Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas Rana @ Vicky//Fir No.128/13//Ps ... on 25 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO: 57920/16
STATE
VERSUS
VIKAS RANA @ VIKKY
S/O. SH. KRISHAN RANA
R/O H. NO. 32, VILLAGE KHERA GARHI,
DELHI.
FIR No. : 128/13
Police Station : S.P. Badli
Under Section : 376/506/342/34 IPC
Date of Committal to Sessions Court :02.07.2013
Date on which Judgment reserved :17.02.2020
Date on which Judgment announced :25.02.2020
Present: Shri V.K. Negi, ld. Additional PP for the State.
Sh. Pradeep Rana and Sh. Anil Rana, ld. counsels for the
accused.
STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 1 Of 22
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been forwarded to face rape trial.
2. The victim made complaint to the police that on 13.03.2013 she used to reside on rent with her family. Her husband was a mason whereas she was a homemaker. She left her house on 13.03.2013 at 12.00 noon to meet her sisterinlaw (Bhabhi) Meena who used to reside in Holambi. When she reached on the trijunction of village Khera Garhi after crossing Siraspur at about 12.30 p.m. and was waiting for a bus, an unknown boy told her that one Vicky Babuji was calling her. She accompanied the unknown boy to the premises of a person who was being addressed as Vicky and he was standing on the gate. He asked her to enter the premises but she refused. But he dragged her in the premises and the unknown boy, who had taken her there, bolted the door from outside. Vicky broke string of her salwar and raped her. The latche of the gate was opened from outside and accused asked her to go away quietly and threatened that if she told anybody about the incident, she would be killed. Due to that reason, she went home without disclosing anything to any person. She came to police station at 5.00 p.m. and made complaint saying that she can identify the accused.
3. Charge under section 376D/342/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused on 05.08.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined sixteen STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 2 Of 22 witnesses.
5. As PW14, the victim deposed all the facts mentioned in complaint Ex.PW14/A upon which FIR was registered. Additionally, she deposed that when she reached trijunction of village Khera Garhi at about 12.30 p.m., an unknown boy asked her to go to Vicky Babu upon which she told that she did not know any Vicky Babu and hence, refused to accompany him. She next deposed that she started crossing the road and then found a person of 2530 years standing on the other side of the road who caught her wrist and dragged inside the room of the Gher (cote). After dragging her inside cote, the accused asked another boy on phone to lock the door from outside. She started crying and yelling upon which the accused threatened her to kill. She next deposed that the accused threw her on the bed, broke the cord of salwar and raped her. Thereafter, he again asked the person on phone to unlock the room upon which the lock was opened and she came out of the house and accused run away from there. She went to police station alone at 5.00 p.m. and made complaint Ex.PW14/A. She next deposed that place of rape was pointed out upon which site plan Ex.PW14/B was prepared. When enquiry was being made from her, a tall, old and lanky man came there and threatened to withdraw the case after taking money otherwise, she would be killed. Thereafter, she was medically examined and accused was also arrested at her instance vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. She next deposed that her statement Ex.PW11/B U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in Rohini on STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 3 Of 22 14.03.2013. The tall man who had threatened in the police station on the day of registration of FIR, visited her house several times and threatened her to take the case back. After seeing blue underwear and pink bra, she deposed that the same did not belong to her.
6. PW12 ASI Sumitra deposed that on receipt of information on phone from duty officer at 2.00 a.m. on 14.03.2013, she reached BSA Hospital and came across SI Renu and victim where medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. The doctor handed over victim's exhibits and sample seal which was given to IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. ASI Sudesh registered case FIR Ex.PW5/A on 13.03.2013 at 8.30p.m. on receipt of rukka from SI Renu.
PW3 Dr. Nitika Gupta deposed that the victim was brought to the hospital on 14.03.2013 with the history of sexual assault by an unknown person Vicky when she was on the way to the house of her relative on 13.03.2013 at 12.00 noon. Her vital and general condition was stable. There was no external injury on her body. External genitalia was looking normal. Hymen was found torn but no bleeding was present. She next deposed that samples were collected and were handed over to the IO and thereafter MLC Ex.PW3/A was prepared.
7. PW7 Ct. Kamal was the photographer in Crime Team which reached the spot on 14.03.2013 and he took four photographs Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A4 of the scene of crime from different angles. Ex.PW7/B1 to Ex.PW7/B4 are negatives.
STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 4 Of 22 PW10 ASI Ajeet Singh was Incharge of Crime Team, Outer District on 14.03.2013 when he alongwith PW7 reached the spot, inspected the same and prepared report Ex.PW10/A. PW13 Ct. Rakesh deposed that he was asked by duty officer that on 14.03.2013 to join the investigation with SI Renu who was already present in Khera Garhi. He reached there, met SI and complainant who took them to the office of accused Vicky, situated in Khasra No. 106/478, Sai Property, Khera Garhi and he was arrested on the identification of the victim vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively and after interrogation, his disclosure statement Ex.PW13/C was recorded. After medical examination in BSA hospital, the doctor handed over his exhibits in sealed condition and sample seal which he gave to the IO who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. PW2 Dr. Brijesh Patel medically examined the accused on 14.03.2013, found no external injury on his body and prepared MLC Ex.PW2/A. PW9 Dr. Vijay Dhankar identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Faizan Khalid Shah who opined that there was nothing to suggest that accused was not capable of performing of sexual intercourse. He deposed that after examination, the blood sample, pubic & scalp hair, under garments and penis swabs of the accused were preserved, sealed and handed over to the IO.
8. PW11 Ld. M.M. Sh. Dheeraj Mor recorded the statement STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 5 Of 22 Ex.PW11/B of the victim on 14.03.2013 in Rohini Court where she was produced and identified by SI Renu.
PW8 Ct. Nagesh Kumar deposed that he alongwith SI Renu took out the accused from lockup on 15.03.2013, got him medically examined in BSA hospital and made efforts to trace coaccused. The accused was again taken out of the lock up on 16.03.2013, medically examined and produced in the court.
9. PW1 HC Devender was working as MHC(M) on 14.03.2013 when SI Renu deposited six sealed pullandas and two sample seals in malkhana for which he made entry No. 3639 Ex.PW1/A in register no.19. He deposed that he handed over all pullandas and sample seal to Ct. Sayar Mal on 18.03.2013 vide RC No. 52/21/13 Ex.PW1/B for deposit in FSL and after depositing the same, the constable gave him acknowledgment receipt Ex.PW1/C. PW6 Ct. Sayar Mal deposited the case property intact in FSL on 18.03.2013.
PW4 Senior Scientific Officer Naresh Kumar had 18 years of experience in examining the exhibits in Biology and Serology Division when six parcels were marked to him for examination. He examined them biologically and serologically and gave reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively.
10. PW16 1st IO SI Renu was posted in District line Pitampura on 13.03.2013 when she reached PS S.P. Badli on receipt of information from senior police officers and met victim. She called Nazma Khan, an STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 6 Of 22 NGO official who counseled the victim and thereafter, she recorded statement Ex.PW14/A of the victim, prepared rukka Ex.PW16/A and got the FIR registered. Then, she alongwith prosecutrix reached the spot i.e. Sai Property, Khasra No. 106/478, Khera Garhi and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW14/B at the instance of prosecutrix. The accused was untraceable and hence, he could not be arrested. Victim was got medically examined and her exhibits like sexual assault evidence collection kit and sample seal were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. She again went to village Khera Garhi with victim where beat Ct. Rakesh met them and he also joined the investigation and they reached the office of the accused from where he was arrested on the identification of the victim vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively. Crime team also reached the spot and its Incharge ASI Ajeet Singh alongwith other staff members inspected the same. Photographer Ct. Kamal clicked some photographs from different angles. She recorded their statements. She next deposed that she alongwith Ct. Rakesh got the accused medically examined in BSA hospital and after medical examination, the doctor handed over his exhibits in sealed condition and sample seal which she seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. She got recorded statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim in Rohini Court. She next deposed that accused was taken on two days police custody for the search of coaccused Aadaab. The accused led them to several places next day i.e. 15.03.2013 but co accused was untraceable and ultimately, he was produced on 16.03.2013 STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 7 Of 22 in the court. His exhibits were sent to FSL on 18.03.2013 through Ct. Sayar Mal. She handed over case file to MHC(R) on 21.03.2013 as she was transferred to PS Shahbad Dairy.
PW15 last IO SI Renu deposed that the investigation was assigned to her on 04.06.2013. She perused the case file and filed the chargesheet. She next deposed that she obtained CDRs of mobile phone of accused Vikas Rana @ Vikky and of Sanjeev Rana. She had also filed the FSL result.
11. Under section 313 Cr.P.C., after denying every incriminating material put to him, the accused took the defence saying that he was called in the police station on 13.03.2013 and falsely arrested as he had no concerned with the case because the prosecutrix implicated him at the instance of Sanjeev Rana and his associates with whom he had some financial dispute.
12. The accused examined two witnesses in defence.
13. DW1 ASI Surender was IO of FIR No. 937/16, U/s 436/427/34 IPC, PS S.P. Badli in which the complainant had filed a complaint against him for not doing the investigation properly. He replied that complaint to DCP through SHO, certified copy of which is Ex.DW1/A. He next deposed that he had mentioned in report Ex.DW1/A the facts which he came to know during investigation.
DW2 SI Manju became IO of this case when main IO SI Renu went on earned leave and hence, the investigation was assigned to her on 28.04.2013. She visited the house of the complainant 23 times STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 8 Of 22 but she did not meet her and so, she asked landlord Satyadev and neighbour Nisha W/o Vivek Jain to inform her whenever the complainant visited her house and for that purpose, she had given her mobile number to them. But she never received any call from them and hence, she never meet the prosecutrix till she remained IO. She next deposed that the complainant / victim had filed an application in the court of Ld. MM Sh. Chanderjeet Singh, pursuant to which she filed status report Ex.DW2/A dated 03.05.2013. After filing of the status report, one Sanjeev Rana came to her and gave an application saying that the same was bearing thumb impression of the prosecutrix and that if she wanted to meet her (victim), she should contact him (Sanjeev Rana). She lastly deposed that she contacted Sanjeev Rana so that he can arrange her meeting with the prosecutrix but victim never met her.
14. Ld. defence counsel argued that there are various contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix. As per her, she was going to meet her bhabhi in Holambi on foot for 15 kms. There was no occasion for her to be present at the place where she is said to have been raped as no bus passes through that place for Holambi from her place of residence. She could not tell her correct address of Delhi and correct address of her son and husband situated in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Her male family members had mobile phones and despite it, she gave mobile phone number of one Sanjeev Rana to the police. He further submitted that site plan is not corroborating her story. Due to these reasons, the counsel argued, the evidence of victim is not of sterling STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 9 Of 22 quality and hence, conviction cannot be based upon her evidence. He further submitted that victim's version has not been corroborated by any scientific evidence. She was used by one Sanjeev Rana to frame the accused falsely because Sanjeev Rana had various litigation with him.
Ld. Addl. PP replied that on the date of the incident i.e. on 13.03.2014, the victim was going to meet her bhabhi in Holambi. She was to go on foot and that is why she had taken route of Yadav Nagar - SiraspurKheda GadhiKhedaHolambi. All of a sudden, she was dragged in his property by accused and was raped.
15. Uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix cannot be accepted, if it suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies. Following was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 92 :
9. "It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The court shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that paramount STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 10 Of 22 consideration is to be given to the evidence of the victim. Despite it, the case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. It was held in Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115 : "11. We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully."
The Hon'ble Apex Court propounded as under in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2011) 7 SC 2877 : "20. Admittedly, she had travelled certain distance in the Maruti Van after her alleged abduction but she did not raise any alarm for help. This shows her conduct and behaviour during the whole process and render her evidence shaky and untrustworthy."
"21. The statement of the prosecutrix that in all 11 persons were there in the Maruti Van renders it further doubtful as it would be extremely difficult for 11 persons to be accommodated in the Maruti Van, the seating capacity of which is only 5."
16. Following was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 11 Of 22 Kumar v. State of (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2012 SC 2281 :
18. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534, this Court while dealing with the issue held :
"The only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed."
19. In Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858 : (2008 AIR SCW 8165), this Court held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, moreso as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed:
".......It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication....there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
20. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2519: 2009 AIR SCW 6219), this Court STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 12 Of 22 held as under: "It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence on a criminal matter."
17. It was held in Suresh N. Bhusare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220: (AIR 1998 SC 3131 1998) that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.
In Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.264/2020, decided by the Apex Court on 14.02.2020) the prosecutrix had admitted that she had enmity with the accused. She did not have any violence marks on the body. Blood group and semen on her petticot were stated to be inconclusive. There were material contradictions. As per the victim, she had identified the accused with the help of light of the mobile phone which was not recovered. She had deposed that she gave oral complaint whereas written complaint was given. That kind of testimony was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court not to be of sterling quality.
18. The accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of a victim if it is of sterling quality. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State, (2012) 8 SCC 21 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court defined the sterling STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 13 Of 22 quality of evidence as under: "15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the crossexamination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 14 Of 22 against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
19. As per the complaint upon which FIR was registered, the incident is said to have taken place in the office of the accused. But as per her deposition dated 01.07.2014, she was dragged in the room of his gher by the accused where she was raped there.
As per PW10 ASI Ajeet Singh, the place of incident is Sai Property office, village Kheda Garhi. He deposed that he cannot say if there was any provision of lock/bolt/kundi on the glass door of the office. He further deposed that there was rolling iron shutter on the front side of the glass of the door. But as per prosecutrix, a person was asked by the accused to bolt the door from outside and after raping, the said person was again asked to unlock the door.
20. Version of the prosecutrix is that on 13.03.2013, she had proceeded from her house situated in Yadav Nagar and she was to go to STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 15 Of 22 Holambi to meet her bhabhi. She was waylaid and raped by the accused. But as per PW13 Ct. Rakesh, if one has to go to Holambi by bus from Yadav Nagar, he has to board bus from G.T. Road, Libaspur. He further deposed that no bus service from Yadav Nagar to Holambi Kalan via KheraGarhi. He further deposed that distance between Yadav Nagar and Holambi was about 15 kms. So, it cannot be supposed that a person would travel for 15 kms on foot to meet somebody. The person would definitely take a mode of conveyance which in the present case was bus and that was not passing through the place where the victim is said to have been raped. For taking bus, one has to go to G.T. Road, Libaspur.
In evidence dated 02.07.2014, the victim neither disclosed her address of Delhi nor that of her husband's native place Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. She admitted that her son and husband had mobile phone numbers but there is no explanation why she, instead of telling their mobile phone numbers to the IO told the mobile phone number of one Sanjeev Rana. She does not know whether she had any voter Icard or not. She placed on record her Aadhaar Card Ex.PW14/D prepared on the address bearing premises number B65, Yadav Nagar saying that the same was issued one year prior to the incident. But she contradicted herself by deposing that she had started residing in H.No. C 19, Yadav Nagar about two years prior to the incident. If her evidence is relied upon, the Aadhaar Card should have been prepared on the address bearing H.No. C19, Yadav Nagar and not on address of B65, Yadav Nagar.
STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 16 Of 22 As per prosecutrix, she alongwith her family members had come to Delhi about 1015 years ago from a village situated in Rajasthan. Surprisingly, as per deposition dated 04.07.2014, she does not know whether her bhabhi Meena lives in Holambi Kalan or Holambi Khurd. It is pertinent to mention that her case is that she was on the way to meet her bhabhi Meena to Holambi from her place of residence Yadav Nagar.
Moreover, she admitted in evidence that noone from her family member ever met any police official in connection with the present case. Whenever she appeared in the witness box, she never disclosed from where she was coming whether from Rajasthan or M.P. She could not recollect the name or route of the bus which she boarded in Delhi to come to the court. At one place, she deposed that she did not tell any of her family member about the present incident. But at some place, she deposed that her husband and son refused to company her to the court.
She further deposed in her crossexamination that her both hands were caught by the accused from elbow and dragged in his office where she was raped. She admitted it correct that during the whole incident, the accused kept on holding her elbows with his both hands. In such a situation, rape becomes very difficult. Moreover, she admitted that she did not put any physical resistance during the entire incident though, she had cried. She admitted that no altercation took place during the incident.
PW16 W/SI Renu deposed that she alongwith victim went to STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 17 Of 22 village Kheda Gadhi where beat constable Rakesh met them. They reached in front of the office of the accused which was open and the accused was sitting in the office. He was arrested at the instance of the victim. But as per the evidence dated 20.07.2014 of the prosecutrix, when she was taken to the place of the incident by the police in search of accused, he was found hiding.
21. As per crossexamination of the victim dated 04.07.2014, as per site plan Ex.PW14/B, she was coming from the side of point P1 and was proceedings towards point P2 and she was to take turn towards point P3. It is pertinent to mention that as per site plan, the road from point P1 to P2 leads from village Sirsaspur to Kheda. As per prosecutrix, when she crossed the road, she was caught by the accused and dragged in his office. But the perusal of the site plan shows that the office of the accused is not situated on the road on which the victim was walking. There were two godowns and a plot between the road and the office of the accused.
22. In view of above reasons, it can be said that the victim is not firm in her statement. There are contradictions not only between her statement and evidence but also between her evidence and evidence of other witnesses. Her evidence is not of sterling quality. Hence, it requires corroboration.
23. Now, let us see whether there is any material to corroborate evidence of victim or not.
As per crossexamination of the prosecutrix, the accused STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 18 Of 22 caught her by elbow when she was on the road and dragged in his office. So, it can be said that she might have sustained some injuries on legs. She might have sustained some injuries during the incident also as no lady would allow forcible sexual intercourse so easily. But it is mentioned in her MLC Ex.PW3/A that she did not have any injury on her body. It is further mentioned that she had no bleeding and that external genitalia was looking normal.
As per prosecution case, the underwear and bra of the victim were seized, sealed and handed over to the IO who sent the same to FSL. But when the underwear and bra were shown to the victim, she failed to identify them. Moreover, as per FSL report Ex.PW4/A, no semen was detected on the exhibits collected for vaginal analysis of the victim. As per biology division report, blood group of the accused was 'B' and that of victim was 'AB'. Blood of the accused was not found on any exhibits of the victim. So, the FSL report is also exonerating the accused.
Suit and salwar of the victim were not seized by the police and the reason is not known.
24. The judgment shall not be complete without discussion of one Sanjeev Rana.
Krishan Kumar Rana, father of the accused, had lodged FIR No.937/16, U/s. 436/437/34 IPC, PSS.P. Badli and simultaneously filed a complaint against the IO of that case that he was not investigating the case properly. The IO filed reply before the concerned DCP in the form of Ex.DW1/A in which it is mentioned that complainant's son i.e. STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 19 Of 22 accused of this case, had several litigation against Sanjeev Rana and his associates. The report suggests animosity between accused and Sanjeev Rana.
As per deposition of the prosecutrix dated 01.08.2014, she requested Sanjeev Rana @ Pappu after 1½ - 2 months of the incident to help her. But IO SI Renu (PW15) deposed that the victim had given reference of mobile phone number 9212179513 at the time of preparation of tehrir. It is pertinent to mention that said phone number was later found to be of Sanjeev Rana.
DW2 SI Manju had also conducted some investigation in the present case by visiting the rented house of the victim 23 times but she was not available. The complainant had asked for status report pursuant to which she filed report Ex.DW2/A on 03.05.2013 and after filing of that report, Sanjeev Rana gave her application saying that the same was bearing thumb impression of the victim and that if she (PW2) wanted to meet victim she should contact him. It shows that Sanjeev Rana had come into picture right from day one of the registration of the FIR and remained in picture till completion of investigation. Even when the chargesheet was filed, the address and mobile number of the victim was mentioned as the address and mobile phone number of the Sanjeev Rana.
The police was asked to preserve and place on record CDR of mobile phone number 9212179513. CAF shows that mobile phone number was issued to Sanjeev Rana. The FIR was registered on 13.03.2013. On that day, he had talked on mobile phone number STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 20 Of 22 9711563312 at 23:43:34, 23:57:02 & 00:39:47 for 465, 836 & 136 seconds respectively. As per page numbers 4 & 5 of Ex.DW1/A, the mobile phone number 9711563312 is of Krishan Rana, who is none else than father of the accused. So, on the date of the registration of FIR, he was not only in touch with the complainant but also in touch with the father of the accused.
During trial on 02.04.2014, an exemption application for victim was moved by Sanjeev Rana and the same is reflected in order sheet dated 02.04.2014. Moreover, the summons to the prosecutrix were issued on the address of Sanjeev Rana.
25. Above discussion shows that role of Sanjeev Rana cannot be ignored lightly. He had inimical relation with the accused. He was supporting victim whole heartedly. The victim was totally unknown to the accused. Possibility of use of that lady to falsely frame the accused in a rape case, cannot be ruled out.
26. The evidence of the victim shows that she is totally an illiterate woman. She does not know the route, name and number of the bus to be boarded to reach destination. But surprising thing is that after rape, she alone went to the concerned police station for lodging FIR.
27. The testimony of the victim is not firm. She is inconsistent. She is not corroborated by any scientific evidence. Role of the Sanjeev Rana in the whole incident is suspicious one.
28. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the offences, he was charged with.
STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 21 Of 22
29. The personal and surety bonds of the accused are hereby cancelled. Surety is hereby discharged. The endorsement made, if any, on any document of soundness of surety, be cancelled and the document be returned to surety.
30. However, in terms of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C., accused has furnished the fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of the like amount which are accepted with the directions to appear before higher court, in the event, he receives any notice of appeal or petition against the judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by UMED UMED SINGH
SINGH GREWAL
Date: 2020.02.25
GREWAL 15:15:35 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Umed Singh Grewal)
On this 25th February 2020 ASJ: Special FTC (North)
Rohini Courts: Delhi
STATE VS. VIKAS RANA @ VICKY//FIR NO.128/13//PS - S.P. BADLI// S.C. NO.57920/16. 22 Of 22