Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ravi Rathi. on 10 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.37/14.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0094342014.
State Vs. 1. Ravi Rathi.
S/o Sh. Harbir Rathi,
R/o Village Tikri, Patti Bhojana,
Tehsil - Badot, Distt. Bagpat,
U.P.
2. Harbir Rathi
S/o Late Sh. Relu Singh,
R/o Village Tikri, Patti Bhojana,
Tehsil - Badot, Distt. Bagpat,
U.P.
3. Devendri Devi
W/o Sh. Harbir Rathi,
R/o Village Tikri, Patti Bhojana,
Tehsil - Badot, Distt. Bagpat,
U.P.
4. Priyanka
W/o Sh. Ravi Rathi,
R/o Village Tikri, Patti Bhojana,
Tehsil - Badot, Distt. Bagpat,
U.P.
Date of Institution : 15/16.4.2014.
FIR No.516 dated 20.12.2013.
U/s. 376/498A/406/493/494/323/
109/506/420/120B IPC.
P.S. Najafgarh.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 02.9.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 10.9.2015.
SC No.37/14. Page 1 of 55
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused had been chargesheeted by the prosecution for having committed the offences u/s. 376/498A/406/493/494/323/109/506/420/120B IPC and u/s.3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Harbir Rathi and Devendri Devi are the parents of accused Ravi Rathi. Accused Priyanka is stated to have got married to accused Ravi Rathi on 06.5.2013. Both, the accused Ravi Rathi as well as the prosecutrix namely 'S' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) are employed in Delhi Police.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix got acquainted to each other during their training in Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, in the year 2009 and they gradually developed intimacy for each other. Both wanted to marry each other and the accused had assured the prosecutrix that he would marry only her. It is for this reason that when the parents of the prosecutrix started searching for a suitable match for her, she disclosed to them that accused Ravi Rathi is a suitable match for her. Accordingly the parents of the prosecutrix visited native village of accused Ravi Rathi and met his parents i.e. the accused Harbir Rathi and Devendri Devi who demanded a huge dowry for them. The parents of the prosecutrix expressed their inability to give dowry. Upon getting knowledge about what had transpired between his parents and the parents of the prosecutrix, accused Ravi Rathi approached parents of the prosecutrix and showed them an affidavit dated 13.10.2013 SC No.37/14. Page 2 of 55 duly attested before a Notary Public mentioning that the marriage between him and the prosecutrix has already taken place in court on 03.4.2013. Accordingly, the marriage of the prosecutrix and the accused Ravi Rathi was fixed for 13.11.2013. Accused Ravi Rathi made a call to the prosecutrix on the date of marriage i.e. 13.11.2013 saying that his maternal uncle has expired and his father is bed ridden and therefore, he would be accompanied by only 5 or 6 persons for the marriage functions. The marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi was performed on 13.11.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, on the very next day of the marriage i.e. 14.11.2013 the prosecutrix overheard the telephonic conversation between accused Ravi Rathi and a lady. When the prosecutrix asked him who that lady was, he initially told her that she was a police informer but when the prosecutrix told him that she wants to talk to that lady informer, he had to admit that she is his wife. He fairly admitted that he was already married and had solemnized second marriage with her i.e. prosecutrix, only with the impression that she would bring dowry and cash. The prosecutrix returned to her parental home the same day.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix alongwith her parents, brother and brother in law had gone to native village of Ravi Rathi on 25.11.2013 for confirmation of his first marriage. They met the parents of accused Ravi Rathi who abused them and told them that their son had done nothing wrong. Upon return from the village of accused, they visited the house of accused Ravi Rathi's brother in Gautambudh Apartments, Sector-1, Noida, and met his first wife i.e. accused Priyanka and it SC No.37/14. Page 3 of 55 transpired that she was really the first wife of accused Ravi Rathi and knew everything that had happened. The prosecutrix became depressed by the aforesaid turn of events to such an extent that she started taking Alprax tablets. She felt cheated and deceived by accused Ravi Rathi who had ruined her life as he was having regular sexual relations with her before 13.11.2013 on the promise and assurance to marry her. He had concealed the factum of his marriage with accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013 from the prosecutrix and her family, kept on enjoying sexual relations with her even after his marriage with Priyanka and even went to the extent of performing marriage with her (prosecutrix) according to Hindu rites and customs on 13.11.2013 knowing fully well that the said marriage has no legal sanctity as he is already a married person. The prosecutrix then submitted a detailed typed complaint in the police station on 09.12.2013.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that FIR u/s. 376/498A/406/493/494/323/109/506/420/120B IPC was registered in the police station on the basis of aforesaid typed complaint of the prosecutrix and the investigation was entrusted to SI Kavita. She summoned an NGO official who counselled the prosecutrix in the police station on 21.12.2013. She recorded the statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix, her parents and her brother Kishan. The prosecutrix was taken to RTRM Hospital on 23.12.2013 where her medical examination was conducted. The prosecutrix submitted another complaint in the police station on 24.12.2013 saying that accused Ravi Rathi's brother Raj Kumar and his mother Devendri Devi had approached her the previous day i.e. 23.1.22013 for settlement and had also issued threats to her. The SC No.37/14. Page 4 of 55 prosecutrix again visited police station on 27.12.2013 and handed over copies of her marriage card, CD containing photographs and video of the marriage, tickets of Indigo airlines dated 21.6.2013, affidavit dated 11.10.2013 in support of their marriage, printout of the text messages between her and accused Ravi Rathi, B.Ed. Examination Roll Number and counselling papers which were seized by the IO. On 28.12.2013 the IO alongwith prosecutrix reached Sector-45, Noida, where the prosecutrix identified the house, to which she had been taken by accused Ravi Rathi on 13.11.2013 after the marriage. IO recorded the statement of house owner Devender Singh Chauhan and a property dealer Pradeep. The IO also visited all the hotels where the accused had engaged in physical relations with the prosecutrix and seized the entry registers and the copies of the ID cards.
5. The statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on 15.1.2014. Meanwhile accused Harbir Rathi, Devendri Devi and Priyanka had been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and they were formally arrested by the IO on 25.1.2014 and 03.2.2014. Accused Ravi Rathi came to be arrested on 30.1.2014. He was got medically examined in RTRM Hospital. During his police remand, he got recovered all the dowry articles of the prosecutrix from the house of Satender Badana Gujjar in village Bhangel, Noida, which was identified by the prosecutrix. IO recorded statement u/s.164 Cr.PC of the house owner Satender Badana Gujjar. Accused Ravi Rathi also disclosed during the course of interrogation that the four persons, who were accompanying him on the date of marriage with the prosecutrix, were, in fact, his friends and not his relatives. The IO also made SC No.37/14. Page 5 of 55 inquiries from the father and brother of accused Priyanka regarding her marriage with accused Ravi Rathi on 06.5.2013. They handed over the CD containing the photographs of the said marriage to the IO. The IO recorded the statement of prosecutrix's brother Prince and other material witnesses.
6. After completion of the investigation, the IO prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.
CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED
7. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charge u/s.120B IPC, u/s.420/120B IPC, u/s.495/120B IPC, u/s. 406/120B IPC and u/s.506/120B IPC was framed against all the four accused on 19.5.2014. Further Charge u/s.376 IPC, u/s.495 IPC, u/s.406 IPC, u/s.506 IPC and u/s.420 IPC was framed against accused Ravi Rathi on the same day. All the accused abjured their guilt and hence trial was held.
WITNESSES EXAMINED BY PROSECUTION
8. At trial, the prosecution examined following twenty witnesses :
(1) PW1 is ASI Sukhbir Singh. He was the Duty Officer in P.S. Najafgarh on 20.12.2013 and had registered the FIR in this case which he proved as Ex.PW1/A. He proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B. (2) PW2 - She is the prosecutrix herself. Her deposition would be discussed in detail in later part SC No.37/14. Page 6 of 55 of the judgment.
(3) PW3 is Mrs. Santosh, the mother of the prosecutrix. Her testimony would also be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
(4) PW4 is Sh. Dharambeer, the father of the prosecutrix. His testimony would also be discussed in later part of the judgment.
(5) PW5 is Sh. Kishan Kumar, the younger brother of the prosecutrix. His testimony would also be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment. (6) PW6 is Master Prince, the other brother of the prosecutrix. He had accompanied the prosecutrix and the accused Ravi Rathi on 13.11.2013 after their marriage. He deposed that they all left in Honda City car but the car was stopped near Dwarka More where they shifted to Santro car and reached Noida. The Honda City car was taken by relatives of Ravi Rathi.
He further stated that upon reaching Noida, he slept and woke up at about 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. on 14.11.2013. He found that accused Ravi Rathi was not present in the house. He asked his sister i.e. the prosecutrix for some food but she seemed to be in depressed mood and was sending messages from her mobile phone. Ravi Rathi returned to the house at about 2 p.m. alongwith meals. He went to another room to have his meals and thereafter laid on the bed. After some time, he heard some noise i.e. shouts of his sister and accused Ravi from their room. He knocked on the door of the room but they SC No.37/14. Page 7 of 55 did not open it. Prosecutrix opened the door after some time. She was weeping bitterly. He asked her why she was weeping but she did not tell her anything. Accused Ravi Rathi was in angry mood and gave beatings to the prosecutrix in his presence. Thereafter, Ravi Rathi left. He further stated that his sister then made a call to their brother Kishan and asked him to take them from there. Kishan reached there and brought them home.
In the cross examination, he could not tell the registration number of the Santro car or the complete address of the house at Noida, where Ravi Rathi had taken them. He had not seen any other person in the house other than accused Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix. He stated that he did not go through the messages sent by his sister from the mobile phone. He could not tell the specific words which he heard coming out from the room of Ravi Rathi and his sister on account of intense noise. The words were not clear. He did not know whether 'S' made any call at telephone no.100.
(7) PW7 is Sh. Pradeep Yadav, the property dealer.
The property dealer. According to him, accused Ravi Rathi had approached him in November or December, 2013 with the requirement of a room on rent and told him that he needs the room urgently i.e. the same day. Accordingly, he showed the accused a room in house no.SD-99, Sector-45, Noida and also introduced him to the landlord Sh. Devender SC No.37/14. Page 8 of 55 Singh. Accused talked to landlord and monthly rent was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. He took the accused Ravi Rathi to a nearby ATM where accused withdrew Rs. 10,000/- and paid the same as advance rent to the landlord. Accused told the landlord that he would bring his goods the next day. However, the accused made a call to him on the same day at about 9.30 p.m. saying that he would be taking his goods to the tenanted room that day itself. He asked the accused to talk to the landlord in this regard. He himself made a call to the landlord informing him about the same. When he made calls to accused Ravi the next day to demand his commission, accused avoided to meet him on one pretext or the other. The accused sent him a message after about four days saying that he is admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, accused never met him.
In the cross examination, he stated that he does not recollect the day, date and month when accused Ravi Rathi had approached him with the requirement of a room on rent. He did not recollect the mobile number of the accused. He stated that he was not summoned by the police officials after the arrest of accused Ravi Rathi to identify him. He was also not taken to jail for identification of Ravi Rathi. He admitted that the possession of the tenanted premises is given to the tenant only after proper verification and stated that neither he nor landlord Devender Singh had asked police to verify the SC No.37/14. Page 9 of 55 credentials of Ravi Rathi before handing over the possession of a tenanted room to him. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his statement to police the house number as SD-99 or that accused Ravi Rathi had withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM in his presence or that the accused made call to him on that day at 9.30 a.m. saying that he is taking goods to the tenanted house on that day itself or that he made calls to the accused demanding his commission.
(8) PW8 is Sh. Devender Singh, the owner of house no.SD-99, Sector-45, Village Sadarpur, Noida, U.P. He stated that accused Ravi Rathihad come to him alongwith property dealer Pradeep about one and a half years ago with the requirement of a room on rent. He showed a room on the ground floor of his aforesaid house to the accused which was to his liking. The rent was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month. He further stated that the accused shifted his goods to the house after about three days thereof and was accompanied by 3 or 4 persons. Next day, a lady with bridal appearance had come alongwith accused to the house and stayed there for one night. He asked the accused Ravi as to who she was and the accused told him that she is his wife. According to him, that lady left the house the next day and the accused Ravi stayed in his house as tenant for one month.
In the cross examination, he stated that no SC No.37/14. Page 10 of 55 document was prepared at the time of letting out of his house to accused Ravi Rathi. He did not get the police verification of the tenant conducted. He did not inform the local police that he has let out his house to tenant Ravi Rathi. He stated voluntarily that he did not do so as the accused did not give him his identity documents. He had not issued any receipt to the accused in lieu of Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that he did not ask the accused about that lady but had asked that lady who she was and she told him that she is the wife of Ravi Rathi. He was not summoned by the police to identify the accused Ravi Rathi after his arrest. He also did not visit jail to identify him.
(9) PW9 is Sh. Dalip Kumar, the Manager of Hotel God Gift Inn, Paharganj, New Delhi. He proved the hotel record i.e. the relevant page of the hotel register Ex.PW9/A regarding stay of one Ravi Kumar s/o Sh. Harbir Singh in the hotel on 15/16.7.2013. He stated that register does not mention whether any other person had stayed alongwith Ravi Kumar in the hotel during the aforesaid night. However, he deposed that Ravi Kumar was accompanied by a lady who told them that she is his wife.
(10) PW10 is Sumendra Pal Singh, the Manager of Hotel Minar, Railway Road, Ghaziabad. He proved the relevant page of the hotel register as Ex.PW2/A regarding stay of Ravi Kumar and 'S' in the hotel on 24.4.2013 from 11.50 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and SC No.37/14. Page 11 of 55 on 22.8.2013 from 1.20 p.m. till 5.30 p.m. (11) PW11 is Sh. Prem Adhikari, the Manager of Hotel Yes Please, Paharganj. He proved the relevant page of the hotel register as Ex.PW11/A showing the stay of Ravi Kumar and his wife 'S' in the hotel on 15.6.2013 from 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. (12) PW12 is Sh. Satender, the owner of three storeyed house in village Bhangel, near Sector-93, Noida, U.P. According to him, he had let out a two room set on the second floor of his house to Ravi Rathi on 18.12.2013 through his Munshi namely Mukesh at monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. Ravi Rathi had paid Rs.500/- in advance to his Munshi and shifted his goods to the rented room on 26.12.2013. He stated that after about one month, a lady police official alongwith certain other persons including Ravi Rathi came to his shop from where his Munshi accompanied them to the said house. He did not know what proceedings were conducted by the police in his house on that day.
(13) PW13 is Mukesh, the Munshi of Satender Badana (PW12). According to him, he had let out a two room set in the house of Satender Badana to Ravi Rathi on 18.12.2013 and the rent was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. Accused Ravi Rathi gave him Rs.500/- in advance and paid him the balance monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- on 26.12.2013. He stated that Ravi Rathi had kept his goods in his house on 18.12.2013. he had demanded ID proof of Ravi Rathi SC No.37/14. Page 12 of 55 who assured him that he would give him his identity proof later on. He stated that Ravi Rathi had again come to his shop on 24.1.2014 and paid him Rs.
4,000/- as another monthly rent rent. He further stated that on 31.1.2014, a lady police official alongwith Ravi Rathi came to his shop and he showed them the room which had been taken by Ravi Rathi and all the goods lying there were seized by the police in his presence. The keys of the two room set was taken out by Ravi Rathi from the bathroom by which the lock was opened. He stated that he has maintained a register wherein he is mentioning the date when he let out the two room set to Ravi Rathi and when it was vacated. He produced the two registers, which he had maintained regarding the rooms given to him on rent. One of the registers was smaller pertaining to year 2013 whereas the bigger register was hard bound pertaining to year 2014. He had made entry regarding rooms given on rent to Ravi Rathi in both the registers and proved the relevant pages as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. In the cross examination, he denied that the police had met him in connection with this case and had recorded his statement. At the same time, he admitted that his statement was recorded by SI Kavita on 31.1.2009 (the date has been incorrectly mentioned. It should have been 31.1.2014).
(14) PW14 is Const. Sudhir. He was the witness to SC No.37/14. Page 13 of 55 arrest of accused Ravi Rathi by IO SI Kavita in police station on 30.1.2015.
(15) PW15 is HC Ravinder Kumar. He proved the copy of DD No.18B recorded in P.S. Pandav Nagar on 12.11.2013 as Ex.PW5/A. He admitted in the cross examination that he had not recorded the said DD. (16) PW16 is Lady Const. Sudha. She had taken the prosecutrix 'S' to RTRM Hospital on 23.12.2013 for medical examination and had received sealed pullindas from the doctor which she then handed over to IO SI Kavita.
(17)PW17 is Dr. A. Shekhar. He is the superintendent in Metro Lifeline Hospital, Najafgarh. He alongwith Dr. Jitender had examined the prosecutrix in the hospital on 27.11.2013 when she was brought there by her mother with the history of having taken 10 to 15 Alprax tablets. He proved the copy of her MLC as Ex.PW17/A and further deposed that she remained in the hospital till 29.11.2013. he also proved her discharge record as Ex.PW17/B. He deposed in the cross examination that he had sent information to the police and the police officials had come to their hospital but did not make any inquiry from him. They also did not make any inquiry from the prosecutrix in his presence.
(18) PW18 is the Ld. M.M. Ms. Ruchika Singla, who recorded the statement u/s.164 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix. She proved her certificate annexed to the said statement as Ex.PW18/A. SC No.37/14. Page 14 of 55 (19) PW19 is sh. Paras Kumar, the brother of accused Priyanka. According to him, Priyanka got married to accused Ravi Rathi on 06.5.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs. He had handed over six marriage photographs, marriage cards and two DVDs relating to the said marriage to IO on 07.1.2014. He further deposed that about one month after the marriage of Priyanka with Ravi Rathi, she told him that she has come to know that Ravi Rathi was already married to a girl named 'S'. Accordingly, he alongwith his father went to Ravi Rathi's house at Noida to inquire about the truth and the accused Ravi Rathi admitted that he was already married to 'S' and further assured them that 'S' would take divorce from him. Thereafter, they visited the house of 'S' at Najafgarh where they were told that they are aware about the marriage between Ravi Rathi and Priyanka. 'S' and her parents also told them that she would take divorce from Ravi Rathi.
(20) PW20 is IO SI Kavita. In her examination in chief, she had mentioned in detail the steps taken by her in the investigation of this case. In her cross examination, she denied that the typed complaint of the prosecutrix was in fact with her and she handed over the same to Duty Officer ASI Sukhbir Singh (PW1). She stated that the SHO had marked the complaint to her for necessary action, which meant the registration of FIR as well as carrying out the investigation. She denied that she knew prosecutrix SC No.37/14. Page 15 of 55 beforehand and that the prosecutrix got the complaint typed under her advise. She stated that she did not make any inquiry to ascertain whether Marriage of prosecutrix had been in fact fixed with Dharmender. She had requested the parents of prosecutrix to introduce Dharmender to her but they refused saying that since the marital alliance has broken, it is not proper for them to do so. They also did not apprise her about the parentage and residential address of Dharmender. They also did not tell her the parentage and residential address of the bank employee of Bahadurgarh, with whom they had again fixed the marriage of prosecutrix. She stated that she has not prepared the site plan of the hotels and hotel rooms where the offence was stated to have been committed by accused Ravi Rathi. She did not visit Lucknow during the investigation of this case even though the prosecutrix had mentioned in the complaint that she had been raped in a hotel at Lucknow also. She explained that the prosecutrix told her that she cannot identify the said hotel in Lucknow.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S.313 Cr.PC
9. The statements u/s.313 Cr.PC of the accused were recorded on 04.8.2015 wherein they denied the prosecution case. Accused Ravi Rathi further stated that he had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix 'S' on 03.4.2013 whereas he got married to accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013 and therefore the SC No.37/14. Page 16 of 55 prosecutrix is his first wife whereas Priyanka is his second wife. He admitted that he had stayed alongwith prosecutrix in various hotels in Delhi and also in a hotel in Lucknow, but denied that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in those hotels. He admitted that he solemnized marriage with prosecutrix 'S' at her house on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs but added that the prosecutrix had asked him to come to her house on that day so that a symbolic marriage is performed to show in the society that they have got married. He also stated that he agreed for the said function fearing that the prosecutrix may attempt to commit suicide, if he refused as he knew that the prosecutrix is suffering from psychological disorder and had attempted to commit suicide a couple of times earlier also. He denied that he had taken the prosecutrix after the marriage on 13.11.2013 to Noida and stated that he took her to his residence at Kotla in East Delhi.
10. Accused Harbir Singh Rathi and Devendri Devi denied any knowledge about the friendship of their son Ravi Rathi with the prosecutrix or about their having solemnized marriage with each other either at 03.4.2013 or 13.11.2013. According to them, accused Priyanka is the only wife of their son Ravi Rathi and they do not know anything about his any other wife. Accused Priyanka also feigned ignorance about relations between Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix or their having solemnized marriage with each other either on 03.4.2013 or on 13.11.2013. She stated that she got married to Ravi Rathi on 06.5.2013 and about one month after the marriage, she became suspicious about his conduct as he used to remain out of house for nights and used to keep his phone locked SC No.37/14. Page 17 of 55 always. Upon her repeated questioning in this regard, Ravi Rathi admitted to her that he has already solemnized marriage with 'S' on 03.4.2013. She apprised her parents about the same. She stated that Ravi Rathi then assured her as well as her father that he would take divorce from 'S'.
WITNESSES EXAMINED IN DEFENCE
11. The accused have examined three witnesses in their defence. DW1 is Suresh Kumar, the father of accused Priyanka. His testimony is similar to that of his son (PW19). DW2 claims to have performed marriage between Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix in Kali Temple, Kalindi Kunj, Noida, on 03.4.2013 where he performed duties of a Pandit. DW3 is a resident of village Tikri, native village of accused Ravi Rathi. He stated that accused Harbir Rathi is a social man with clean antecedents and no police officials from Delhi had come to their village for inquiry regarding this case.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
12. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsels and have perused the entire record. Needless to note here that the Ld. APP as well as Ld. Defence Counsels have painstakingly took me through the voluminous documentary as well as oral evidence on record.
13. Ld. APP Ms. Satvinder Kaur argued that it is established from the evidence on record that accused Ravi Rathi solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs whereas he was already married to accused Priyanka, which fact he did not disclose to prosecutrix at SC No.37/14. Page 18 of 55 any point of time before marrying her. She submitted that the prosecutrix was under the impression that the accused is unmarried and it is only with this belief in her mind that she developed intimacy with him and engaged in sexual relations with him. She argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused Ravi Rathi had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix on 03.4.2013, as contended by him. According to her, the affidavit Ex.PW2/E, upon which reliance has been placed by the accused in this regard, is an immaterial piece of document and this document alone is not sufficient to prove that the marriage between Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix had been solemnized on 03.4.2013. She further submitted that the evidence of DW2 is liable to be rejected outrightly as he patently appears to be a planted witness. She also submitted that the deposition of PW19 and DW1, in this regard, also cannot be trusted as they have spoken a lie in order to save accused Priyanka from criminal liability in this regard. She argued that the accused have miserably failed to establish their defence that the marriage between accused Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix had been solemnized on 03.4.2013, which makes her the first wife of Ravi Rathi. According to her, all the accused are liable to be convicted for the offences for which they have been charged.
14. Sh. R.S. Malik, Ld. Counsel for accused Ravi Rathi, submitted that it is evident from the evidence on record that a false complaint has been filed by the prosecutrix after due deliberation in order to frame the accused Ravi Rathi and his family members including his newly wedded wife in the present case. He submitted that according to the version of the SC No.37/14. Page 19 of 55 prosecution itself, the prosecutrix came to know on 14.11.2013 that the accused Ravi Rathi was already married but the complaint had been lodged in the police station on 17.12.2013 and the delay of more than one month has nowhere been explained by the prosecution. He submitted that the fact that the complaint submitted by the prosecutrix is a typed one and several sections in the Indian Penal Code have been mentioned in its subject, fairly indicate that it has been prepared under legal advise. He further argued that the IO WSI Kavita is also a co-conspirator alongwith prosecutrix and her family members in lodging a false complaint against the accused. He pointed out that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show as to when was the complaint of the prosecutrix received in the police station and to whom it was marked for further action. According to him, it is evident from the record that the complaint was not received in the police station at all and the same was brought by the IO WSI Kavita herself to the police station and she got the FIR registered without consulting the SHO and without seeking permission from the SHO and herself started investigation. He submitted that the IO WSI Kavita was an interested party and therefore the investigation conducted by her is totally biased and partial. He pointed out that there is no seal of the police station on the complaint Ex.PW2/A which clearly shows that the complaint was never received in the police station.
15. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the FIR has been purposely and deliberately registered in P.S. Najafgarh, despite the fact that none of the rape incidents had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. According to him, this SC No.37/14. Page 20 of 55 has been done to manipulate the investigation and to concoct a sound case against the accused, which otherwise, would not have been possible. He also argued that one of the charges against accused Ravi Rathi is that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on 23.4.2013 in a room in Hotel Minar, Ghaziabad, whereas the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused raped her in the aforesaid hotel room on 24.4.2013. He submitted that there is no mention of any rape incident dated 23.4.2013 in the entire testimony of the prosecutrix and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975, the Ld. Counsel argued that it is not permissible for the prosecution to plead that if the offence was not committed on the dates mentioned in the Charge, it may have been committed on some other date and at some other place and the prosecution is duty bound to prove the very story it alleges and nothing else. He further pointed out that similarly the Charge framed against the accused is that he raped the prosecutrix on 21.6.2013 in a hotel at Lucknow whereas the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused had raped her in Lucknow on 20.6.2013 and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge also. Referring to section 212 of the Criminal Procedure code, which manifests that the charge must contain the exact particulars as to time and place of the alleged offence, the Ld. Counsel argued that if the prosecution itself is not sure about its case and the necessary particulars of the offence are not mentioned in the Charge, it is not possible for the accused to defend himself and such a situation is bound to result in miscarriage of justice.
SC No.37/14. Page 21 of 5516. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the prosecutrix has made various improvements in her deposition before this court over her earlier statements and also over the contents of her own complaint Ex.PW2/A. He pointed out that the prosecutrix deposed in her examination in chief that the accused took her forcibly to various hotels in Delhi also one or two times where he had sexual intercourse with her against her consent, but had to admit during cross examination that she has not mentioned so in her complaint Ex.PW2/A and therefore this portion of her testimony cannot be considered at all. He further pointed out that accused Ravi Rathi has also been charged for having committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during the night intervening between 13.11.2014 and 14.11.2014, the consent for which was given by her on the belief that she is his legally wedded wife but the prosecutrix has nowhere mentioned in her testimony that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her during that night and therefore the said charge also must fail.
17. The Ld. Counsel further argued that it is manifest from the testimony of the prosecutrix, her parents and the deposition of the defence witnesses that she had got married to accused Ravi Rathi in a temple on 03.4.2013 and for this reason she showed to her parents an affidavit in this regard, when her parents had fixed her marriage with somebody else. He submitted that the prosecutrix is the first wife of accused Ravi Rathi by virtue of the said marriage as the accused Ravi Rathi got married to accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013, who thus becomes his second wife. It is his contention that since the family of the prosecutrix was not SC No.37/14. Page 22 of 55 involved in and aware of her marriage with accused Ravi Rathi which had taken place on 03.4.2013, they pressurized him to perform a social marriage with the prosecutrix on 13.11.2013 which was a face saving for them in the society and nothing else. He pointed out that by virtue of the said marriage dated 03.4.2013 only, the accused and the prosecutrix mentioned themselves as husband and wife in the hotels, they visited together and the prosecutrix used to take accused alongwith her out of Delhi also. He would submit that the evidence on record manifests that there was deep intimacy between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi and the factum of such deep intimacy coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint against the accused regarding any of the alleged rape incidents, would indicate that the accused had not committed rape upon her on any occasion at all. He further submitted that the prosecutrix was a grown up woman and an employee of police department and thus not so numb or vulnerable as not to raise her voice regarding her sexual exploitation.
18. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the fact that no site plan of any of the crime spots has been prepared by the IO also indicates that no rape incident had taken place at any of the places as stated by the prosecutrix. In this context, he relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Vijay Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 Criminal Law Journal 299.
19. Ld. Counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as State of Haryana vs. Gurdial Singh and SC No.37/14. Page 23 of 55 another, AIR 1974 SC 1871 and Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 SC 1762, to canvass that when the version of occurrence contained in the evidence of the witnesses in court is different from the version contained in their statements before the police, the conviction of the accused cannot be ordered. He also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court reported as State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh, 2002 (1) JCC 385, to canvass that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of prosecution witnesses.
20. The Ld. Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges against accused Ravi Rathi and he is liable to be acquitted.
21. On behalf of the accused Harbir Rathi, Devendri Devi and Priyanka, it was submitted by their Counsel Sh. V.K. Sharma, Advocate, that they too have been framed in this case by the prosecutrix only for the reason that they are close relatives of accused Ravi Rathi. He submitted that it is highly improbable, unnatural and against human conduct that a wife and the parents of a person would conspire with him and allow him to solemnize second marriage just for want of cash at the cost of his own matrimonial life. He submitted that the parents of the accused Ravi Rathi were well off and did not need any further cash by way of dowry. He further submitted that the prosecution has not led any credible or clinching evidence to prove the charges against these three accused also and they too are liable to be acquitted.
22. In rebuttal, the Ld. APP argued that there is a delay of SC No.37/14. Page 24 of 55 merely one month in lodging the FIR and the same has been duly explained by the prosecution. She submitted that the prosecutrix did not lodge the FIR against the accused regarding the rape incidents which took place at Ghaziabad and Lucknow and various hotels in Delhi as she was under the belief that accused Ravi Rathi is unmarried and is going to marry her. She further submitted that during one month after the marriage between prosecutrix and the accused, which took place on 13.11.2013, the family of the prosecutrix was in the process of making confirmation about accused Ravi Rathi's first marriage and were also deliberating as to what action is to take. She also submitted that even otherwise also, this was not the case of that type which requires prompt lodging of FIR as everything that took place between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi was well known and the names and particulars of the assailants were also well known. In this regard, she relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Ram Dass & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (2) SCC 17. She further argued that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on account of delay if it has otherwise succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She cited judgment of Orissa High Court reported as Gadadhar Pati vs. Bansidhar Pati, 1992 Criminal Law Journal 1811, to buttress her submissions.
23. She further argued that the defence raised on behalf of the accused that the accused had got married to the prosecutrix on 03.4.2013 much before his marriage with accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013 cannot be believed for the reason that there was no necessity for him to perform court marriage with the prosecutrix SC No.37/14. Page 25 of 55 on that day as the families of both of them knew about their love relationship and their intention to marry each other. Regarding incorrect dates of offence mentioned in the Charge framed against the accused, she submitted that it is merely an irregularity and has not caused any prejudice to the accused during the course of trial for the reason that the accused very well knew about the actual case of the prosecution which is evident from his answers given to the questions put to him during the course of examination u/s.313 Cr.PC. In this regard, she relied upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Mohan Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 3534 and Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.656 of 2005 decided on 04.8.2011.
24. She further submitted that the Ld. Counsel for the accused have harped upon the contention that IO SI Kavita has falsely implicated the accused in this case but have nowhere explained why she was interested in framing the accused falsely in this case. She argued that in the absence of any such explanation from the side of the accused, their contention cannot be believed and has relied upon the judgment of the High Court reported as Bipin @ Vipin vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.842 of 2012 decided on 04.8.2015. She further submitted that non preparation of site plan of the spot of occurrence by the IO in this case does not impact the prosecution case for the reason that the accused has admitted that he had gone to Lucknow, Ghaziabad and various hotels in Delhi alongwith the prosecutrix. She also submitted that the accused cannot take benefit of any lapses in the investigation and therefore all the accused are liable to be SC No.37/14. Page 26 of 55 convicted.
DISCUSSION OF THE COURT
25. The material witnesses for the prosecution are the prosecutrix (PW2), her mother (PW3), her father (PW4), her brother Kishan (PW5) and her another brother Prince (PW6) besides the investigating officer (PW20).
26. The examination in chief of the prosecutrix (PW2) spans over more than 11 pages. The gist of her statement is that she got acquainted with accused Ravi Rathi in the year 2009 during their training course in Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. They became friends and developed intimacy with each other. The accused introduced her to his relatives also. Accused also told her parents that he likes her and wants to marry her. The father, brother and brother in law namely Mukesh of the prosecutrix went to the native village of accused Ravi Rathi in March, 2012 for the marriage talks where accused's parents asked for Rs.31 Lakhs in cash and a Honda City car on Tilak ceremony. Her father showed inability to pay such huge amount and returned home disappointed. The marriage of the prosecutrix was then fixed with one Dharmender who also employed in Delhi Police as Constable. However, accused Ravi Rathi visited her house and told her parents that he does not want any dowry and requested her father not to solemnize her marriage with anybody else till November, 2012. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi used to talk to each other regularly. Accused took her original certificates and photographs and used to fill up forms for her jobs in other departments i.e. bank etc. When the prosecutrix SC No.37/14. Page 27 of 55 asked him in November, 2012 about the marriage, he told her that she would have to wait as they are constructing a house in their native village. She further stated that the accused accompanied her to Ghaziabad on 24.4.2013 where she had to appear in B.Ed. Entrance examination. There was an interval of two hours between the two papers in which she was to appear and during that interval, accused Ravi Rathi took her to a nearby Minar Hotel where they took food. He again took her to the same hotel in the evening after she finished the second paper and had physical relations with her against her will and consent. He then told her not to narrate the incident to anybody or otherwise, she herself would be defamed and humiliated. He also assured that he would marry her.
27. She further deposed that the accused took her to Lucknow by air on 21.6.2013 where she was to appear for counselling for B.Ed. Course. In the evening, he took her to a hotel there and again committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent and despite the fact that it was the first day of her menstrual period. Thereafter, the accused used to take her forcibly to various hotels in Delhi where he had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. If she showed resistance or refused to accompany him, he used to tell her that he would not marry her. She had to oblige him per force. Since the accused Ravi Rathi did not contact her parents to finalize the marriage, her parents again started looking for a suitable match for her. Meanwhile Ravi Rathi introduced her to his mother who again reiterated the demand for atleast a small car at the time of marriage which she refused. Her parents fixed her marriage with some other boy in September, SC No.37/14. Page 28 of 55 2013 who was employed in a bank. When she apprised accused Ravi Rathi about the same. He tried to prevail upon her saying that he was avoiding marriage only because he wants to have a house in Delhi before marrying her and even offered to solemnize court marriage with her but she did not show willingness for court marriage. The accused asked her to meet him at Karkardooma Court on 11.10.2013 and accordingly she met her there at that time. The accused brought an affidavit from the court saying that it is the affidavit regarding their marriage. He signed the same and also made her to sign the same. According to her, Ravi Rathi wrote his name by his left hand on the affidavit at the place where a witness was supposed to sign. He then asked her to show this affidavit to her family members but she declined.
28. She further deposed that accused Ravi Rathi came to their house on 13.10.2013 and showed the aforesaid affidavit to her father telling him that they have solemnized court marriage and therefore he should not solemnize her marriage with anybody else. The accused assured her father that he would discuss with his parents about the marriage with prosecutrix and assured him that he would marry the prosecutrix. The accused then made his father to talk to her father on phone on the occasion of Diwali and his father to express willingness for the marriage and the date of marriage was fixed as 13.11.2013. Her family started making arrangement for marriage. However, accused Ravi made a call to her on 12.11.2013 saying that his maternal uncle has expired and his father is on bed rest and therefore, he would come alongwith only 4 to 5 persons for solemnization of marriage. Accordingly, accused Ravi alongwith four to five relatives came to her house on SC No.37/14. Page 29 of 55 13.11.2013 and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. Her father had spent Rs.15 Lakhs on the marriage ceremony including purchase of jewellery and also gave a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in cash to accused Ravi Rathi for purchase of a car. After completion of marriage, her brother Prince (PW6) accompanied them in accused's Honda City Car. The other persons accompanying the accused left in Santro car. However, the cars were exchanged upon reaching Dwarka More and the accused alongwith her and her brother sat in the Santro car. Accused took them to his residence at Noida where they reached at about 2 a.m. during the night. The accused left at about 2.30 a.m. saying that he is to go to see his father in the village. She made a call to the accused at about 8 a.m. but he did not pick up the phone and only sent a text message to her asking what had happened. He also told her that he would return at about 12 noon.
29. She further deposed that the accused returned at about 2.30 p.m. and soon received a call on his mobile from a lady. She became suspicious about the call and asked him who she was. The accused at first told her that it was the call of an informer but later had to admit that the call was from his wife as he was already a married person and married her only under the impression that her father would give a huge amount of cash. Thereafter, the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and told her that he is not interested in keeping her with him. He threatened her that in case she raised voice, he would kill her as well as her younger brother. On her request, accused Ravi brought her to her parental house at about 8 p.m. They remained there for just 15 minutes and accused brought her back to his SC No.37/14. Page 30 of 55 Noida house. On the way, accused again confirmed that he is already married and started quarrelling with her. She made a call to her brother Kishan (PW5) telling him that they have been deceived. Kishan then reached Noida house and brought her back to his house.
30. She further deposed that she alongwith her brother Kishan, her parents and her brother in law reached accused's native village on 25.11.2014 and met accused's parents who told him that Ravi has not committed any mistake by solemnizing second marriage and declared that they are ready to keep Ravi's both wives. A verbal altercation took place between them and they then left. They went straight to the house of Ravi's brother Raj Kumar at Noida where they met Ravi's first wife i.e. accused Priyanka who seemed to be aware about everything. Priyanka also told her that they expected Rs.31 Lakhs from them in dowry, upon which she told her that she would file a complaint against all of them. Priyanka became enraged and abused her and threw a glass of water upon her. Upon return therefrom, she became depressed and started consuming Alprax tablets. She had an over dose of Alprax tablets and had to be admitted in Metro Hospital, Najafgarh, for treatment. She then submitted a typed complaint in the police station on 17.12.2013 which she proved as Ex.PW2/A. She also stated that accused Ravi Rathi's brother Raj Kumar and his mother had come to their house on 23.12.2013 and threatened them to withdraw the complaint. She lodged another complaint in the police station on 24.12.2013 regarding these threats which she proved as Ex.PW2/B. She proved the copy of air ticket to Lucknow as Ex.PW2/D, affidavit dated 11.10.2013 as Ex.PW2/E, original SC No.37/14. Page 31 of 55 Admission Card for B.Ed. Entrance examination for the year 2013 as Ex.PW2/F, original marriage photographs as Ex.PW2/G (colly), original marriage invitation card as Ex.PW2/H, CD regarding marriage as Ex.PW2/I, copies of bills regarding purchase of jewellery, refrigerator, washing machine, etc. as Mark-X (colly). She proved the list of dowry articles given to her at the time of marriage as Ex.PW2/J. She proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW2/L.
31. Here I may note at the cost of repetition, that the case of prosecution is that the accused Ravi Rathi was having physical relations with the prosecutrix from April, 2013 to November, 2013 on the promise of marrying her and had conspired with the other three co-accused in concealing the factum of his marriage with accused Priyanka, which was solemnized on 06.05.2013, from the prosecutrix and also solemnized second marriage with prosecutrix on 13.11.2013, which he knew to be not legally valid and permissible. The defence of accused Ravi Rathi is that he had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix in a temple on 03.4.2013, much before his marriage with accused Priyanka and therefore the prosecutrix is his first wife and the sexual intercourse between the two does not tentamount to offence of rape. DW2 is stated to have solemnized the marriage between prosecutrix and the accused in the temple on 03.4.2013.
32. However, it has nowhere been put to the prosecutrix in the entire cross examination that she and the accused had visited a temple on 03.4.2013 where they performed marriage according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. In fact, nothing concerning the so SC No.37/14. Page 32 of 55 called marriage dated 03.4.2013 has been put to the prosecutrix in her cross examination. The name of DW2 also did not crop up anywhere during the cross examination of the prosecutrix. There is even no denial of the sexual relations between the prosecutrix and the accused in her entire cross examination.
33. I find it pertinent to reproduce here the reply of the prosecutrix to the two suggestions put to her during the cross examination at two different places :
"It is correct that accused Ravi Rathi had not committed rape upon me at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Najafgarh.
"It is correct that all the rape incidents as mentioned by me have taken place after April, 2013."
34. The Ld. APP had argued, on the basis of these two suggestions given to the prosecutrix in her cross examination, that the accused admits having committed rape upon the prosecutrix. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused Ravi Rathi clarified that the word 'rape' has inadvertently crept in place of the word 'sexual intercourse' and in fact, he wanted to put to the prosecutrix that the sexual relations between her and the accused had taken place after April, 2013 i.e. after her marriage with the accused and no such incident of sexual intercourse had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Najafgarh. Even if the explanation put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the accused is accepted, then also it is evident that it is admitted by the accused that he was having sexual relations with the prosecutrix after April, 2013. This aspect needed to be dealt with for the reason that the accused, in his examination u/s.313 Cr.PC, has denied that he was having sexual SC No.37/14. Page 33 of 55 relations with the prosecutrix.
35. In this regard, it is also useful to refer to the following portions of the cross examination of the prosecutrix conducted on behalf of accused Ravi Rathi :
"I had stayed with accused Ravi Rathi in Hotel God Gift Inn and Hotel Yash Palace but I do not know whether these hotels are situated in Paharganj area. ...................
It is correct that I had arranged tickets for air travel to Lucknow on 21.6.2013. The hotel booking at Lucknow was done by accused Ravi Rathi. It is correct that he mentioned in the hotel register that we are husband and wife. ......................
It is correct that in Ghaziabad, we had stayed in Hotel Minar on 24.4.2013. However, it is incorrect to suggest that we had stayed there as husband and wife. I do not know what Ravi Rathi had told to the hotel staff about our relations. It is correct that we had stayed in Hotel Yash Palace on 15.6.2013. However, it is incorrect to suggest that we had stayed there as husband and wife. I do not know what Ravi Rathi had told to the hotel staff about our relations. It is correct that we had stayed in a hotel at Lucknow on 21.6.2013. However, it is incorrect to suggest that we had stayed there as husband and wife. I do not know what Ravi Rathi had told to the hotel staff about our relations. It is correct that we had stayed in Hotel God Gift Inn on 15.7.2013. However, it is incorrect to suggest that we had stayed there as husband and wife. I do not know what Ravi Rathi had told to the hotel staff about relations. We had again stayed in Hotel Minar at Ghaziabad on 22.8.2013. However, it is incorrect to suggest that we had stayed there as husband and wife. I do not know what Ravi Rathi had told to the hotel staff about our relations."
36. It is evident from the aforesaid cross examination of the prosecutrix that the accused used to take her to various hotels SC No.37/14. Page 34 of 55 in Delhi, Ghaziabad and also in Lucknow, to have sexual relations with her there. Once it is established that there used to be physical relations between accused Ravi Rathi and the prosecutrix with effect from April, 2013 onwards, the issue which arises for determination would be whether the accused was exploiting her sexually on the false pretext of marriage by concealing from her that he has already got married to accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013 or they had been cohabiting with each other as husband and wife, having got married in a temple on 03.4.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, in which case the physical relations between the two would not tentamount to offence of rape.
37. As already noted herein-above, nothing regarding so called marriage dated 03.4.2013 has been put to the prosecutrix in her cross examination. Therefore, there was no occasion for the prosecutrix to admit or deny the contention of the accused that they had got married to each other on 03.4.2013. Strong reliance in this regard is placed by the accused on the affidavit Ex.PW2/E and the testimony of defence witnesses including DW2 who is stated to have solemnized the marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused in the temple on 03.4.2013.
38. The prosecutrix does not dispute that she had executed the affidavit Ex.PW2/E. She has admitted in her cross examination that it bears her signatures at points A1 & A2 and that she had shown this affidavit to her father, upon which her marriage alliance with a bank employee had been snapped. In her examination in chief, she has deposed regarding this affidavit as under:
SC No.37/14. Page 35 of 55"I reached Karkardooma Court on 11.10.2013 and met accused Ravi. There the accused asked me to solemnize court marriage with him but I refused saying that it would cause humiliation to my family. The accused told me that he had got various marriage offers which he rejected as he wanted to marry me only and asked me how I can marry some other boy. He had told my family members also that he is unmarried. He had assured me that he is honest and faithful in his relations with me. I trusted him. Thereafter he brought an affidavit from the court saying that it is the affidavit regarding our marriage. He signed the affidavit and made me also to sign the same. He also put his signature and wrote a name by his left hand on the place where witness was supposed to sign. He asked me to take the affidavit and show it to my family members but I declined. Thereafter I returned home.
The accused Ravi came to our house on 13.10.2013 and showed the aforesaid affidavit to my father. The accused told my father that he has solemnized court marriage with me and I am his wife and hence he should not think of marrying me anywhere else. He further told my father that if my marriage is solemnized anywhere else, he would file a case in court. Upon this my father told him to consult his parents and further assured him that he would not leave any stone unturned in solemnizing the marriage lavishly. The accused assured my father that he would discuss about the marriage with his parents on his visit to his native village and assured us that he would marry me."
39. She has not been cross examined on this aspect of her testimony except that she was called upon to say whether signatures appearing at points A1 and A2 on the affidavit Ex.PW2/E are her signatures which she admitted.
40. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW3) had also deposed SC No.37/14. Page 36 of 55 that accused Ravi came to their house on 13.10.2013 alongwith an affidavit, showed the affidavit to them and told them that he and prosecutrix have performed court marriage and only formality of social marriage is to be completed. In the cross examination, only one suggestion was put to her that the affidavit was shown to them by their daughter i.e. prosecutrix and not by the accused Ravi Rathi which she denied.
41. The prosecutrix's father (PW4) has deposed in this regard that on 13.10.2013 which was the festival of Diwali, acused Ravi came to their house, showed him a notorised affidavit saying that he and the prosecutrix have already performed court marriage and only the formalities of social marriage are to be completed. He has not been cross examined in this regard at all on behalf of the accused.
42. It is therefore manifest that affidavit Ex.PW2/E was got prepared by the accused Ravi Rathi on 11.10.2013 in Karkardooma Court. The affidavit has not been prepared and attested on 03.4.2013, on which date the accused alleges to have got married to the prosecutrix in a temple. It is apparent from the deposition of the prosecutrix that the accused got this affidavit prepared in court and signed by her when she told him in September, 2013 that her parents have fixed her marriage with a bank employee as he did not want her to marry any other person. His only aim in getting the said affidavit executed by the prosecutrix was to show it to her parents to convince them not to solemnize her marriage with anybody. It is pertinent to note here that the said affidavit Ex.PW2/E is not a joint affidavit of the SC No.37/14. Page 37 of 55 prosecutrix and the accused Ravi Rathi but has been executed only by the prosecutrix. This affidavit in itself, as such, cannot be taken as a proof of the marriage between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi. It does not specify the place of marriage or the ceremonies which were performed at the time of marriage. It is not witnessed by any person who was the witness to the marriage stated to have taken place on 03.4.2013.
43. It is also noteworthy that it is stated in the said affidavit Ex.PW2/E that the prosecutrix, after the said marriage dated 03.4.2013 has been residing with her husband i.e. accused Ravi Rathi at his house no.24, Village Kotla, Delhi, which is totally false, on the face of it. The prosecutrix had been all along residing with her parents at her parental house between April, 2013 and November, 2013. It is not the case of the accused Ravi Rathi himself any longer that the prosecutrix had been residing with him as his wife at his house no.24, Village Kotla, Delhi. He has not said so in his examination u/s.313 Cr.PC. Nothing in this regard has been put to the prosecutrix in her cross examination. Further it has been stated in the affidavit that the prosecutrix got married to Ravi Rathi as per Hindu rites and customs whereas Ravi Rathi had told her parents that they have performed court marriage. He did not tell them that they have performed marriage in a temple as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
44. The fact that the said affidavit Ex.PW2/E is a unilateral affidavit of the prosecutrix, has been executed and attested on 11.10.2013 and not on the date when the marriage is stated to have taken place, its language and the false averments contained SC No.37/14. Page 38 of 55 therein clearly go on to show that it was got prepared by accused Ravi Rathi only with an intention to stall the marriage of the prosecutrix with the bank employee.
45. Much reliance was placed by Ld. Counsel for the accused Ravi Rathi on the deposition of DW2 to convey that the prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with accused Ravi Rathi on 03.4.2013 in the temple as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and hence she is his first wife. I find that this witness DW2 is clearly a planted witness. His name was not taken at all by accused Ravi Rathi either during the course of investigation or during the examination of prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix. As already noted herein above, it has nowhere been put to the prosecutrix in her cross examination that this witness DW2 had performed her marriage with accused Ravi Rathi in Kali Temple, Kalindi Kunj, Noida, on 03.4.2013. It has also not been put to the investigating officer SI Kavita (PW20) that she was informed by accused Ravi Rathi that DW2 had performed their marriage in Kali temple on 03.4.2013 and she deliberately did not visit that temple and did not record statement of DW2 in this regard. Further, this witness DW2 had not made entry regarding the said marriage in any register of the temple. He had not taken the photographs of the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi or their identity proof as well as residence proof. He claims to have made entry regarding the said marriage in his personal diary but did not produce the said diary before the court during his deposition. He appeared as a witness before this court after more than two years of having performed the said marriage. It is therefore intriguing as to how could he remember and recollect the names of both the SC No.37/14. Page 39 of 55 prosecutrix as well as accused after such a long period of more than two years when he had not kept any record regarding the said marriage in the temple. It is for these reasons that I find this witness not only untrustworthy and unbelievable but also a planted one. His deposition deserves to be rejected outrightly.
46. Hence there is no credible and trustworthy evidence on record to show that any marriage ceremony was performed between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi on 03.4.2013 in the temple or in the court. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence on record regarding the fact that accused Ravi Rathi solemnized marriage with prosecutrix on 13.11.2013 at her house as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and such evidence has remained ucontroverted. In fact the accused Ravi Rathi himself admits that he performed marriage with the prosecutrix at her house on 13.11.2013 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
47. I wonder where was the need for accused Ravi Rathi to have solemnized court marriage or marriage in temple with the prosecutrix on 03.4.2013 and to conceal the factum of marriage from their respective parents. It was known to the family of the prosecutrix that she has a love affair with Ravi Rathi and wants to marry her. Ravi Rathi had also approached the parents of prosecutrix saying that he wants to marry her. The parents of prosecutrix were ready and willing to solemnize her marriage with Ravi Rathi. Therefore, the marriage could have easily been solemnized with the permission and consent of the parents of the prosecutrix and there was no reason or occasion for accused Ravi Rathi to solemnize marriage in a clandestine manner with her in SC No.37/14. Page 40 of 55 temple. I find it apposite to reproduce here the following portion of the cross examination of the prosecutrix :
"It is wrong to suggest that after April, 2013, I started pressurizing accused Ravi Rathi to solemnize marriage with me saying that I have to show my face in the society. It is wrong to suggest that thereafter I myself consumed certain Alprax tablets and deliberately collided my Scooty with something else to inflict injuries myself in order to create pressure upon accused Ravi Rathi.
........................................................... ........................................................... It is wrong to suggest that for this reason, accused Ravi Rathi came to my house alone on 13.11.2013 and solemnized a symbolic marriage with me to show in the society that we have got married."
48. It seems that these suggestions have been put to the prosecutrix in her cross examination to show that after solemnizing marriage in the temple with accused Ravi Rathi on 03.4.2013, she started pressurizing him to solemnize social marriage with him as she had to show her face in the society, to which accused Ravi Rathi had to agree compellingly fearing that the prosecutrix may hurt herself again, if he does not agree for the social marriage. The excuse put forward seems to be too weird to be accepted. When, according to accused, she was intensely concerned about her image in the society and was not comfortable to say in the society that she has performed marriage in a temple SC No.37/14. Page 41 of 55 without the consent of her parents, there was no reason, occasion or compulsion for the prosecutrix to first solemnize court marriage or marriage in temple with accused Ravi Rathi and then to pressurize him for a social marriage. After all, there was no hurdle created by her parents in the marriage between the two. The marriage was always possible with the consent and permission of her parents.
49. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ravi Rathi has referred to the testimonies of PW19 and DW1 also to assert that the prosecutrix is his first wife of accused Ravi Rathi and Priyanka as his second wife. PW19 is the brother of accused Priyanka and DW1 is his father. Both have deposed that Priyanka got married to accused Ravi Rathi on 06.5.2013 and about one month after the said marriage, Priyanka told them that Ravi Rathi had already got married to a girl named 'S' i.e. the prosecutrix before marrying her. They then visited the residence of Ravi Rathi at Noida where he admitted before them that he has committed a mistake and assured them that the prosecutrix 'S' would obtain divorce from him. They have also deposed that thereafter they visited the residence of prosecutrix at Najafgarh and met her parents who also confirmed to them that the prosecutrix would take divorce from Ravi Rathi. They met the prosecutrix also there who too assured them that she would take divorce from Ravi Rathi.
50. These two witnesses seemed to have fabricated a false story in a bid to shield their sister/daughter Priyanka. It is evident from the testimony of PW19 that he had handed over six marriage photographs, marriage card and two DVDs (all relating to SC No.37/14. Page 42 of 55 marriage between Priyanka and Ravi Rathi which had taken place on 06.5.2013) to the IO on 07.1.2014 which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/G. It is also evident that his statement was also recorded by the IO u/s.161 Cr.PC. He admitted in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP after he was declared hostile, that he did not mention in his statement to the IO whatever he deposed before this court, as noted herein-above. Therefore, he has made a clear improvement upon his statement recorded during the course of investigation and has not furnished any explanation as to why he did not bring these facts within the knowledge of the investigating officer in that statement. Further the version of these two witnesses that Priyanka told them that the accused Ravi Rathi had got already married to the prosecutrix before marrying her, that accused Ravi Rathi admitted before them that he has committed a mistake in marrying Priyanka; that Ravi Rathi as well as the parents of the prosecutrix assured them that the prosecutrix would take divorce from him and that the prosecutrix also told them that she would take divorce from Ravi Rathi, has nowhere been put to the prosecutrix or her parents or her brother in their cross examination. If the things had happened the way these two witnesses have deposed before this court, these circumstances would have definitely been put to the prosecutrix (PW2), her parents (PW3 and PW4) and her brother (PW5) in their cross examination to elicit their response and to establish these circumstances. That having not been done, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the deposition of these two witnesses is nothing but only a concocted story.
51. It is also to be noted here that both PW19 and DW1 SC No.37/14. Page 43 of 55 have deposed that accused Priyanka has not filed any divorce petition against accused Ravi Rathi. If it is to be believed that they had come to know in June, 2013 that accused Ravi Rathi had got married to prosecutrix before marrying Priyanka, this should have caused immense distress and trauma to these two witnesses besides accused Priyanka herself. It had thus become known to them that Priyanka is the second wife of accused Ravi Rathi and thus her marriage with Ravi Rathi had no legal sanctity at all. Despite that, they did not advise Priyanka to seek annulment of her marriage with Ravi Rathi. Their assertion that prosecutrix, her parents and even accused Ravi Rathi assured them that the prosecutrix would take divorce from him, was no remedy at all and could not have legalised the marriage between Priyanka and Ravi Rathi. The marriage between the two would have remained to be without any legal sanctity for all times to come.
52. The conduct of accused Priyanka, her brother PW19 and her father DW1 in not seeking annulment of her marriage with accused Ravi Rathi indicates that they were totally unaware about the fact that accused Ravi Rathi had married prosecutrix before marrying Priyanka and that they have concocted a false story in this regard in order to shield Priyanka and Ravi Rathi.
53. It is thus established from the evidence on record that accused Ravi Rathi had solemnized marriage with accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013 and this was his first marriage and Priyanka is thus his first wife. There is no credible and trustworthy evidence to suggest that accused Ravi Rathi had got married to prosecutrix 'S' on 03.4.2013. It is also established by the prosecution by SC No.37/14. Page 44 of 55 oerwhelming evidence and is admitted by accused Ravi Rathi himself that he solemnized marriage with prosecutrix on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Therefore, this marriage dated 13.11.2013 of accused Ravi Rathi is his second marriage and prosecutrix is his second wife. Hence the marriage between accused Ravi Rathi and prosecutrix has no legal sanctity and is no marriage in the eyes of law. It is further proved from the evidence on record that accused Ravi Rathi had been engaging in sexual relations with prosecutrix from April, 2013 till November, 2013 on the promise and assurance that he is going to marry her in any event. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that accused Ravi Rathi had told prosecutrix or her parents that he has got married to accused Priyanka on 06.5.2013. Therefore, it is manifest that accused Ravi Rathi kept the prosecutrix and her family members in dark about his marriage with accused Priyanka and continued to assure them that he is unmarried and would marry the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix came to know for the first time on 14.11.2013 that the accused is already a married person. She had engaged in sexual relations with accused Ravi Rathi with the belief that he is unmarried and would marry her only. Therefore, her consent to the physical relations with accused Ravi Rathi is hit by section 90 of Indian Penal Code as the same was given by her under misconception of fact which is attributable to accused Ravi Rathi. Also accused Ravi Rathi was himself knowing that prosecutrix believes him to be an unmarried person and is engaging in sexual relations with him under the belief that he would marry her. In view of the same, the sexual relations between the prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi tantamount to offence of rape as defined u/s.375 of Indian Penal code. Further SC No.37/14. Page 45 of 55 the conduct of accused Ravi Rathi in solemnizing marriage with the prosecutrix, during the life time of his first wife i.e. accused Priyanka, having concealed the fact of his marriage with Priyanka from the prosecutrix, makes it liable for conviction for the offence as defined u/s.495 IPC also.
54. Accused Harbir and Devendri Devi, the parents of accused Ravi Rathi as well as his wife Priyanka have been charged for having conspired with accused Ravi Rathi in deceiving the prosecutrix. However, I do not find any credible or reliable evidence on record to suggest their involvement in the illegal acts of accused Ravi Rathi. According to prosecution, the parents of prosecutrix had visited the native house of accused in Bagpat, U.P., in March, 2012 and met his parents who agreed for his marriage with the prosecutrix but demanded Rs.31 Lakhs and a Honda City car. Admittedly, accused Ravi Rathi was unmarried at that time and therefore there was no hurdle in marrying him with the prosecutrix.
55. The further case of the prosecution is that accused Ravi Rathi had gone to his native village in October, 2013 wherefrom he made his parents to talk to the parents of the prosecutrix and they, while concealing the factum of his marriage with Priyanka, expressed their willingness for his marriage with the prosecutrix. The mobile phone numbers with which this conversation had taken place have not come on record. This mobile numbers were never given to the investigating officer during the course of investigation and as such their call details record has not been obtained. Even if it be assumed as correct SC No.37/14. Page 46 of 55 that the accused had visited his native village in October, 2013 and therefrom made call to the parents of the prosecutrix saying that his parents wants to talk to them, it cannot be said with certainty that it was his father and mother who talked to the parents of the prosecutrix from the village.
56. The complicity of parents of the prosecutrix in the crime committed by their son is doubtful from other circumstances on record also. There is no evidence on record to suggest that they had approved the marriage of their son with the prosecutrix or had encouraged him to go forward for this marriage. Neither they nor any of their relatives accompanied accused Ravi Rathi as 'Baraties' (members of marriage procession) on 13.11.2013 for the marriage with the prosecutrix. Accused Ravi Rathi had made a call to the prosecutrix on 12.11.2013 saying her that his father is bed ridden and his maternal uncle has expired and therefore, he would come for the marriage with just 3 or 4 persons. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the father of accused was in fact bed ridden on 13.11.2013 and that the maternal uncle of accused Ravi Rathi had in fact expired. It appears that accused Ravi Rathi had said so falsely to the prosecutrix as he had not told his parents and his wife Priyanka that he is going to marry the prosecutrix and he feared that if they come to know about it, they would not support it and hence he found it convenient to come for marriage alongwith 3 or 4 friends only.
57. It further appears that the parents of the prosecutrix, perhaps knew that the parents of accused Ravi Rathi are not in support of his marriage with the prosecutrix. It is for this reason SC No.37/14. Page 47 of 55 that they did not contact his parents to ask them why they are not coming as 'Baraties' alongwith their son for the marriage ceremonies and why accused Ravi Rathi is coming alone for the marriage. They did not try to confirm from them whether in fact there had been any death in their relations. They did not make any call to accused Ravi Rathi's father to know about his welfare after coming to know that he is bed ridden.
58. Regarding the visit of prosecutrix, her parents, her brother and her brother-in-law again to the native village of accused on 25.11.2015 where parents of accused Ravi Rathi are stated to have told them that they are ready to keep both the wives of their son Ravi Rathi, it can be said that perhaps by that time, they had come to know about the misdeeds of their son that he has solemnized second marriage with the prosecutrix and the best thing they could have done in those circumstances is to tell the parents of the prosecutrix that they are ready to keep both the wives of their son.
59. Regarding the accused Priyanka, it has been deposed by the prosecutrix and her parents that upon return from the native village of accused Ravi Rathi on 25.11.2015, they went to the house of his brother Raj Kumar at Noida where they met Priyanka who seemed to be aware of everything and had supported Ravi Rathi in solemnizing marriage with the prosecutrix and when prosecutrix told her that she would file a complaint against them, she became enraged and threw a glass of water upon her. It may be noted here that the prosecutrix has admitted that she has not mentioned these facts in her statement u/s.164 SC No.37/14. Page 48 of 55 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/L. Therefore, it is an improvement upon her previous statement and does not merit any consideration. Further the prosecutrix has herself deposed in the cross examination that she did not know before the registration of FIR that accused Priyanka is the wife of accused Ravi Rathi. Therefore, she has herself falsified her aforesaid version contained in her examination in chief. It indicates that the prosecutrix and her parents had not met accused Priyanka before registration of FIR and whatever they have stated against her in their deposition is a concocted version just in order to frame her in this case, she being the first wife of accused Ravi Rathi.
60. Further, I also find it highly improbable, unnatural and against human conduct that a wife and parents of a person would conspire with him and allow him to solemnize second marriage just for want of cash at the cost of their own status and dignity in the society. The parents of accused Ravi Rathi appear to be enjoying a respectable status in society. They seemed to be very well off and not in need of any ill gotten money. There was no reason or occasion for them as well as for accused Priyanka to support accused Ravi Rathi in solemnizing second marriage with the prosecutrix. Accused Ravi Rathi had a reason for the same as he was emotionally and physically involved with the prosecutrix and did not want to leave her at any cost.
61. Therefore, the complicity of accused Harbir Rathi, Devendri Devi and Priyanka in the offences alleged against them is doubtful and they are liable to be acquitted.
SC No.37/14. Page 49 of 5562. So far as Charge u/s.406 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence envisaged under this section. There is no evidence on record to show that accused Ravi Rathi had dishonestly misappropriated the articles belonging to the prosecutrix or did not return the same to her despite her demands. Therefore, the said Charge has not been proved against the accused.
63. The prosecution has also succeeded in establishing the offence of cheating against the accused Ravi Rathi. As already held herein-above that accused Ravi Rathi fraudulently induced the prosecutrix to have sexual relations with him on the false representation that he is unmarried and on false assurance that he is going to marry her. It is evident that she would have not done so, had she come to know that Ravi Rathi is a married person. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted of the offence u/s. 417 IPC even though the Charge has been framed against him u/s. 420 IPC. The offence u/s.417 IPC is of lesser gravity than the offence u/s.420 IPC and both belong to the same category of offence and therefore the conviction of the accused can be ordered u/s.417 IPC, even though the Charge for that offence has not been framed against him. [See Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs. State of W.P. 2011 (VIII) A.D. (SC) 377].
64. The prosecution has established the ingredients of offence u/s.506 IPC also against the accused as he had threatened the prosecutrix that she and her brother would be killed if she narrates the evil deeds of accused Ravi Rathi to anybody or creates any scene.
SC No.37/14. Page 50 of 5565. Now let me deal with the legal issues raised by the Ld. Counsel for accused Ravi Rathi. It was argued that prosecutrix is stated to have come to know about Ravi Rathi's marriage with Priyanka on 14.11.2013 and apprised her family members also about the same on the same date but the complaint has been filed on 17.12.2013 and the delay of more than one month has not been explained. It was also argued that the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is a typed one and various sections of the Indian Penal Code have been mentioned therein which show that it has been prepared after due deliberation and under legal advice to frame the accused falsely. These arguments of the learned Counsel have no force. It would have not been proper for the prosecutrix and her family to rush to the police with the complaint before confirming the facts. They took time in confirming the fact that Ravi Rathi had already got married to Priyanka before solemnizing marriage with prosecutrix, in discussing amongst themselves regarding the course of action to be taken and in seeking legal advice. It can't be denied that the complaint Ex.PW2/A has been prepared under legal advice. But no law precludes or prohibits a complainant to seek legal advice before filing a complaint. In a case like the present one, legal advice was must as the prosecutix and her parents could not have known the legal position viz a viz the marriage between prosecutrix and the accused Ravi Rathi.
66. Further the main perpetrator of the crime i.e. accused Ravi Rathi was well known to the prosecutrix and her family. His crime was also clear to everybody. He cannot take advantage of SC No.37/14. Page 51 of 55 any delay in lodging the FIR. However, it appears that the other three accused Harbir Rathi, Devendri Devi and Priyanka have become the targets due to the delay in filing the complaint and they have been framed only after due deliberation. It is for this reason that this court has already held that the complicity of these three accused in the case is doubtful.
67. The court further feels in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. APP that prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on account of delay when it has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has been already held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused Ravi Rathi beyond reasonable doubt and hence he can't take any benefit from the delay in lodging the FIR. I may also note that the delay of about one month in a case like the present one is too short to impact the prosecution case.
68. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that no incident of sexual intercourse between prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi had taken place in the area of Najafgarh and the FIR has been lodged in Najafgarh only to manipulate the investigation as SI Kavita (the IO) was known to family of the prosecutrix. The argument is patently fallacious. It is quite limpid that the marriage between prosecutrix and accused Ravi Rathi was solemnized on 13.11.2013 at her house in Najafgarh, which was one of the circumstances evidencing the crime committed by Ravi Rathi and hence there was nothing wrong in lodging FIR in P.S. Najafgarh.
69. The argument that SI Kavita (IO) was known to the SC No.37/14. Page 52 of 55 family of prosecutrix and conducted a biased investigation to frame the accused falsely in this case, does not appeal to any reason. Firstly, it has nowhere been explained by the accused as to how was SI Kavita known to the family of prosecutrix and why was she interested in falsely implicating the accused in this case. She started the investigation after the registration of the FIR and there is no indication from the record that she did not conduct the investigation fairly and impartially. She appears to have investigated the case in unbiased manner.
70. It is true that prosecution had not proved that there was any written or oral direction from the SHO of P.S. Najafgarh to SI Kavita to investigate the case. But that doesn't mean that she took over the investigation of the case herself in the absence of any direction from the SHO. The concerned SHO has not come forward to say that he had not entrusted the investigation of this case to the SI Kavita. No complaint has been filed by the SHO or the accused in this regard against her. Therefore, it is difficult to say that SI Kavita was not authorised to investigate this case.
71. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that the evidence lead by the prosecution is not in accordance with the charges framed against the accused and therefore it has failed to prove the charges. His submission is that dates of commission of offences are mentioned in charges as 23.4.2013 and 21.6.2013 whereas the prosecutrix has, in her testimony, mentioned the dates as 24.4.2013 and 20.6.2013 and it is not open to the prosecution to plead that if the offence was not committed on the dates mentioned in Charge, it may have been committed on some SC No.37/14. Page 53 of 55 other date. These submissions of the learned Counsel have been noted only to be rejected. The purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of the nature of accusation that he is called upon to meet in the course of trial. The Supreme Court in Willie (William) Stanley vs. State of M.P., 1955(2) SCR 1140, observed:
"We see no reason for straining at the meaning of these plain and emphatic provisions unless ritual and form are to be regarded as of the essence in criminal trials. We are unable to find any magic or charm in the ritual of a charge. It is the substance of these provisions that count and not their outward form. To hold otherwise is only to provide avenues to escape for the guilty and afford no protection to the innocent."
72. In the instant case, the accused was, right since the beginning of the trial, aware about the accusation against him that he was having sexual relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage and had concealed from her the fact that he has already got married to the accused Priyanka. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him by mentioning wrong date in the Charge. Even otherwise also, he has nowhere disputed that he was having physical relations with the prosecutrix between April, 2013 and November, 2013, in various hotels. Hence he cannot derive any benefit from the discrepancy in the dates mentioned in the Charge.
73. Non preparation of the site plan of the hotels to which the accused had taken the prosecutrix and had committed sexual intercourse with her, too does not impact the prosecution case for SC No.37/14. Page 54 of 55 the reason that accused has nowhere denied that he had taken the prosecutrix to these hotels.
74. Thus the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused Ravi Rathi but has failed to prove the charges against other three accused beyond reasonable doubt.
75. Resultantly, accused Ravi Rathi is hereby convicted of the offences u/s.376 IPC, u/s.495 IPC, u/s.417 IPC and u/s.506 IPC. However, he is acquitted of the charge u/s.406 IPC. The other three accused namely Harbir Rathi, Devendri Devi and Priyanka are acquitted off all the charges.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 10.9.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.37/14. Page 55 of 55