 07.09.2015 at 11.30 AM, Balram had invited him for lunch at his house at Uttam Nagar but he refused. However, on the insistence of Balram, he agreed for lunch. He further deposed that while he was travelling to Uttam Nagar in Metro, accused Balram was continuously in touch with him on his mobile and instructed him that instead of getting down at Uttam Nagar, he should deboard the Metro on the next station i.e. Dwarka. Accordingly, PW2 got down from the Metro at Dwarka Station and accused Balram met him at the station. He further deposed that accused Balram told him that one of his acquaintance namely Riya was unwell and he suggested that before going to his house for lunch, they must visit her to inquire about her health.
11.He further deposed that since he was not familiar with the topography of Dwarka, he told accused Balram to alone visit Riya and that he shall wait at the Station. He stated that the accused Balram was repeatedly receiving calls from said Riya and upon his refusal to accompany him, accused Balram emotionally motivated him to visit her as she was unwell and therefore, he agreed to visit Riya with Balram. He further deposed that accused Balram told him that Riya was sending someone else to fetch them from the Metro Station as FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 6 of 45 she herself was ill. He further deposed that after about two to three minutes, a lady aged about 40-45 years approached Balram at the Metro Station as she was known to him and thereafter, he accompanied them to a house.
12.He further deposed that later on, he came to know that the said house was situated at R-Block, Rama Park and before reaching the said house, while they were on the way, he told accused Balram and the said lady that he had to answer the nature's call and since there was no appropriate place available for the same, they told him to wait till they reach the house of Riya. He further deposed that the said house was situated on the first floor and accused Balram and the said lady had helped him to climb the stairs.
13.He further deposed that upon reaching the house, he saw that Riya was lying on a bed in a room and he observed that accused Balram and Riya were making some signs/signals to each other. He asked Riya for using the washroom, who signaled towards the washroom and he went to use the same alongwith the bag being carried by him. He further deposed that it seemed to him that the door of the washroom had been bolted by accused Balram and Riya from outside and he kept on knocking the door but it was not opened. He stated that after about 8 to 10 minutes, the door was opened and upon coming out from the bathroom, he saw that besides accused Riya and Balram, four other men were also present in the room and accused Riya was naked as she had taken of all her clothes. The said four men represented that one of them was from CBI, the other one was the SHO and the third one was a Journalist by profession. He further deposed that they all threatened him by saying that he was trying to rape Riya. He stated that when he refuted the same, all four of them asked him to remove his clothes and all the said four men were of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 7 of 45 strong built and they gave beatings to him. He deposed that he could not resist them as he had iron rods implant in his left arm.
14.He further deposed that he also thought of escaping from the house but could not manage the same and during the time when he was being given beatings, accused Balram and the lady who had met them at Metro Station were sitting in the adjoining room. He deposed that since he could not manage to flee, all the four men in the room removed his wearing apparels and the man who was claiming to be a Journalist, took his photographs in the said condition and they also took his photographs by making the accused Riya stand next to him. He stated that the said four persons told him that they would not do anything illegal with the photographs if he would pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to them. He stated that when he expressed his inability to pay the said amount, they kept on reducing their demands and finally, they told him to pay a sum of Rs.73000/- to let him go. He further deposed that he was carrying a sum of Rs.27000/- in his bag which was already taken away by accused persons.
15.He further deposed that when he told them that he was not having the amount of Rs.73000/- available with him, they asked him to arrange the same by making call to his relatives/friends. When he asked them to provide his mobile phone, which had also been taken away by them, they got suspicious and started blaming accused Balram by saying that he had unnecessarily embroiled them with him in the incident as he was not having anything with him to give them. He further deposed that he again felt the need to use the washroom and went to washroom and kept the door thereof open. After using the washroom, he requested them to give some water to drink and they also tortured him on the said account and provided only one sip after the other on repeated requests. He deposed that since all this was FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 8 of 45 becoming unbearable for him, he pleaded them to either kill him or let him go. He further stated that thereafter, he got fainted for some time and they sprinkled some water on his face. He further deposed that when he regained his consciousness, all the said four men alongwith the accused Balram made him wear his clothes and thereafter, they asked accused Balram to take him to his home. He further deposed that his bag which contained a sum of Rs.27000/-, passbook of Aandhara Bank and certain other documents was kept by the accused persons. He stated that accused Balram and one of the four men took him down stairs from the house and he asked Balram about the address of the place but he did not tell. PW2 deposed that there were two open plots near the said place and four men, who had manhandled and robbed him in the house, had managed to flee away from the spot. He stated that thereafter, he knocked at the doors of the adjoining houses and when one of the occupants of the said houses opened the door, he felt that a blow had been inflicted on his neck by one of the said four persons and probably it was the person who was claiming himself to be the SHO.
16.He further deposed that he could not note the address of the house, occupant of which, had opened the door. He stated that within few seconds, a car came to the spot and he was dragged and made to sit in the said car by two persons i.e. the one who was claiming to be the CBI Officer and the fourth one who was accompanying the Journalist probably as photographer. He stated that out of the four men, two sat in the front seat of the car. Accused Balram and the fourth man sat with him in the back seat and he was made to sit between Balram and fourth man and they took him to Dhaula Kuan in the said car. He deposed that during the journey to Dhaula Kuan, all the said four persons kept on giving beatings to him and they pulled his hair and FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 9 of 45 also extended threats by saying that they would leave him if he would pay money to them. He deposed that accused Balram, who was also in the car, did not give any beatings to him.
17.He further deposed that upon reaching Dhaula Kuan, he and Balram were pushed out of the car and he tried to note the number of the car but could not read the same and all the four men fled away from Dhaula Kuan in the said car. He stated that after the said persons had left, he confronted Balram regarding the entire incident but he did not say anything and he asked for the mobile phone of accused Balram. He deposed that initially, he avoided the same but later on, he handed over his mobile phone to him (PW2) and from his mobile phone, he (PW2) made three calls at 100 number and thereafter, he alongwith Balram reached at Karol Bagh by taking lift from unknown person in a car and thereafter went to PS Uttam Nagar by Metro where Police officials met him in the PS and he made complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police. He stated that later on, he came to know that the said house in which he was taken was of accused Rajrani @ Ranu and the name of one Rajbir was also repeatedly taken by all the accused persons, who was one of them out of those four men.
18.He further deposed that the person, who was representing himself as SHO, had directed him to write a letter to the SHO to the effect that he had visited the premises to commit rape but he could not write the said letter as he was very much frightened and thereafter, the said person alongwith his associates gave beatings to him and also obtained his signature on a blank paper. He deposed that upon reaching Dhaula Kuan, the associates of the accused persons who had taken him to the said place in the car had also extended threats to implicate him in false cases if he would report the incident in question to any authority.
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 10 of 45
19.During cross-examination of PW2 by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW2 denied that his supplementary statement was recorded by the IO on 08.09.2015 and he voluntarily stated that it was recorded on 07.09.2015. PW2 admitted that on 08.09.2015, he had joined the investigation of this case and IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan at his instance. PW2 also admitted that on that day accused Rajrani @ Ranu, W/o Padam Singh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B from her house i.e. R-2/52, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi at his instance and was personally searched and her disclosure statement was also recorded. PW2 further admitted that accused Rajrani had pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW2/C. He further admitted that accused Balram was involved in the offence of present case and he in connivance of other accused persons called him at the spot. PW2 further admitted that his bag containing pass book of Andhra Bank was also recovered from the possession of accused Rajrani from her house which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He also admitted that on 08.09.2015, he got medically examined from DDU Hospital.
20.PW2 identified the accused Balram, Rajrani and Riya and stated that he could identify that lady/accused who had met him at the Metro Station with accused Balram and brought him to the house of Rajrani and the four persons who met him at the house of Rajrani and robbed his bag containing amount, pass book and also beaten him. PW2 also identified Riya to be the same lady, who met him at the house of accused Rajrani and threatened him to implicate in the false case of rape and removed her clothes.
21.On production of case property by MHC(M), PW2 identified the bag Ex.PW2/P1 of khakhi colour and pass book Ex.PW2/P2.
22.During cross-examination on behalf of accused Sonia @ Riya, PW2 FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 11 of 45 stated that he was working as Manager (Manufacturing) in Whirlpool, Faridabad in the year 2007 and in the same year, he got VRS due to ill-health. He also stated that he was a divorcee and had taken divorce in the year 2007 from courts at Delhi on the ground of cruelty and desertion. PW2 denied that due to his bad behaviour, his wife left him. He also stated that he perhaps had one child from the wedlock. He also stated that he got married in the year 1982 and the name of his wife was Premlata Sharma.
23.He also stated that he had been residing alone, however, his sisters, occasionally visit him. He also stated that he had met accused Sonia @ Riya only once prior to the incident i.e. 07.09.2015 and that the said meeting had taken place in January - February, 2015 when she had visited with the co-accused Balram at his house and stayed for about 15 minutes. He also stated that the accused persons had visited him as they were interested in purchasing/sale of a shop in Laxmi Nagar and wanted him to help them in the transaction. He could not say as to whether the said property/shop belonged to accused Balram or Sonia @ Riya. He also stated that he knew accused Balram since June-July, 2014 and that accused Balram and he was not on friendly terms. PW2 denied that he used to talk to accused Balram frequently on phone since June-July, 2014 and stated that accused Balram had been contacting and inviting him for meals since 05.09.2015. He stated that prior thereto, Balram had extended the invitation only once i.e. two months before the date of incident. He deposed that he had not asked accused Balram the reason for which accused Sonia @ Riya had accompanied him to his house in January- February, 2015.
24.PW2 admitted that he did not know the residential address of accused Sonia @ Riya. He denied that accused Balram had brought accused Sonia @ Riya to his house as he had assured that he would get her FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 12 of 45 employed with Whirlpool. He also denied that he had demanded Rs.50000/- for getting Sonia @ Riya employed with Whirlpool. He also stated that he agreed to have meals with accused Balram on 07.09.2015 as he was repeatedly requesting him to do so and had emotionally compelled him. He also stated that he reached the Metro Station at about 01:30 pm on 07.09.2015 to meet accused Balram. PW2 admitted that around 11:30 am, he was present in Bank at Preet Vihar and he stated that out of the total amount of Rs.27000/-, some of the money had been given to him by his sister to purchase the gifts in the wake of his birthday on 10.09.2015 and the remaining amount belonged to him. He also stated that in addition to Rs.27000/-, he was also having around Rs.300/- with him. He also stated that he could not deposit the money in the bank as there was heavy rush in the bank and accused Balram was also making calls to him repeatedly. He did not remember the name of the property dealer who had introduced accused Balram to him but he stated that the said property dealer probably resided in Shakarpur. He had informed accused Balram that he would be having lunch with him on 07.09.2015. He also stated that he had to attend some other errands besides visiting the bank on the said date but he did not remember the same. He did not remember as to how many times accused Balram had contacted him on 07.09.2015 after he accepted invitation for lunch. He also stated that he did not know the location/address of the house of accused Balram and that accused Balram had asked him to deboard the Metro Train at Dwarka. He also stated that accused Balram resided somewhere in Uttam Nagar.
25.He also stated that when accused Balram met him (PW2) at Dwarka Metro Station, Balram told him to accompany him for visiting accused Sonia @ Riya who was unwell. He also stated that accused FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 13 of 45 Balram had not told him about Sonia @ Riya on phone while inviting for lunch. He further stated that he had declined to visit accused Sonia @ Riya and accused Balram did not inform him about the nature of her ailment and also did not tell the time for which he wanted to stay at Sonia @ Riya's place during the said visit.
26.He further stated that one lady had come to Metro Station to fetch them but he did not know her name. He had asked accused Balram about the said lady who told that she was friend of accused Sonia @ Riya. PW2 denied that he had contacted Sonia @ Riya from his mobile phone on 06.09.2015. He further denied that he used to frequently contact Sonia @ Riya telephonically prior to 07.09.2015. PW2 further stated that accused Balram and the lady who had fetched them from the Metro Station had accompanied him to the first floor where accused Sonia @ Riya was present. PW2 denied that he had voluntarily accompanied them to the said place. He stated that Balram and the said lady had pressurized him to go to the first floor with them. He also stated that he had told the police in his statement Ex.PW2/A that accused Balram and that lady had taken him to the first floor under pressure. PW2 admitted that he had put his signatures on Ex.PW2/A but he had not read the statement thoroughly and had only given a cursory glance to it. He stated that he did not inquire from Sonia @ Riya regarding the nature of her ailment.
27.He denied the suggestion that he repeatedly met and allured Sonia @ Riya on the pretext of securing job for her in a company. He also denied that he had lodged the complaint against accused Sonia when she refused to fulfil his demand of sexual favour. He further denied that he had tried to establish physical relations with her on the date of alleged incident as well as prior thereto. He further denied that when accused Sonia refused to establish sexual relation with him and raised FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 14 of 45 alarm, he falsely implicated her and got the present case registered against her in order to save himself.
28.During cross examination on behalf of accused Rajrani @ Ranu, PW2 stated that he had seen accused Rajrani for the first time on the date of incident at her house at about 03:00/04:00 pm and that he went to Uttam Nagar in Metro from Preet Vihar at around 12:45 pm. PW2 denied that he did not meet the accused Rajrani at her house as she had gone to her son's School i.e. Govt. Boys School - I, Mohan Garden, Delhi to attend a function and she remained there from 01:00 pm to 05:00 pm. PW2 also denied that nothing was recovered from the house of accused or that he himself had handed over his bag to the police. He further denied that he did not travel in Metro or that he did not visit the house of accused Rajrani. PW2 admitted that accused Rajrani did not beat him. He further admitted that accused Rajrani had not threatened him to implicate in a false case. He denied the suggestion that accused Rajrani was not arrested from her house in his presence.
29.During cross-examination on behalf of accused Balram, PW2 stated that accused Balram was known to him about 8-10 months prior to the incident as he was introduced to him by one property dealer whose name he did not know. He also stated that he met accused Balram for about 3-4 times during the said period of 8-10 months and that accused Balram also used to visit his house. He also stated that he was working in whirlpool at the time of incident as Dy. Manager, Manufacturing and there were so many employees in the said company who were working under him at that time. PW2 denied the suggestion that he was having the power to give employment in the said company to the public persons and to remove them. He also stated that accused Balram did not visit his home along-with other FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 15 of 45 accused persons.
30.PW2 denied the suggestion that in the month of January - February 2015, accused Balram and Sonia both had come to his home on the pretext of purchasing shop in the area of Laxmi Nagar and PW2 stated that he did not remember. He did not remember if accused Sonia had come for first time with accused Balram at his residence in the month of January, 2015. PW2 denied the suggestion that prior to the incident of this case accused Balram and Sonia had met him 8-10 times on the pretext of securing job for Sonia in whirlpool as he was Dy. manager in whirlpool. He also denied the suggestion that he used to call accused Sonia directly on her mobile phone from his mobile phone no. 9910264427 or that he had met her so many times prior to the incident. He further denied the suggestion that he had concocted a false story against the accused persons or that no such incident had ever taken place or that he had made call on the mobile of accused Sonia for personal meeting.
31.PW3 ASI Krishna has deposed that on 08.09.2015, he was posted as ASI at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi. On that day, he alongwith the IO ASI Sita Ram and complainant Rajender went to House No.R-2/52, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi where accused Rajrani met them at the first floor of the said house. At the instance of the complainant, he overpowered accused Rajrani and IO interrogated her and on confessing her guilt and involvement in the present case, IO arrested her vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B, conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/A and also recorded her disclosure statement. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith accused Rajrani searched for co-accused persons but they could not be traced out. Thereafter, they got he medically examined from DDU Hospital and produced her before the concerned Ld. M.M. and IO obtained her one day PC FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 16 of 45 remand. He further deposed that during the PC remand, they searched the co-accused persons and the case property but the same could not be traced out. Thereafter, they returned to PS and IO recorded his statement.
32.During cross-examination on behalf of accused Rajrani, PW3 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation of this case or that he had deposed falsely or that accused was not arrested in his presence.
33.Cross-examination on behalf of remaining two accused persons was nil despite opportunity given.
34.PW4 W/Ct. Sudesh has deposed that on 09.09.2015, she was posted as Ct. at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi. On that day, she joined the investigation of this case and she alongwith IO H. Ct. Sita Ram, Ct. Sita Ram, complainant Rajender and accused Rajrani left the PS in the search of the co-accused persons and her recovery of case property. She stated that accused Rajrani led them to her house i.e. House No. R-2/52, First Floor, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and from under the single bed, she took out one bag of light and dark brown colour having four chain and produced the same to the IO and the complainant identified the same as his own bag which was found containing one passbook of Andhra Bank issued in the name of complainant Rajender Sharma and the IO seized the bag and the passbook vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. She further deposed that accused Rajrani also produced one mobile phone make Intex, which was also seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, accused Rajrani led them to the house of accused Balram at house No.134, Jain Colony, Part-I, Bindapur where accused Balram met them and was interrogated by the IO and on confessing his guilt and involvement in the present case, IO arrested accused Balram and FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 17 of 45 conducted his personal search and also made his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B. She further deposed that thereafter both the accused persons were got medically examined from DDU Hospital and then produced before the concerned court of Ld. MM from where they were remanded to JC. She stated that the IO recorded her statement.
35.On production of case property by MHC (M), PW4 identified the bag Ex.PW2/P1 which was recovered from the possession of accused Rajrani which contained one passbook of Andhra Bank Ex.PW2/P2 in the name of Rajender Prasad Sharma. PW4 also identified the mobile phone Ex.PW4/P1 which was recovered from the possession of accused Rajrani.
36.During cross-examination on behalf of accused Rajrani, PW4 stated that they left the PS at about 10:00/10:15 am and reached at the house of accused Rajrani within 25 minutes. She also stated that they went there in govt. gypsy and same was parked near the house of accused Rajrani in the street at a distance of about 10 meter from her house. He further stated that there were two rooms and one hall on the first floor of the house of accused Rajrani, however, she did not know the measurement of the house of accused Rajrani. She also stated that there were about 3-4 floors in the said house. She also stated that they stayed in the house of accused Rajrani for about half an hour.
37.PW4 denied the suggestion that accused had not taken out the bag from inside the bed. PW4 further denied the suggestion that complainant produced the said bag in the PS to the IO or that same was planted upon the accused later on or that she did not join the investigation of this case at any point of time or that she had signed the documents as a witness in the PS at the instance of the IO or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused in her presence.
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 18 of 45
38.PW5 Ct. Sita Ram has deposed that on 09.09.2015, he was posted as Constable at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi and was on emergency duty. On that day, he alongwith IO, one lady constable and complainant reached at House No. R-2/52, 1st floor, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi from where one purse was recovered lying under the bed which was checked by IO and same was found containing one passbook of bank. He further deposed that thereafter, they returned to the PS and thereafter, they went to DDU hospital for medical examination and accused persons namely Rajrani and one male were produced before the court.
39.Since the witness was not disclosing the whole facts. Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross examined the witness after seeking permission from the court.
40.During cross examination on behalf of State, PW5 stated that his statement was recorded by the IO in this case. PW5 admitted that on the above said date, they left the PS alongwith the accused Rajrani, L/Ct. Sudesh and complainant Rajender. He also admitted that accused Rajrani was in the custody of W/Ct. Sudesh. He further admitted that accused Rajrani led them to her house at R2/52, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He further admitted that accused Rajrani had taken out one bag of light brown colour having four chain from under single bed which was lying in the room at first floor which was found containing one passbook of Andhara Bank in the name of complainant Rajender Sharma and accused Rajrani stated that it was the same bag which was brought by complainant Rajender Sharma containing Rs.27000/-. PW5 further admitted that the said articles were seized by the IO and thereafter they left from there in search of other co-accused and reached at House No. RZT-134, Jain Colony, Part-I, Bindapur, Delhi at the instance of accused Rajrani. He further FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 19 of 45 admitted that accused Balram met them there, who was interrogated by the IO and on confessing his guilt, he was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. PW5 further admitted that personal search of accused Balram was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/B and his disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B was also recorded. PW5 further admitted that thereafter they searched for the other accused persons but none could be traced out. He also admitted that accused Balram was in his custody. He further admitted that both the accused persons were got medically examined from DDU Hospital and, thereafter, both the accused persons were produced before the court from where they were sent to JC.
41.During cross-examination on behalf of all the accused persons, PW5 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation of this case at any point of time or that he did not visit the house of any of the accused persons or that nothing was recovered in his presence or that he had signed the documents in the PS at the instance of the IO.
42.PW6 ASI Bajrang has deposed that on 07.09.2015, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Nangloi, Delhi from 04:00 pm to 12:00 mid night. On that day, at about 06:55 pm, on the basis of message received from Wireless Operator regarding giving beatings to caller and snatching of his money and documents on the pretext of making allegations of rape by two ladies at near Metro Station Nawada, Mohan Garden, Delhi, he recorded DD No.73A Ex.PW6/A and gave the message of DD No.73A to H. Ct. Sita Ram for making inquiry.
43.Cross-examination of this witnesses on behalf of all the accused persons was Nil despite opportunity given.
44.PW7 H.C Mamta has deposed that on 28.09.2015, she was posted as H.Ct. at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi and on that day, she joined the investigation of this case. She further deposed that in the search of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 20 of 45 accused person, she alongwith IO reached at Rithala Metro Station where secret informer met them who pointed out towards accused Riya, who was sitting on the stairs of gate no.1 of Metro Station having some documents in her hand. She further deposed that they apprehended her and IO interrogated her and her name was revealed as Sonia @ Riya, W/o Akshay Kumar. She further deposed that on confessing her guilt and involvement in the present case, IO arrested accused Sonia @ Riya vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A, conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/B and also recorded her disclosure statement Ex.PW7/C. She further deposed that thereafter, accused Riya was got medically examined from DDU Hospital and was produced before the court of Ld. M. M. from where she was remanded to JC.
45.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, PW7 denied the suggestion that she did not join the investigation of this case at any point of time or that she signed the documents in the PS at the instance of the IO or that she had deposed falsely being police official.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
46.I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
Ocular Evidence:
47.Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 21 of 45 aspects connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
48.Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated by the complainant and the testimony of the complainant is inconsistent. Ld. Counsel also argued that accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya were previously known to the complainant and the complainant was earlier working in Whirlpool company and in fact he called accused Sonia @ Riya on the pretext of getting her employed in the said company and he also asked undue favours from her and when she refused to do so, the complainant implicated her and other accused persons in the present case FIR. Ld. Counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
49.Per contra, Ld. Additional PP for the state has argued that the testimony of the complainant is consistent and he has supported the case of the prosecution on all material aspects and there was no occasion/motive for the complainant who is an old man, to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. Ld. Additional PP argued that the complainant has narrated the entire incident which occurred with him before the court and he has stood well during his cross examination. Ld. Additional PP argued that the accused Soniya @ Riya has taken the defence of her false implication and it is alleged by her that she was falsely implicated in this case when she refused to succumb to the demand of sexual favours by the complainant, however, there is no evidence produced on record in support of the aforesaid defence nor any police complaint regarding the same was ever lodged by accused Sonia @ Riya.
50.The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 22 of 45 PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma (complainant). The said witness i.e. PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma has supported the case of the prosecution.
51.Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma (complainant), it is therefore necessary for this Court to first determine whether his testimony is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 23 of 45
52.The law regarding reliability of a witness has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment titled as MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.764 & 765 OF 2021; JUNE 03, 2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in Criminal Trial - Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is "wholly reliable", the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness.
53.Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is "wholly unreliable", neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such a witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
54.Here it is also appropriate to mention the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as under:-
".....Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
55.In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation.
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 24 of 45 In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."
56.Now, it has to be seen as to whether the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma falls in which of the said categories i.e. (a) Wholly reliable, (b) wholly unreliable and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
57.From careful perusal of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma, the following points have emerged:-
(a). that on 07.09.2015 at about 11.30 AM, he was present at Preet Vihar, Metro station where he had gone to deposit money in his account of Andhra Bank.
(b). in the said bank, he received the phone call of his friend i.e. accused Balram and over the said phone call, accused Balram invited him to come to his house for lunch and earlier also accused Balram had invited him for lunch/dinner continuously but he was avoiding the same.
(c). on the said date i.e. on 07.09.2015, PW2 refused for the said invitation, however, on the insistence of accused Balram, he agreed to visit him for the said day for lunch.
(d). while PW2 was travelling to Uttam Nagar in metro, accused Balram was continuously in touch with him on mobile and accused Balram instructed him to get down at Dwarka Station.
(e). Accused Balram met PW2 at the said station and told him that one of his acquaintance namely Riya (co-accused) was unwell and accused Balram suggested that befor going to his house for lunch they must visit her to inquire her about her health.
(f). PW2 asked accused Balram that he should alone visit Riya and FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 25 of 45 in the meantime, PW2 shall wait for him at the station and PW2 deposed that accused Balram was repeatedly receiving calls from said Riya.
(g). Upon the refusal of PW2 to accompany Balram, accused Balram emotionally motivated PW2 to visit Riya as she was unwell and accordingly, PW2 agreed to visit Riya with accused Balram.
(h). Accused Balram told him that Riya was sending someone else to fetch them from metro station as she herself was ill and after about 2 to 3 minutes a lady aged 40-45 years approached Balram at the metro station as she was known to him.
(i). That PW2 accompany them to a house and the said house was situated at R Block, Rama Park and the said house was situated on the first floor and accused Balram and said lady helped PW2 to climb the stairs.
(j). upon reaching the house, PW2 saw that Riya was lying on a bed in a room and he observed that accused Balram and accused Riya were making some signs/signals to each other.
(k). PW2 asked accused Riya if he could use the washroom and she signaled towards the washroom and PW2 went to the washroom alongwith the bag carried by him and it seem to PW2 that the door of the washroom had been bolted by accused Balram and Riya from outside. He kept on knocking the said door but it was not opened.
(l). After about 8 to 10 minutes, the door was opened and upon coming out from the bathroom, PW2 saw that besides accused Riya and Balram, four other men were also present in the room and accused Riya was naked and she had taken off all her clothes.
(m). the said four persons represented that one of them was from CBI, one was SHO and the third one was a journalist by profession and they all threatened PW2 by saying that PW2 was trying to rape FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 26 of 45 Riya.
(n). That when PW2 refuted the same, all four of them asked him to remove his clothes and they gave beatings to PW2. During the time when PW2 was being given beatings, accused Balram and the lady who met him at metro station were sitting in the adjoining room.
(o). since PW2 could not manage to flee, all the said four men in the room removed his wearing clothes and the men who was claiming to be a journalist took his photographs in the said condition and they also took his photographs by making accused Riya stand next to him.
(p). That the said four persons told PW2 that they would not do anything illegal with the photographs taken by them if he would pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to them.
(q). When PW2 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, they kept on reducing their demands and finally told PW2 that if he would pay them a sum of Rs.73,000/- they would let him go.
(r). That PW2 was carrying a sum of Rs.27000/- in his bag and the said amount had already been taken by them when PW2 told them that he was not having the amount of Rs.73000/- available with him.
(s). That the said persons asked PW2 to arrange the said amount by making call to his relative/friends and when PW2 asked them to provide his mobile phone which had been taken by them, they got suspicious and started blaming accused Balram by saying that accused Balram had unnecessarily embroiled them as PW2 was not having anything with him to give them.
(t). That the said persons tortured him and since it was becoming unbearable for PW2 he pleaded with them to either kill him or let him go and thereafter, he got fainted and when he regained his consciousness, all the said four men alongwith accused Balram made him wear his clothes with their help and they asked accused Balram FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 27 of 45 to take PW2 to his home.
(u). That accused Balram and one of the four men took PW2 downstairs from the house and the four men who had manhandled PW2 and robbed him in the house managed to flee away from the spot.
(v). That within few seconds a car came at the spot, PW2 was dragged and made to sit in the said car by two persons i.e. the one who was claiming to be CBI officer and the fourth one who was accompanying the journalist was probably the photographer. Out of the four men, two sat in the front seat of the car and accused Balram and the fourth man sat with him in the back seat.
(w). That PW2 was taken to Dhaula Kuan in the said car and during the journey to Dhaula Kuan, all the said persons kept on beating PW2 and pulled his hair and also extended threats by saying that they would not leave PW2 if he would not pay money to them. Upon reaching Dhaula Kuan, PW2 and accused Balram were pushed out from the said car.
(x). That PW2 confronted Balram regarding the entire incident but accused Balram did not say anything. PW2 asked for his mobile phone from accused Balram. Accused Balram initially avoided the same but later on handed over the mobile phone to PW2 which he was carrying in his pocket and from the mobile phone PW2 made three calls on 100 number.
(y). That PW2 alongwith Balram went to PS Uttam Nagar where PW2 made a complaint Ex.PW2/A and later on PW2 came to know that the said house in which he was taken was of accused Rajrani @ Ranu.
(z). That PW2 was pressurized by the person who was representing himself to be SHO to write a letter to the effect that he had visited the FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 28 of 45 premises to commit rape and upon refusal, the said person alongwith his associates gave beatings to him and obtained his signatures on blank paper.
(z1). That on 08.09.2015 PW2 joined investigation and on that day accused Rajrani @ Ranu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B from her house i.e. R-2/52, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar at the instance of PW2 and the bag belonging to PW2 was recovered from the house of accused Rajrani containing the passbook of Andhra Bank which IO had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D and he identified the said bag as Ex.PW2/P1 and passbook as Ex.PW2/P2.
58.This witness i.e. PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons but this witness stood firm even during cross-examination and from the cross-examination nothing favourable to accused persons namely Balram and Sonia @ Riya comes out.
59.In the light of aforesaid judgments, now it has to be seen as to whether the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma falls in the category of wholly reliable witness, wholly unreliable witness or neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Perusal of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma reveals that this witness falls within the category of wholly reliable witness as this witness has narrated the manner in which he was allured to accompany accused Balram and the manner in which he was abducted by accused Balram and the manner in which extortion was committed upon PW2 by putting PW2 in fear of an accusation of having committed or attempted to commit the offence of rape.
60.I may also note that the witness Sh. Rajender Sharma (PW2) is the victim/eye witness and has stood by his version. His testimony has its own efficacy and relevancy and the fact that offence was FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 29 of 45 committed upon him and he narrated the occurrence during his examination before this court in detail shows that he was present at the place of occurrence and had seen the occurrence by himself and gone through the trauma which he suffered when the offences were being committed upon him. [Ref.: Mohar vs. State of UP reported in 2002 AIR (SC) 3279: 2002 Cri.L.J. 4310]. Evidence of injured eye witness cannot be discarded in toto on ground of criminal disposition towards accused or improbability of narrating the details of actual accident. More so, on perusal of evidence tested in light of broad probabilities it can be concluded that eye-witness are natural witnesses and they could not have concocted a baseless case against accused. Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mansingh & Ors. reported in 2003 (3) Cri.C.C. 559: 2003 (10) SCC 414 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value, unless compelling reasons exist.
61.A plain reading of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma confirms the presence of the accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya at the spot of incident and also confirms the role attributed to them. I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma and I hold the said witness i.e. PW2 credible, reliable and trustworthy.
62.Now, let us see as to whether which of the offences the prosecution has been able to prove and if so, against which of the accused persons facing trial.
Charge for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC.
In this regard, it is observed that the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma reveals that at the instance of accused Balram, he agreed to visit him for the said date i.e. 07.09.2015 at his house for lunch and while he was travelling in Metro to Uttam Nagar, accused FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 30 of 45 Balram was continuously in touch with him over mobile and accused Balram instructed him to get down at Dwarka metro station. When accused Balram met PW2 at the said station, accused Balram told him that one of his acquaintance namely Riya was unwell and suggested that before going to his house for lunch, they must visit to her to inquire about her health. PW2 further deposed that after about 2 to 3 minutes, a lady aged about 40 - 45 years approached Balram at the metro station as she was known to accused Balram. Thereafter, both of them came to him and he accompanied them to a house situated at R Block, Rama Park and accused Balram and said lady helped PW2 to climb the stairs. Upon reaching the house, PW2 saw that Riya was lying on a bed in a room and he observed that accused Balram and Riya were making some signs/signals to each other.
63.The testimony of PW2 further reveals that upon coming out from the bathroom, he saw that besides accused Riya and Balram, four other men were also present in the room and accused Riya was naked as she had taken off all her clothes. The said four men represented that one of them was from CBI, the other one was the SHO and the third one was journalist by profession and they all threatened PW2 by saying that PW2 was trying to rape Riya and when he refuted the allegations, all four of them asked PW2 to remove his clothes and they gave beatings to PW2. PW2 has further stated that when he was being given beatings, accused Balram and the lady who had met them at metro station were sitting in the adjoining room. All the aforesaid four men present in the room removed his wearing apparels and the man who was claiming to be journalist took his photographs in the said condition and he also took his photographs by making accused Riya stand next to him. The said four persons further told PW2 that they would not do anything illegal with the photographs taken by FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 31 of 45 them if PW2 would pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to them. This shows that accused Balram, Sonia @ Riya, the four persons who impersonated themselves as officials/journalist and the lady who came to metro station were in conspiracy with each other.
64.In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Baliya @ Balkishan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 9 Supreme Court Cases 696 (2012) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the foundation of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to co-operate for the accomplishment/performance of an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by itself through legal means. Such agreement or meeting of minds create the offence of criminal conspiracy and regardless of proof or otherwise of the main offence to commit which the conspiracy may have been hatched, once the unlawful combination of minds is complete, the offence of criminal conspiracy stands committed." It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "more often than not direct evidence of the offence of criminal conspiracy will not be forthcoming and proof of such an offence has to be determined by a process of inference from the established circumstances of a given case."
65.In the light of testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma coupled with the aforesaid dictum passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my considered view the prosecution has been able to establish that accused Balram, Sonia @ Riya, the four persons (since not arrested) who were present at the said house and impersonated themselves as officials/journalist as well as the lady (since not arrested) who brought PW2 alongwith accused Balram upto the said premises have entered into a criminal conspiracy and they all were in agreement with each other to co-operate for the accomplishment/performance of FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 32 of 45 an illegal act. Thus the aforesaid offenders have hatched a criminal conspiracy and since the unlawful meeting of minds is complete, they have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy as punishable u/s 120B IPC against accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya.
66.Now, let us see if the prosecution has been able to prove offence punishable u/s 365 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC against any of the accused persons and if so against whom.
67.Section 365 of IPC read as under:
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
68.Section 362 defines abduction which reads as under:-
Abduction - Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
69.In this regard, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of PW2 which is as under:-
"that on 07.09.2015 at about 11:30 am, I was present at Preet Vihar Metro Station where I had gone to deposit money in my account of Andhara Bank. There was rush in the said bank. In the mean time, I received a call of my friend Balram who invited me to come at his house for lunch. Earlier also from the last two three days, Balram was inviting me for lunch continuously but I was avoiding the same. Two three months prior to the said date FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 33 of 45 also, Balram was compelling me to come to his house for lunch/dinner but I was avoiding the same. Balram is a carpenter by profession who was introduced by a property dealer. Balram had come to me for carpenter work but I was not having any carpenter work at my home. On 07.09.2015 at 11.30 AM, Balram had invited me for lunch at his house at Uttam Nagar but I refused. However, on the insistence of Balram, I agreed for lunch. While I was travelling to Uttam Nagar in Metro, accused Balram was continuously in touch with me on my mobile and instructed me that instead of getting down at Uttam Nagar, I should deboard the Metro on the next station i.e. Dwarka. Accordingly, I got down from the Metro at Dwarka Station. Accused Balram met me at the station. Accused Balram told me that one of his acquaintance namely Riya was unwell and he suggested that before going to his house for lunch, they must visit her to inquire about her health. Since I was not familiar with the topography of Dwarka, I told accused Balram to alone visit Riya and I shall wait at the Station. I observed that the accused Balram was repeatedly receiving calls from said Riya. Upon my refusal to accompany him, accused Balram emotionally motivated me to visit her as she was unwell. Therefore, I agreed to visit Riya with Balram. Accused Balram told me that Riya was sending someone else to fetch them from the Metro Station as she herself was ill. After about two to three minutes, a lady aged about 40-45 years approached Balram at the Metro Station as she was known to him. Thereafter, both of them came to me and I accompanied them to a house. Later on, I came to know that the said house was situated at R-Block, Rama Park. Before reaching the said house, while we were on the way, I told accused Balram and the said lady that I had to answer the FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 34 of 45 nature's call. Since there was no appropriate place available for the same, they told me to wait till they reach the house of Riya. The said house was situated on the first floor. Accused Balram and the said lady had helped me to climb the stairs."
70.PW2 also deposed that he was locked in the bathroom in the said flat and the accused persons removed his cloths and clicked his photograph alongwith accused Sonia who was naked at that time. The aforesaid testimony of PW2 categorically reveals that PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma was compelled by deceitful means by accused Balram, the lady who met him at metro station to go from said place to the said house situated at Rama Park and accused Balram and the said lady (since not arrested) abducted PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma by deceitful means and PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma was abducted pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by accused Balram, Sonia @ Riya, the lady (since not arrested) who met them at metro station and four persons present at the house (since not arrested) who impersonated themselves to be the officials such as SHO/CBI official/Journalist.
71.In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the commission of offences punishable u/s 365 IPC read with Section 120B IPC by accused persons namely Baram and Sonia @ Riya.
72.Offences punishable u/s 389 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. In this regard, the following provisions are reproduced as under:-
Section 390. Robbery - In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to be committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 35 of 45 away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery - Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation - The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear or instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
73.Section 389. Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion - Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit an offence punishable with death or with [imprisonment for life'], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence is punishable under Section 377 of this Code, may be punished with [imprisonment for life].
74.In this regard, the relevant portion of testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma is reproduced as under:-
" Upon reaching the house, I saw that Riya was lying on a bed in a room. Accused Balram and Riya were making some signs/signals to each other. I asked Riya for using the FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 36 of 45 washroom, who signaled towards the washroom and I went to use the same alongwith the bag being carried by me. There was no water in the washroom. It seemed to me that the door of the washroom had been bolted by accused Balram and Riya from outside. I kept on knocking the door but it was not opened. After about 8 to 10 minutes, the door was opened. Upon coming out from the bathroom, I saw that besides accused Riya and Balram, four other men were also present in the room and accused Riya was naked as she had taken of all her clothes. The said four men represented that one of them was from CBI, the other one was the SHO and the third one was a Journalist by profession. They all threatened me by saying that I was trying to rape Riya. When I refuted the same, all four of them asked me to remove my clothes. All the said four men were of strong built. They gave beatings to me. I could not resist them as I had iron rods implants in my left arm".
75. He further deposed that he also thought of escaping from the house but could not manage the same. Since he could not manage to flee, all the four men in the room removed his wearing apparels. The man who was claiming to be a Journalist, took his photographs in the said condition. They also took his photographs by making the accused Riya stand next to him. The said four persons told him that they would not do anything illegal with the photographs if he would pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to them. When he expressed his inability to pay the said amount, they kept on reducing their demands and finally, they told him to pay a sum of Rs.73000/- and they would let him go. He further deposed that he was carrying a sum of Rs.27000/- in his bag which was already taken away by accused persons.
FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 37 of 45
76.He further deposed that when he told them that he was not having the amount of Rs.73000/- available with him, they asked him to arrange the same by making call to his relatives/friends. They also tortured him on the said account and provided only one sip of water after the other on repeated requests. Since all this was becoming unbearable for him, he pleaded with them to either kill him or let him go. Thereafter, he got fainted for some time. They sprinkled some water on his face. He further deposed that when he regained his conscious, all the said four men alongwith the accused Balram made him wear his clothes. Thereafter, they asked accused Balram to take him to his home.
77. He also deposed that they took him to Dhaula Kuan in the car and during the journey to Dhaula Kuan, all the said four persons kept on giving beatings to him. They pulled his hair and also extended threats by saying that they would leave if he would pay money to them.
78.In the light of aforesaid testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma, it has been established that accused persons namely Balram, Sonia @ Riya alongwith one lady (since not arrested) who met PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma and brought Sh. Rajender Sharma upto the place of occurrence as well as the said four unknown offenders (since not arrested) who impersonated themselves to be the officials of CBI/SHO/Journalist, in order to the committing of extortion put PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma in fear of an accusation of rape upon accused Sonia @ Riya. The roles of the aforesaid offenders are writ large from the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma as to how the aforesaid accused persons in order to the committing of extortion put PW2 in fear of an accusation as initially when PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma entered into the said premises, he saw accused Riya lying on a bed in a room and he observed that accused Balram and Riya were FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 38 of 45 making signs/signals to each other and when he came out from the bathroom, he saw that besides accused Riya and Balram, four other mens were also present in the room and accused Riya was naked as she had taken off all her clothes. Accused Riya, Balram and the said four offenders threatened PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma by saying that PW2 was trying to rape Riya. When PW2 refuted the same, all four of them asked PW2 to remove his clothes and PW2 was given beatings. Thereafter, all the four men in the room removed his wearing apparels and the man who was claiming to be journalist took his photographs in the said condition and his photograph was also taken by making accused Riya stand next to him. Not even this, PW2 has further deposed that the said four persons told PW2 that they would not do anything illegal with the photographs taken by them if PW2 would pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to them. When PW2 expressed his inability to pay the said amount, they kept on reducing their demands and finally they told him that if he would pay them a sum of Rs.73000/- they would let him go. Not only this, PW2 has further deposed that he was carrying a sum of Rs.27000/- in his bag which had already been taken by them and when he told them that he was not having the amount of Rs.73000/- available with him, they asked PW2 to arrange the same by making calls to his relatives/friends. When PW2 asked them to give him his mobile phone which had also been taken away by them, they got suspicious. PW2 has further deposed that the said persons had also tortured him and when all this was becoming unbearable for him, he pleaded with them to either kill him or let him go. So the aforesaid testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma establishes that pursuant to criminal conspiracy the aforesaid accused persons in order to the committing of extortion put PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma in fear of an accusation of committing rape upon FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 39 of 45 accused Sonia @ Riya and they also took photographs of complainant alongwith Sonia @ Riya in naked condition with an intention to use it against the complainant for false accusation of offence of rape.
79.In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to establish the commission of offences punishable u/s 389 IPC read with Section 120B IPC by accused persons namely Balram and Sonia @ Riya.
Charge for offence punishable u/s 395 IPC.
80.Now it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the commission of offence punishable u/s 395 IPC on the part of accused persons or otherwise. Section 391 IPC provides that robbery committed by 05 or more persons is decoity. In this regard, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rajender Sharma is again relevant which is being reproduced as under:-
"I was carrying a sum of Rs.27000/- in my bag which was already taken away by accused persons".
81.In this regard, it is observed that as per section 390 IPC, theft may constitute robbery/decoity and the prosecution has to establish :-
(a) in order to the committing of theft; or
(b) in committing the theft; or
(c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
(d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c);
(e) voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
82.In other words, theft would be robbery only if for any of the ends FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 40 of 45 mentioned in (a) to (c) the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. If the ends does not fall within (a) to (c) but, the offender still causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, the offence would not be robbery. That (a) or (b) or (c) have to be read conjunctively with (d) and (e). It is only when (a) or (b) or (c) co-exist with (d) and (e) or there is a nexus between any of them and
(d), (e) then the offence would amount to robbery.
83.In view of the aforesaid law, now it has to be seen as to whether the aforesaid ingredients are fulfilled so as to make out a case for offence punishable u/s 395 IPC. In this regard, as already observed above, the intension of the accused persons i.e. Balram, Sonia @ Riya and the aforesaid four unknown offenders as well as of the lady who met PW2 at the metro station was to put PW2 in fear of an accusation i.e. rape and then to commit extortion which is punishable u/s 389 IPC and not under section 395 IPC. The testimony of PW2 reveals that initially a sum of Rs.5 lacs was demanded from him and when he expressed his inability to pay the said amount, they kept on reducing their demands and finally they told him that if he would pay a sum of Rs.73,000/- they would let him go and the bag containing Rs.27000/- from the possession of PW2 had already been taken by them and it is not the case of the prosecution that accused persons caused death, hurt or wrongful restraint in order to take the bag of the complainant/PW2 which was containing Rs. 27000/-. So, the motive of the offenders was to commit extortion and accordingly, they put PW2 in fear of accusation of rape and it is not the case of prosecution that accused persons committed decoity/robbery of the said bag by FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 41 of 45 causing or attempting to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or the fear thereof to the complainant. In the light of aforesaid testimony, the ingredients of offence u/s 395 r/w sec. 390 IPC are not fulfilled and thus it cannot be said that (a) or (b) or (c) co-exist with (d) and
(e) of sec. 390 IPC as detailed above or there is any nexus between any of them.
84.Hence, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has not been able to fulfil the aforesaid ingredients so as to make out the case of commission of offence punishable u/s 395 IPC. Accordingly, accused persons namely Rajrani @ Ranu, Balram and Sonia @ Riya are acquitted for offence punishable u/s 395 IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC.
85.Role of accused Rajrani @ Ranu in the commission of offence, if any:-
In this regard, it is noticed that PW2 in his entire examination in chief has not attributed any role upon accused Rajrani @ Ranu in the commission of any of the offences as charged against her. The only deposition made by PW2 in respect of accused Rajrani @ Ranu is that later on he came to know that the said house in which he was taken was of accused Rajrani @ Ranu. During his cross- examination on behalf of state, PW2 admitted that accused Rajrani @ Ranu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B from the house i.e. R-2/52, Mohan Garden and her personal search was also conducted. During his cross-examination on behalf of defence, PW2 has specifically deposed that accused Rajrani had not threatened him to implicate him in a false case and he also admitted that accused Rajrani did not beat him. The aforesaid deposition of PW2 does not attribute any role to accused Rajrani so as to establish that accused Rajrani was one of the conspirator or was actively or in any other FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 42 of 45 manner involved in the commission of offence.
86.During cross-examination, IO i.e. PW8 ASI Sita Ram has admitted that complainant was not accompanying them when during police custody, accused Rajrani led them to her house from where the bag of the complainant was allegedly recovered. Further, no documentary proof of ownership of House No. R-2/52, Mohan Garden, Delhi has been produced on record to connect the accused Rajrani with the said house or the offence. This being the background, I find that there is no sufficient evidence on record to connect accused Rajrani @ Ranu with the commission of offences charged against her. Accordingly, accused Rajrani @ Ranu is acquitted for the charges framed against her u/s 120B, u/s 365 IPC r/w sec.120B IPC, u/s 389 IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC and u/s 395 r/w sec. 120B IPC.
87.The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya, the manner in which the offences have been committed, place of commission of the offence and the documents prepared during the investigation. There is nothing on record which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. The prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and the same are consistent and corroborative.
88.Ld counsel for the accused argued that the complainant has alleged the commission of offence at about 2.30/3.00 pm on 07.09.2015 whereas the FIR was registered in the mid night at about 12.55 am and hence, there is a delay in registration of FIR which is not FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 43 of 45 explained. It is also alleged that the complainant has improved his statement during his deposition before the Court regarding the amount in the bag and he has mentioned in his deposition that neither of the accused has given any beatings to him or snatched his money. Ld counsel argued that no evidence/proof of ownership of alleged house (place of alleged incident) in the name of accused Rajrani was obtained by the IO during the investigation. Ld counsel also argued that as per the case of the prosecution there were four other persons who were involved in the commission of alleged offences, however, they could not be arrested during the investigation and all the aforesaid facts create doubt over the case of the prosecution.
89.So far as the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for accused persons regarding the false implication of the accused persons in this case by the complainant are concerned, I am of the opinion that there was no occasion or motive for the complainant to falsely implicate all the accused persons in the present case. The aforesaid arguments raised by Ld defence counsel as enumerated in the preceding para do not cast doubt over the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the complainant is consistent regarding the commission of alleged offences with him. The accused Sonia @ Riya has taken the defence that the complainant asked her to make physical relations with her and he allured her to arrange a job for her in Whirlpool company and when she refused, a quarrel took place and she also alleged that she threatened the complainant to make the police complaint. It is also alleged by her that the complainant used to make phone calls to her even prior to the date of alleged incident. It is pertinent to mention that there is no evidence on record to prove the alleged defence taken by accused Sonia @ Riya nor any police complaint was made by Sonia @ Riya. The defence taken by accused Sonia and Balram does FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 44 of 45 not inspire confidence and does not seem to be probable. On the other hand, as discussed above, the testimony of the complainant is reliable and consistent and the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution on all material aspects.
90.In view of the abovesaid circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that accused namely Balram and Sonia @ Riya, the four unknown offenders who impersonated themselves to be the officials of CBI/SHO/Journalist and the unknown lady who met complainant and accused Balram at the metro station, entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy they abducted complainant Sh. Rajender Sharma and committed extortion by putting the complainant Sh. Rajender Sharma in fear of an accusation of rape. Therefore, I hold the accused Balram and Sonia @ Riya guilty for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC, u/s 365 IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC and u/s 389 IPC r/w sec. 120B IPC and accordingly they are convicted for the said offences.
91.Copy of this judgment be provided dasti to both the sides free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022.
(Manish Khurana) Additional Sessions Judge-04 West/Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/29.10.2022 FIR No. 1171/2015 PS Uttam Nagar State Vs. Rajrani @ Ranu & Ors Page no. 45 of 45