Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Lalit Chauhan on 1 June, 2013
1
FIR No. 59/12
PS - Bharat Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 47/13
Unique ID No. : 02404R0151222012
State Vs. 1. Lalit Chauhan
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal
R/o 528 A/4B, Gali No. 6,
Vishvas Nagar, Delhi.
FIR No. : 59/12
Police Station : Bharat Nagar
Under Sections : 376/328/292A/506 IPC
Date of committal to session Court : 10/07/2012
Date on which judgment reserved : 29/05/2013
Date of which judgment announced : 01/06/2013
J U D G M E N T
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the 1 of 92 2 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar report under section 173 Cr.P.C is as under : That a complaint of the prosecutrix (name withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC), D/o Om Prakash, r/o House No. 304, J. J. Colony, Wazipur, Delhi vide Ref. No. 2162/DCP(NW) dated 05/03/2012 was received in PS Bharat Nagar addressed to DCP, PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi, on the subject of the committal of rape on the pretext of marriage, which is to the effect that, in the year 2010, she firstly met Lalit @ Lovely r/o House No. 543443/A, Galli No. 6, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. Their friendship took place one or two years ago during that period Lalit @ Lovely on 25/12/2011 took her to Old Red Fort and there he made her to drink a cold drink laced with some sedatives and within few seconds, she got unconscious and during that period, he removed her clothes, firstly he took photographs of her body and thereafter, he forcibly made physical relation with her, when she regained consciousness , she wept too much . He while abusing her said if she opened her mouth anywhere then he will get defame her in the entire school and will also download her naked photos on Internet as he had taken her naked photos through mobile and has also prepared a video film. Taking use of the said video film after coming to her house a few times he had raped her, because of 2 of 92 3 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar her prestige, she kept silent and thereafter, she became pregnant and when she pleaded her with folded hands that let he not commit rape upon her on which he said that he will perform marriage with her but lateron he refused to marry with her and is continuously threatening on phone if any complaint was lodged against him anywhere then he will kill her or will throw acid on her face. Therefore, it is requested that legal action be taken against the said Lovely @ Lucky who in the name of marriage by cheating her had committed many times rape upon her and had also prepared her naked photo / film and is giving threatening to kill her. She shall be highly thankful. SHO Bharat Nagar after endorsing the said complaint, got registered a case u/s 292A/376 IPC and the investigation was handed over to SI Urmil Sharma. During the course of investigation, prosecutrix was got medically examined from BJRM Hospital, site plan was prepared, statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 CrPC was got recorded, date of birth record of the prosecutrix was obtained, on 06/03/2012 accused Lalit Chauhan was arrested, his medical examination was got conducted. Mobile Phone No. 9818319174 of accused was recovered from the house of accused and was sent to CFSL, Hyderabad. The CDR dated 05/03/2012 of mobile Phone 9818319174 and 9818574950 3 of 92 4 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar were obtained and the said mobile phones were found in communication. On 14/05/2012 further investigation was handed over to Inspector Sudesh who recorded the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix in which she stated that she is having a SIM no. 9818574950 and from this she used to be in communication with Lalit on his mobile phone No. 8750791445 and and 9818374033. The ownership of mobile phone no. 9818574950 was found to be of accused Lalit. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Complainant told herself to be pregnant of five months and she was instructed on delivery, police be informed so that the DNA test be got conducted. Since prosecutrix being pregnant of five months, on her delivery, DNA test will be get conducted and thereafter, DNA report and CFSL result will be filed in the Court through supplementary chargesheet.
Upon completion of the necessary further investigation, challan u/s 292A/376/328/506 IPC was prepared against accused Lalit Chauhan and was sent to the Court for trial.
2. Since the offences under section 376/328 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, after compliance of 4 of 92 5 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C the case was committed to the Court of Session under section 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of session and after hearing on charge, prima facie a case under section 328/376/506 IPC and under section 66E of the Information Technology Act was made out against the accused Lalit Chauhan. The charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined 16 witnesses. PW1 - ASI Ram Niwas, PW2 - HC Mehfooz, PW3 - Constable Anuj, PW4 - Mrs. Parveena Bhatia, PGT, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi - 110052, PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, CFSL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, PW6 - Constable Kuldeep, PW7 - Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., D - 184, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - I, New Delhi, PW8 - Dr. Rachit, CMO, BJRM Hospital, PW9 - Dr. Seema, MO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, PW11 - Prosecutrix (name 5 of 92 6 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar withheld being case u/s 376 IPC), PW12 - Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, A - 26/5, Mohan Cooperative, Sarita Vihar, Delhi, PW13 - Rajesh Kumar, Lab. Technician, Saroj Hospital, PW14 - Sanovar Ali, Lab. Technician, CAIF Lab., Wazir Pur, J. J. Colony, PW15 ASI Urmil Sharma (Be read as SI Urmil Sharma) and PW16 Inspector Sudesh.
5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under : PW1 - ASI Ram Niwas, who tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 signed by him at points 'A' and 'B' in which he has deposed that on 05/03/2012, he was working as duty officer at PS Bharat Nagar from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and proved the copy of the FIR Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B signed by him at points 'A' respectively.
PW2 - HC Mehfooz, who tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/1 signed by him at points 'A' and 'B' in which he has deposed that on 06/03/2012, he was working as MHC (M) 6 of 92 7 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar at PS Bharat Nagar and proved the relevant entry of Register no. 19 Ex. PW2/A, copy of the RC no. 42/21/12 of Register no. 21 Ex. PW2/B signed by him at point 'A' and the copy of the acknowledgment receipt of CFSL, Hyderabad Ex. PW2/C. PW3 - Constable Anuj, who tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/1 signed by him at points 'A' and 'B' in which he has deposed that on 18/04/2012, he was posted at PS Bharat Nagar and on 18/04/2012 after obtaining the sealed pullanda from the concerned MHC (M), he deposited the same in CFSL, Hyderabad vide RC no. 42/21/12 and proved the copy of RC no. 42/21/12 Ex. PW2/B signed by him at point 'A' and the copy of the acknowledgment receipt of CFSL, Hyderabad Ex. PW2/C. PW4 - Mrs. Parveena Bhatia, PGT, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi - 110052, who produced admission record of the prosecutrix (name withheld) and deposed that th according to the admission records, prosecutrix was admitted in class 11 on 02/07/2011, vide Sr. No. 224 and according to the admission register, 7 of 92 8 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar her date of birth is 23/10/1991 and proved the copy of the admission register in respect of the admission of the prosecutrix Ex. PW4/A, the admission form filled up by her parents Ex. PW4/B and further deposed th that she was admitted on the basis of her marksheet of class 10 which shows her date of birth as 23/10/1991 and proved the copies of her mark sheets as Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D and proved the certificate issued by Smt. Manju Kochar, Principal of the school regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix Ex. PW4/E signed by the principal at point 'A'.
PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, CFSL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, who proved the detailed examination report of the mobile phone, SIM and MSD Ex. PW5/A (running into three pages) signed by him at point 'A' and the annexure attached with the report as Ex. PW5/B (17 pages) and the CD part of the report Ex. PW5/C and proved the forwarding letter whereby the detailed report, annexure and CD were sent to Delhi Police Ex. PW5/D signed by Asst. Director, Sh. V. Surya Prasad at point 'A' and proved the mobile phone as Ex. P1, SIM Card as Ex. P2 and Memory card as Ex. P3.
8 of 92 9 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW6 - Constable Kuldeep, who on 06/03/2012 joined investigation with IO, SI Urmil Sharma and deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the arrest memo of accused Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW6/A, his personal search memo Ex. PW6/B, his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C all signed by him at point 'A', seizure memo of mobile phone and SIM Ex. PW6/D signed by him at point 'A', pointing out memo of the place at the instance of accused where he brought the prosecutrix and had physical relations with her Ex. PW6/E signed by him at point 'A', seizure memo of the birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW6/F signed by him at point 'A', birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW6/G and deposed that he got accused Lalit Chauhan medically examined from BJRM Hospital and after his medical examination, the MLC was handed over to the IO, and proved the mobile phone Ex. P1 and the SIM Card Ex. P2.
PW7 - Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., D - 184, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - I, New Delhi, , who produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818319174 issued in the name of Pushpa W/o Krishanpal issued on 04/03/2012 and 9 of 92 10 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar proved the customer application form of Pushpa Ex.PW 7/A, ID Proof of Pushpa Ex. PW7/B, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/C. Who also produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818374033 which was also issued in the name of Pushpa W/o Krishanpal issued on 23022012 and proved the customer application form of Pushpa Ex. PW7/D, ID Proof of Pushpa Ex. PW7/E, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/F (running into 2 pages). Who also produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818574950 which was issued in the name of Lalit Chauhan S/o Krishanpal issued on 07/01/2011 and proved the customer application form of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW7/G, ID Proof of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW7/H, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/I (running into 41 pages). He also proved the certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act regarding the call details of the above said mobile phones for the above said period Ex. PW7/J signed by him at point 'A' and further deposed that the service provider of mobile phone no. 8750791445 is Idea Cellular Ltd., and the same does not belong to Bharti Airtel.
10 of 92 11 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW8 - Dr. Rachit, CMO, BJRM Hospital, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted on 05/03/2012 by Dr. Amit, J.R., under his supervision vide MLC no. 38655 Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Amit at point 'A' and deposed that as per the MLC no fresh external injury was seen and the patient/prosecutrix was referred to Gynae Department for further examination.
PW9 - Dr. Seema, MO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted on 05/03/2012 by Dr. Anshu Gupta, from point 'X' to 'X1' on MLC Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Anshu Gupta at point 'A' and deposed that Dr. Anshu Gupta medically examined the patient/prosecutrix with alleged history of assault on 21/05/2011 and repeatedly after that by that same person and UPT was done on 05/03/2012 which was positive. Prosecutrix did not allow her internal examination, so her internal examination could not be done and she has already changed her undergarments and clothes, so her clothes were also not collected. Dr. Anshu Gupta advised ultrasonography of pelvis of prosecutrix.
11 of 92 12 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, is the mother of the prosecutrix who deposed regarding the incident disclosed to her by her daughter/prosecutrix and further deposed that she took her daughter/prosecutrix to the police and complaint was lodged on the basis of the statement of her daughter/prosecutrix. Her daughter/prosecutrix was also taken to the hospital for medical examination and thereafter, was also produced before the Learned MM, where her statement was also recorded. Her daughter/prosecutrix has already given birth to a baby girl on 04/09/2012 and is now residing with her.
PW11 - Prosecutrix (name withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) is the victim who deposed regarding the incident and proved her complaint, made to the police Ex. PW11/A signed by her at point 'A' and also deposed regarding the investigational aspects which she joined and proved the site plan of the spot Ex. PW6/DX1 as was prepared on her pointing out by the IO, and also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW11/B signed by her at point 'A', seizure memo of the handing over of her birth certificate Ex. PW6/F signed by her at point 'A' and further 12 of 92 13 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar deposed after refreshing her memory that the mobile number of accused Lalit Chauhan from which he used to make call to her was 9750791445 and 9818374033 and her number which she was using at that time of the first call she received from Lalit Chauhan she does not recollect. Lalit gave her a SIM bearing No. 9818574950 and she saved this SIM which was given to her by Lalit on which she used to subsequently speak to him and further deposed that a baby girl had been born to her on 04/09/2012 which was fathered by the accused Lalit. After seeing the date of birth certificate, she deposed that it (her date of birth) is 23/10/1991.
PW12 - Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, A - 26/5, Mohan Cooperative, Sarita Vihar, Delhi, who produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 8750791445 issued in the name of Lalit Chauhan S/o Krishanpal issued on 01/11/2011 and proved the customer application form of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW12/A, ID Proof of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW12/B, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 29/02/2012 Ex. PW12/C (collectively) running into 8 pages and deposed that this mobile was not used by this user after 16/01/2012 to 31/03/2012 and proved the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence 13 of 92 14 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Act Ex. PW12/D signed by him at point 'A'.
PW13 - Rajesh Kumar, Lab. Technician, Saroj Hospital, who deposed that he is working as Lab. Technician in Saroj Hospital and on 13/09/2012, he reached FSL, Rohini where he met Inspector Sudesh, accused Lalit Chauhan present in the Court and one baby child aged around 10 days with her mother/prosecutrix (name withheld). He had taken the blood sample of accused Lalit Chauhan and female child in syringe and after preserving the same, the blood sample was handed over to FSL Officers.
PW14 - Sanovar Ali, Lab. Technician, CAIF Lab., Wazir Pur, J. J. Colony, who deposed that he is working as Lab. Technician in CAIF Laboratory, Wazirpur, J. J. Colony, Delhi. On 13/09/2012 he was called by Inspector Sudesh in FSL Rohini where he met Inspector Sudesh alongwith prosecutrix (name withheld) and as per the instructions he took the blood sample of the prosecutrix and after preserving the same handed over to the FSL Officers.
14 of 92 15 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW15 ASI Urmil Sharma is the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case who deposed on the investigational aspects and besides proving the other memos, arrest memo of accused Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW6/A, his personal search memo Ex. PW6/B, his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C, seizure memo of the mobile phone Ex. PW6/D, pointing out memo of the place of incident at the instance of the accused Ex. PW6/E, seizure memo of the birth certificate (Ex. PW6/G) of the prosecutrix Ex. PW6/F, also proved the site plan Ex. PW6/DX1 and proved the application for recording the statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr. PC Ex. PX2 and the application for obtaining the copy of the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PX4, signed by her at point 'A' and also proved and identified the case property, the mobile phone Ex. P1 and SIM Card Ex. P2.
PW16 Inspector Sudesh is the subsequent Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and deposed that on 14/05/2012 the investigation of present case was marked to her and further deposed that on 16/05/2012 she recorded the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix and further deposed that on 17/05/2012 she recorded the statement of HC Mahfooz and Constable Anuj and further deposed that on 21/05/2012 the 15 of 92 16 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar CDR of the mobile phone numbers 9818574950, 9818374033 and 9850791445 were received and after completion of the investigation prepared the challan and filed in the Court. Later on FSL Result was collected and filed in the court and further deposed that on 13/09/2012 after obtaining permission from the court, blood samples of Lalit Chauhan, prosecutrix and her female baby were taken in FSL Rohini for DNA Examination and thereafter DNA result was collected and filed in the Court.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of evidence.
6. It is to be noticed that on 16/11/2012 accused Lalit Chauhan made the statement before the Learned Predecessor Court on oath wherein he admitted the DNA Fingerprinting report dated 08/10/2012 (running into two pages) prepared by Sh. A. K. Srivastwa, Dy. Director (Biology) DNA, FP Unit, FSL, Delhi Ex. PX6 and has stated that he has no objection, if Sh. A. K. Srivastwa is not examined as a witness in the Court.
On 08/08/2012, accused Lalit Chauhan made the statement 16 of 92 17 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar before the Learned Predecessor Court on oath wherein he admitted the proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C. conducted by Sh. Vishal Singh, Learned MM, the envelop is Ex. PX1, the request of IO for conducting the proceedings is Ex. PX2, the proceedings U/s 164 Cr.PC is Ex. PX3 (running into three pages), copy of the application of the IO for supplying the copy of the proceedings is Ex. PX4 and also admitted his medical examination vide MLC as Ex. PX5 and had stated that he has no objection, if the Learned MM/concerned Doctor are not examined as witnesses.
7. Statement of accused Lalit Chauhan was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein, he pleaded innocence and false implication and did not opt to lead any defence evidence.
8. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations made by the prosecution does not fulfill the essentials of any of the sections in which accused has been challaned in final report of prosecution.
17 of 92 18 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that accused and the prosecutrix (name withheld) were known to each other since last two years period from the date which is said to be the date when the alleged rape has been committed that is 25/12/2011 and there was love and affection between the accused and the prosecutrix therefore it cannot be established that intercourse which has been done between the accused and the prosecutrix is under misconception of fact and under danger to life and limb.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that if the evidence of PW11 - prosecutrix in the present case is taken she has made number of false allegations and has improved the same from time to time and has given serious contradictions in the statement which he has made under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement made before the investigation officer. That the prosecutrix has provided in her chief that the accused Lalit not known to her previously. It was in the year, 2011 that one day she suddenly received a call from wrong number and it was from there that she and the other person of the wrong number started talking to each other. She had started speaking to him on the said phone 18 of 92 19 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar number. That one day she asked him on the phone as to what is his identity and why he is speaking to her on which he called her near Inder Lok Metro Station. It was not the accused who had first asked the prosecutrix of her identity and of her meeting to him, an inference can be drawn that the prosecutrix was more keen on finding the identity of the accused being oblivious of the fact and without taking any precautions that it would have also led to some mishappening. Thereafter, from the said incident they started speaking to each other on telephone.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the evidence of PW8, Dr. Rachit provide for that according to MLC no fresh external injury was seen. That PW9 Dr. Seema provides for that prosecutrix did not allow her internal examination so her internal examination could not be done and she had already changed her undergarments and clothes so her clothes were not collected. Prosecutrix had consented for the physical relations in the said love affair and due to repeat sexual intercourses she had become pregnant and she knew about it that on the medical examination it would reveal the truth, so she denied the same. Had it been if she would have been forcibly assaulted by the 19 of 92 20 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar accused she would have been the first one to get the internal examination done.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that on reading of the evidence of prosecutrix and her mother the mobile number which was used for speaking by the prosecutrix was given by the accused and the same was not in the knowledge of the mother of the prosecutrix and the same has been admitted by the mother an inference can be drawn that, which shows she was a consenting party even otherwise there are continuous serious (series) of calls between the prosecutrix and the accused.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the prosecutrix had made allegations that the accused had taken her nude photographs and made a video of the same and has threatened her of defaming her in School and uploading the same over the internet. On the examination of the evidence by the prosecutrix, she has made a statement that she has not seen any photographs of herself in the mobile phone of the accused and the statement given by PW5 Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, 20 of 92 21 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar CFSL Hydrabad and the examination report submitted by him provide that there was a presence of large number of obscene files, image, videos etc. were found in the said mobile phone, but on examination of the same none were of the prosecutrix. Therefore an inference can be drawn that the charges levelled against the accused of section 292 are false and concocted story of the prosecutrix.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix provide for, it is correct that accused also used to come to my house frequently an inference can be drawn from this that she was living in a house where both the parents were working and only she knew the timings of their returning to home from their respective work place and till the time she used to be alone at home. An inference can be drawn that after the intimacy developed between the accused and prosecutrix she only would have told the accused about her being alone at home, this provides for that she meekly submitted to the advances of the accused. All this shows that she was in love with the accused and was a consenting party. The consent given by her does not get diluted merely because, after the pregnancy was detected and she was 21 of 92 22 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar confronted with this fact by her family members, she stated that accused had established sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage. Above all, prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix right from the beginning and had extended the same only to establish sexual relations with her. Even if it were so, there is hardly any evidence to prove the fact that the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented to having sexual intercourse with him only as a consequence of her belief.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that a perusal of both the statements of the prosecutrix that is, one made before the Police and the other before the Court, one thing is clear that she has made improvements on material points while deposing in the Court. Initially she had stated that appellant had established sexual relations with her by extending promise to marry her. However, while in the witness box she has introduced the allegations of molestation, use of force and threats. In view of the shifting stands taken by her, story propounded by her that appellant committed sexual intercourse with her 22 of 92 23 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar against her wishes by using force or extending threats, cannot be given much credence. It is a case of consensual sex between the two adults. Even otherwise from the conduct of the prosecutrix it can be inferred that she was in love with the appellant, which might have developed between them as they had been meeting on regular basis.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the case of the prosecution is that consent obtained on the promise to marry was inconsequential and it has to be taken as if the appellant had sex with the prosecutrix "without her consent". Thus as per the prosecution clause secondly of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code gets attracted in this case.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that now reverting back to the facts of this case, prosecutrix is a grown up woman, passed from higher secondary, aged about 22 years living in a meetropolis like Delhi and was expected to know the consequences of indulging in sexual activity with a man. She continued to have sex with the accused for more (than) one year. Even after she became pregnant, 23 of 92 24 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar she did not immediately disclose this fact to anyone including her mother. At the time when FIR was lodged, she was three months pregnant. In her deposition she has admitted that after two months she became aware that she was pregnant. Meaning thereby, even after prosecutrix became pregnant she did not disclose this fact to her family members immediately. There was no reason for her not to disclose to her mother that accused had promised her to marry. She disclosed this fact only when she did not get her menstrual cycle for two months and thereafter being questioned by her mother that if she had any affair with any boy and thereafter she disclosed all the facts to her mother.
Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that PW10 - Mrs. Madhu i.e. mother of the prosecutrix has admitted in her statement that after it came to her notice that prosecutrix was pregnant and thereafter her daughter got obtained the address of the accused and told her that the accused was residing at Vishwas Nagar on which she went to the house of the accused, when she went near the house of the accused, the accused met her in the gali and took her to his house and still promised that he would marry her daughter, but when the same was 24 of 92 25 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar brought to the notice of the parents of the accused they objected to the said relationship and refused to get married with her daughter. She also tried to tell the family of the accused that the accused had consented to the marriage but still the family did not agree to the same and became reluctant on which the accused thereafter refused to marry her daughter. Finding no alternative she took her daughter to Police Station and complaint was lodged on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix. That it was also said that it is correct that my daughter was not inclined to get the present case registered. From this statement and answers it cannot be said that right from the beginning accused had no intention to marry and had promised to marry the prosecutrix only to establish sexual relations with her. On the contrary, the circumstance of the case goes to support the conclusion that the accused had a reason to believe that the consent given by the prosecutrix was the result of their love affair.
Learned Counsel for accused prayed for the acquittal of the accused on the charges levelled against him.
Learned Counsel for the accused referred to cases and are 25 of 92 26 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar reported as 'Uday Vs. State of Karnataka', (2003) 4 SCC 46; 'Jayanti Rani Panda Vs. State of West Bengal', 1984 Crl.L.J. 1535; 'Krishna Pada Mahato Vs. State of West Bengal', 2005(3) Crimes 644; 'Kuber Chandra Das Vs. State of Bihar', 2004 Crl.L.J. 4776, 'Dilip Mahto Vs. State of Bihar' 2003 (1) Crimes 45 and 'Baldhari Ohdar Vs. State of Bihar', 2001 Crl.L.J. 883.
9. While the Learned Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not affect the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. I have heard Sh. S. C. Sroai, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. V. K. Bajaj, Learned Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.
11. The charge for the offences punishable u/s 328/376/506 IPC 26 of 92 27 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar and u/s 66E of the Information Technology Act against accused Lalit Chauhan is that on 25/12/2011, at Old Red Fort, Delhi he administered some stupifying or intoxicating substance in the cold drink of the prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Om Prakash with intent to cause hurt by taking her nude pictures of her by his mobile phone and commit rape with her and that at the abovesaid date, time and place he captured nude photographs and made nude video film of prosecutrix without her consent and violating her privacy and that at the abovesaid date, time and place and thereafter, at her house G - 304, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Bharat Nagar he committed rape upon the prosecutrix many times and that between 25/12/2011 to 03/03/2012 at House No. G - 304, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS - Bharat Nagar he criminally intimidated the prosecutrix to be killed or he will throw acid upon her face if she made any complaint against him.
12. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at 27 of 92 28 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
13. PW4 - Mrs. Parveena Bhatia, PGT, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi - 110052, who produced admission record of the prosecutrix (name withheld) and deposed that th according to the admission records, prosecutrix was admitted in class 11 on 02/07/2011, vide Sr. No. 224 and according to the admission register, her date of birth is 23/10/1991 and proved the copy of the admission register in respect of the admission of the prosecutrix Ex. PW4/A, the admission form filled up by her parents Ex. PW4/B and further deposed that she was admitted on the basis of her marksheet of th class 10 which shows her date of birth as 23/10/1991 and proved the copies of her mark sheets as Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D and proved the certificate issued by Smt. Manju Kochar, Principal of the school regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix Ex. PW4/E signed by the principal at point 'A'.
PW4 - Mrs. Parveena Bhatia was not crossexamined 28 of 92 29 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar despite grant of opportunity on behalf of accused.
PW6 - Constable Kuldeep, who on 06/03/2012 joined investigation with IO, SI Urmil Sharma has proved the seizure memo of the birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW6/F signed by him at point 'A' and the birth certificate of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW6/G. PW11 - Prosecutrix during her examinationinchief in reply to the Court question deposed that after seeing the date of birth certificate, it (her date of birth) is 23/10/1991.
No evidence to the contrary has been produced or led on the record by the accused.
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW6 - Constable Kuldeep and PW11 - Prosecutrix so as to impeach their creditworthiness.
During her crossexamination recorded on 08/10/2012, PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, mother of the prosecutrix has deposed that : "It is correct that my daughter is more than 18 years at the time of incident. Vol. As on date she is around 21 years."
29 of 92 30 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar In the circumstances, it stands established on the record that the date of birth of PW11 - prosecutix is 23/10/1991.
As the date of alleged incident is of 25/12/2011 and the date of birth of prosecutrix is 23/10/1991, on simple arithmetical calculation, the age of prosecutrix comes to 20 years, 02 months and 02 days as on the date of incident on 25/12/2011.
In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands established on record that PW11 prosecutrix was aged 20 years, 02 months and 02 days as on the date of alleged incident on 25/12/2011. Thus a major.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
14. PW8 - Dr. Rachit, CMO, BJRM Hospital, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted by Dr. Amit, J.R., under his supervision vide MLC no. 38655 Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Amit at point A and deposed that as per the MLC no fresh external injury was seen and the patient/prosecutrix was referred to Gynae Department for further examination.
30 of 92 31 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW8 - Dr. Rachit was not crossexamined despite of opportunity on behalf of accused.
PW9 - Dr. Seema, MO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted by Dr. Anshu Gupta, from point 'X' to 'X1' on MLC Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Anshu Gupta at point 'A' and deposed that Dr. Anshu Gupta medically examined the patient/prosecutrix with alleged history of assault on 21/05/2011 and repeatedly after that by that same person and UPT was done on 05/03/2012 which was positive. Prosecutrix did not allow her internal examination, so her internal examination could not be done and she has already changed her undergarments and clothes, so her clothes were also not collected. Dr. Anshu Gupta advised ultrasonography of pelvis of prosecutrix.
During her crossexamination, PW9 - Dr. Seema has deposed that : "Patient was advised for the ultrasonography of pelvis for pregnancy of the patient to detect the gestation period."
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW9 - Dr. Seema so as to impeach her creditworthiness.
In view of above and in the circumstances, the medical 31 of 92 32 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar examination of PW11 - prosecutrix stands proved on the record. VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED
15. On 08/08/2012, accused Lalit Chauhan has made a statement before the Court admitting therein his medical examination vide MLC Ex. PX5.
The perusal of MLC Ex. PX5 indicates that after the medical examination of accused, the Doctor has opined that, there is nothing to suggest that patient cannot perform sexual intercourse.
In the circumstances, it stands established on the record that accused was capable to perform the sexual intercourse. FORENSIC EVIDENCE REGARDING MOBILE PHONE, SIM & MSD
16. PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, CFSL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, who proved the detailed examination report of the mobile phone, SIM and MSD Ex. PW5/A (running into three pages) signed by him at point A and the annexure attached with the report as Ex. PW5/B (17 pages) and the CD part of the report Ex. PW5/C and 32 of 92 33 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar proved the forwarding letter whereby the detailed report, annexure and CD were sent to Delhi Police Ex. PW5/D signed by Asst. Director, Sh. V. Surya Prasad at point A and proved the mobile phone as Ex. P1, SIM Card as Ex. P2 and Memory card as Ex. P3.
During his crossexamination PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna has deposed that : "In order to prepare the CD, I have first prepared a mirror image of the memory card from which the above data was retrieved. It is wrong to suggest that I have given my above report on the asking of the Investigating Officer."
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW5 - Dr. M. Krishna so as to impeach his creditworthiness.
In the circumstances, the Forensic Report of mobile phone (Ex. P1), SIM (Ex. P2) and MSD (memory card Ex. P3), Ex. PW5/A with the annexure Ex. PW5/B and CD part of the report Ex. PW5/C stands proved on the record.
MOBILE OWNERSHIP AND CALL DETAIL RECORD (CDR) EVIDENCE
17. PW7 - Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., D - 184, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - I, New Delhi, who produced the 33 of 92 34 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818319174 issued in the name of Pushpa W/o Krishanpal issued on 04/03/2012 and proved the customer application form of Pushpa Ex. PW7/A, I.D. Proof of Pushpa Ex. PW7/B, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/C. Who also produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818374033 which was also issued in the name of Pushpa W/o Krishanpal issued on 23/02/2012 and proved the customer application form of Pushpa Ex. PW7/D, I.D. Proof of Pushpa Ex. PW7/E, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/F (running into 2 pages). Who also produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 9818574950 which was issued in the name of Lalit Chauhan S/o Krishanpal issued on 07/01/2011 and proved the customer application form of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW7/G, I.D. Proof of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW7/H, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 31/03/2012 Ex. PW7/I (running into 41 pages). He also proved the certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act regarding the call details of the above said mobile phones for the above said period Ex. PW7/J signed by him at point 'A' and further deposed that the service provider of mobile phone no. 8750791445 is Idea Cellular Ltd., and the same does 34 of 92 35 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar not belong to Bharti Airtel.
PW12 - Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, A - 26/5, Mohan Cooperative, Sarita Vihar, Delhi, who produced the ownership documents regarding the mobile phone no. 8750791445 issued in the name of Lalit Chauhan S/o Krishanpal issued on 01/11/2011 and proved the customer application form of Lalit Chauhan Ex. PW12/A, I.D. Proof of Lalit Chauhan, Ex. PW12/B, Call details of this mobile from 01/12/2011 to 29/02/2012 Ex. PW12/C (collectively) running into 8 pages and deposed that this mobile was not used by this user after 16/01/2012 to 31/03/2012 and proved the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW12/D signed by him at point 'A'.
Despite grant of opportunities, neither PW7 - Sh. Vishal Gaurav nor PW12 - Sh. Pawan Singh were crossexamined on behalf of accused.
In view of above and in the circumstances, the mobile ownership and call detail record (CDR) with respect to mobile phones nos. 9818319174, 9818374033, 9818574950 and 8750791445 stands proved on the record.
35 of 92 36 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar DNA FINGER PRINTING EVIDENCE
18. PW13 - Rajesh Kumar, Lab. Technician, Saroj Hospital, who deposed that he is working as Lab. Technician in Saroj Hospital and on 13/09/2012, he reached FSL, Rohini where he met Inspector Sudesh, accused Lalit Chauhan present in the Court and one baby child aged around 10 days with her mother/prosecutrix (name withheld). He had taken the blood sample of accused Lalit Chauhan and female child in syringe and after preserving the same, the blood sample was handed over to FSL Officers.
PW14 - Sanovar Ali, Lab. Technician, CAIF Lab. Wazir Pur, J. J. Colony, who deposed that he is working as Lab. Technician in CAIF Laboratory, Wazirpur, J. J. Colony, Delhi. On 13/09/2012 he was called by Inspector Sudesh in FSL Rohini where he met Inspector Sudesh alongwith prosecutrix (name withheld) and as per the instructions he took the blood sample of the prosecutrix and after preserving the same handed over to the FSL Officers.
PW16 Inspector Sudesh deposed that on 13/09/2012 after 36 of 92 37 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar obtaining permission from the Court, the blood sample of accused Lalit, prosecutrix Poonam and her female baby were taken in the FSL, Rohini for DNA examination. Thereafter, DNA result was collected and filed in the Court through supplementary chargesheet.
On 16/11/2009, accused Lalit Chauhan made a statement admitting therein the DNA Report Ex. PX6.
As per DNA Report Ex. PX6, the description of the sources, DNA examination, result of examination and conclusion reads as under : DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE Blood Sample Collected on 13/09/2012 Name of source Collected Sample Exhibit on No. Blood sample of Lalit Chauhan 13/09/2012 1 1 Identification Form No. 1 Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name withheld) 13/09/2012 2 2 Identification Form No. 2 Blood sample of baby of Prosecutrix 13/09/2012 3 3 (name withheld) Identification Form No. 3 37 of 92 38 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar DNA EXAMINATION The source of exhibits '1', '2' & '3' were subjected to DNA isolation. DNA was isolated from the source of exhibits '1', '2' & '3'. the DNA Profile was generated for the exhibits '1', '2' & '3'. STR analysis was used for the samples. Date was analyzed by using Gene Mapper IDX Software.
RESULTS OF EXAMINATION The alleles from the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of Lalit Chauhan) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name withheld)) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of baby of Prosecutrix (name withheld)).
CONCLUSION The DNA profiling of (STR Analysis) performed on the exhibits '1', '2' & '3' provided is sufficient to conclude that the DNA Profile of the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of Lalit Chauhan) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name withheld)) are the biological father and mother of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of baby of Prosecutrix (name withheld)).
ENCLOSURE Annexure I - Genotype table i.e. Allele data.
Annexure II - Identification Forms of Exhibits '1', '2' & '3'.
38 of 92 39 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar NOTES :
Exhibits '1', '2' & '3' were utilized during examination.
As per Genotype analysis for establishing identity of accused using MICROSATELLITES reads as under :
i) D8S1179 ii) D21S11 iii) D7S820 iv) CSF1P0 v) D3S1358 vi) TH01
vii) D13S317 viii) D16S539 ix) D2S1338 x) D19S433 xi) vWA xii) TP0X xiii) D18S51 xiv) D5S818 xv) FGA & AMELOGENIN Loci Blood Sample Blood Sample of Blood Sample of of Lalit baby of Prosecutrix Chauhan Prosecutrix (name withheld) Exhibit '1' (name withheld) Exhibit '2' Allele Data Exhibit '3' Allele Data Allele Data D8S1179 13 15 8 13 8 11 D21S11 30 31.2 30.2 31.2 30.2 32.2 D7S820 11 11 11 11 11 11 CSF1P0 10 12 10 10 8 10 D3S1358 15 15 15 17 15 17 TH01 6 9 9 9 9 9.3 D13S317 10 12 8 10 8 12
39 of 92 40 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar D16S539 13 13 9 13 9 10 D2S1338 20 23 20 23 D19S433 14 16 13 14 13 13 vWA 16 19 17 19 16 17 TP0X 8 11 8 11 9 11 D18S51 10 17 15 17 15 15 D5S818 10 11 10 12 11 12 FGA 23 25 23 25 25 25 AMELOGENIN X Y X X X X The allelic date of the source of the exhibit 1 & 2 are ACCOUNTED in the allele date of the source of exhibit 3.
On careful perusal and analysis of the DNA Fingerprinting Test evidence on record, it clearly shows that the alleles from the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Lalit Chauhan) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name withheld)) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of baby of Prosecutrix (name withheld)) and that the DNA Profile of the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Lalit Chauhan) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name withheld)) are the biological father and 40 of 92 41 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar mother of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of baby of Prosecutrix (name withheld)).
On a conjoint reading of the medical evidence, the gynaecological examination from point 'X' to 'X1' of the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex. PW8/A together with the MLC of accused Lalit Chauhan Ex. PX5, in the light of the DNA Report Ex. PX6, detailed herein above, it clearly indicates that after committal of the repetitive sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix by accused Lalit Chauhan, she became pregnant and delivered a baby whereby the genes were inherited by the new born baby from accused Lalit Chauhan during the process of fertilization of the ovum of the prosecutrix by the sperm released by accused Lalit Chauhan.
In the circumstances, it stands clearly established on the record that accused Lalit Chauhan committed sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix by complete penetration of penis with the emission of semen resulting in the fertilization of the ovum of the prosecutrix with the sperm of accused Lalit Chauhan resulting in her pregnancy and delivery of the baby and of the inheritance of the genes from accused Lalit Chauhan thereby he (accused Lalit 41 of 92 42 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Chauhan) is the biological father of the baby born to the prosecutrix.
As per the DNA Report Ex. PX6, prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the accused as the biological father of the baby born to the prosecutrix.
Moreover, during his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused Lalit Chauhan has admitted that he is the father of the child born to PW11 - prosecutrix. The relevant part of statement of accused Lalit Chauhan recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "Q21. It is in evidence against you that on 04/09/2012, a baby girl child was born to PW11 - prosecutrix (name withheld) from your contact. What have you to say?
Ans. It is correct."
19. Now let the testimonies of PW11 - prosecutrix and PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, mother of the prosecutrix be perused and analyzed.
PW11 prosecutrix, in her examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "I am residing at the aforesaid address (G304, J.J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi) for the last more than two years. Accused Lalit was 42 of 92 43 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar not known to me previously. It was in the year, 2011 that one day I suddenly received a call from wrong number and it was from there that I and the other person of the wrong number started talking to each other. I had started speaking to him on the said phone number. One day I asked him on the phone as to what is his identity and why he is speaking to me on which he called me near Inder Lok Metro Station and it was then I came to know that his name was Lalit who is present in the Court today and (correctly identified). I had identified him on the basis of the description of the clothes given by him. Thereafter, from then onwards we started speaking to other on telephone.
On 25/12/2011, the accused called me at Purana Killa Old Ford (Fort) there he gave a cold drink and after I consumed the same on which I became unconscious. During this period when I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness I found that I was not having clothes on my body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with me. I started crying and thereafter he told me that he will marry me. The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet. He also kept on promising me that he would marry me. I became pregnant and the accused thereafter stopped coming to me and it was then that I disclosed this fact to my mother and my mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between myself and the accused. It was thereafter, I made a complaint to the Police which complaint is Ex. PW11/A bearing my signature at point 'A'. I was taken to the BJRM Hospital where my medical examination was conducted but I refused for my internal examination and thereafter my ultrasound was 43 of 92 44 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar also got conducted. I also took the Police to the Old Fort and pointed out the place where the accused had made physical relations with me. The IO prepared a site plan of the spot on my pointing out which site plan is Ex. PW6/DX1. My statement was also recorded by the Learned MM which statement is already Ex. PW11/B bearing my signatures at point 'A'. I also handed over the date of birth certificate to the IO vide memo Ex. PW6/F bearing my signature at point 'A'. The accused is present in the Court. I cannot tell the mobile numbers now and I may be permitted to refresh my memory - Permission granted. At this stage the witness had refreshed her memory and told that the mobile number of accused Lalit from which he used to make call to her was 9750791445 and 9818374033 and my number which I was using at that time of the first call I received from Lalit I do not recollect. Lalit gave me a SIM bearing no. 9818574950 and I have saved this SIM which was given to me by Lalit on which I used to subsequently speak to him.
A baby girl has been born to me on 04/09/2012 which was fathered by the accused Lalit. On Court question : my date of birth is 23/10 but exact year I do not recollect. It is mentioned in the date of birth certificate. Now after seeing the date of birth certificate the prosecutrix has informed that it is 23/10/1991."
From the aforesaid narration of PW11 - prosecutrix, it is clear that she is residing at the G304, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi for the last more than two years. Accused Lalit was not known to her previously. It was in the year, 2011 that one day she suddenly received a call from wrong number and it was from there that she and the other 44 of 92 45 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar person of the wrong number started talking to each other. She had started speaking to him on the said phone number. One day she asked him on the phone as to what is his identity and why he is speaking to her (PW11 prosecutrix) on which he (accused) called her near Inder Lok Metro Station and it was then she came to know that his name was Lalit whom she correctly identified in the Court. She had identified him on the basis of the description of the clothes given by him. Thereafter, from then onwards they started speaking to (each) other on telephone. On 25/12/2011, the accused called her at Purana Killa Old Fort there he gave a cold drink and after she consumed the same on which she became unconscious. During this period when she was unconscious and when she regained consciousness she found that she was not having clothes on her body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with her. She started crying and thereafter he told her that he will marry her. The accused thereafter repeatedly made physical relations with her under the threat that he would put her photographs which he had taken of her while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason she kept quiet. He also kept on promising her that he would marry her. She became pregnant and the accused thereafter 45 of 92 46 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar stopped coming to her and it was then that she disclosed this fact to her mother and her mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between herself and the accused. It was thereafter, she made a complaint to the Police Ex. PW11/A bearing her signature at point 'A'. She was taken to the BJRM Hospital where her medical examination was conducted but she refused for her internal examination and thereafter her ultrasound was also got conducted. She also took the Police to the Old Fort and pointed out the place where the accused had made physical relations with her. IO prepared a site plan of the spot on her pointing out Ex. PW6/DX1. Her statement was also recorded by the Learned MM which statement is already Ex. PW11/B bearing her signature at point 'A'. She also handed over the date of birth certificate to the IO vide memo Ex. PW6/F bearing her signature at point 'A'. After refreshing her memory she told that the mobile number of accused Lalit from which he used to make call to her was 9750791445 and 9818374033 and her number which she was using at that time of the first call she received from Lalit she does not recollect. Lalit gave her a SIM bearing no. 9818574950 and she had saved this SIM which was 46 of 92 47 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar given to her by Lalit on which she used to subsequently speak to him. A baby girl had born to her on 04/09/2012 which was fathered by the accused Lalit. On Court question she told that her date of birth is 23/10 but exact year she does not recollect. It is mentioned in the date of birth certificate and after seeing the date of birth certificate the prosecutrix has informed that it is 23/10/1991.
PW11 - Prosecutrix during her crossexamination has negated the suggestions that she did not stop the accused at any point of time or that the accused had never threatened her to put her photographs on internet because there were no such photographs or that she had made the story of the photographs and threatened on the tutoring of the IO only to make up a case against the accused or that she had never become unconscious or that she made physical relations with the accused with her consent and free will because she was in love with the accused or that accused never made any promise to marry her or that on the basis of tutoring by her family members and the Police she made a false statement against the accused.
47 of 92 48 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar The testimony of PW11 - Prosecutrix on perusal and analysis is found to be clear, natural, cogent, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence. Inspite of incisive crossexamination nothing material has been brought out on the record so as to impeach her creditworthiness. In the witness box she withstood the test of cross examination and her testimony is consistent throughout. The version of this witness on the core spectrum of the crime has remained intact. There is nothing in her statement to suggest that she had any animus against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case.
The testimony of PW11 - Prosecutrix is also found to be corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the DNA Fingerprinting evidence as discussed hereinbefore.
The testimony of PW11 - Prosecutrix is also found to be in consonance with her statement Ex. PW11/A made to the Police as well as by her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW11/B (also Ex. PX3).
The testimony of PW11 Prosecutrix is also found to be corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, her mother to whom PW11 Prosecutrix disclosed the 48 of 92 49 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar facts relating to the crime immediately after she found herself pregnant and realized that her periods had stopped being relevant u/s 6 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, mother of the prosecutrix in her examinationinchief has deposed that : "I am residing at the aforementioned address (G304, J.J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi) on rent for the last abut 10 years and I am working in a cutting factory. I have three children, two sons and one daughter. Prosecutrix (name withheld) is my second child since my eldest son has expired and now she is the eldest, followed by two brothers. I leave for my work in the morning at 10:00 a.m. and return by 8:00 p.m. At the time of the incident my daughter was studying in the class XI.
One day my daughter had told me that she had her periods had stopped for last two and a half months. On hearing this I was shocked and I asked her if she had any relations with some boy on which my daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) told me that she had received a call from an unknown number about a few months ago on mobile phone and thereafter started speaking to the boy on the said mobile phone. She has further told that the said boy wanted to make friendship with her and thereafter both of them met at Veer Bazar near the Inder Lok Metro Station and could identify each other and from the clothes that they were wearing. Thereafter, the said boy namely Lalit (correctly identified) speaking to each other and one day he took her to Purana Kila (Old Fort) where he made physical relations with her. She also told me that he threatened my daughter and thereafter he told her that he was in love 49 of 92 50 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar with her and promised to marry her on account of physical relations which they had made and she had become pregnant on account of this physical relations between her and accused Lalit (correctly identified). Thereafter, my daughter got obtained the address of the accused and told me that he was residing at Vishwas Nagar on which I went to the house of the accused. When I went near the house of accused, the accused met me in the gali and took me to his house and still promised that he would marry my daughter but when his parents came to know about the same they objected to the said relationship and refused to get marriage with my daughter. I also tried to tell the family of the accused that the accused had consented to the marriage but still the family did not agree to the same and became reluctant on which the accused thereafter refused to marry my daughter who thereafter become pregnant. Finding no alternative I took my daughter to the Police Station and complaint was lodged on the basis of the statement of my daughter. My daughter was also taken to the Hospital for her medical examination and thereafter was produced before the Learned MM where her statement was recorded. My daughter has already given birth to a baby girl on 04/09/2012 and is now residing with me."
From the aforesaid narration of PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, mother of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she is residing at G304, J.J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi on rent for the last abut 10 years and she is working in a cutting factory. She is having three children, two sons and one daughter. Prosecutrix (name withheld) is her second child since her 50 of 92 51 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar eldest son has expired and now she (prosecutrix) is the eldest, followed by two brothers. She (PW10) leaves for her work in the morning at 10:00 a.m. and returns by 8:00 p.m. At the time of the incident her daughter was studying in the class XI. One day her daughter had told her that her periods had stopped for last two and a half months. On hearing this she was shocked and she (PW10) asked her (PW11 prosecutrix) if she had any relations with some boy on which her (PW10) daughter/prosecutrix (name withheld) told her that she (PW11 - prosecutrix) had received a call from an unknown number about a few months ago on mobile phone and thereafter started speaking to the boy on the said mobile phone. She has further told that the said boy wanted to make friendship with her and thereafter both of them met at Veer Bazar near the Inder Lok Metro Station and could identify each other and from the clothes that they were wearing. Thereafter, the said boy namely Lalit, whom she (PW10) correctly identified in the Court, speaking to each other and one day he took her (PW11 - prosecutrix) to Purana Kila (Old Fort) where he made physical relations with her daughter. Prosecutrix also told her that he threatened her daughter and thereafter he told her that he was in love with her and promised to marry her on account of physical relations 51 of 92 52 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar which they had made and she had become pregnant on account of this physical relations between her and accused Lalit. Thereafter, her daughter got obtained the address of the accused and told her that he was residing at Vishwas Nagar on which she went to the house of the accused. When she went near the house of accused, the accused met her in the gali and took her (PW10) to his house and still promised that he would marry her daughter but when his parents came to know about the same they objected to the said relationship and refused to get marriage with her daughter. She also tried to tell the family of the accused that the accused had consented to the marriage but still the family did not agree to the same and became reluctant on which the accused thereafter refused to marry her daughter who thereafter become pregnant. Finding no alternative she took her daughter to the Police Station and complaint was lodged on the basis of the statement of her daughter. Her daughter was also taken to the Hospital for her medical examination and thereafter was produced before the Learned MM where her (PW11 - prosecutrix) statement was recorded. Her daughter has already given birth to a baby girl on 04/09/2012 and is now residing with her.
52 of 92 53 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar During her crossexamination PW10 - Mrs. Madhu has negated the suggestions that the accused had never allured her daughter and promised her for marrying at any point of time or that her daughter made physical relations with the accused with her own consent without any allurement or inducement of marriage and there was no question of the accused promising her any marriage or that they had filed a false complaint against the accused.
There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW10 - Mrs. Madhu so as to impeach her creditworthiness. She has withstood the rigors of crossexamination without being shaken. On careful perusal and analysis and by applying the discerning scrutiny standard [Ref. Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 XII (S.C.)1], her testimony is found to be clear, natural, cogent, reliable and having a ring of truth. There is nothing in her statement to suggest that she had any animus against the accused to falsely depose against him.
While analysing the testimony of PW11 - Prosecutrix and PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, mother of the prosecutrix as discussed herein above inspite of incisive crossexamination of PW11 - Prosecutrix and 53 of 92 54 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar PW10 - Mrs. Madhu nothing has come out in their statements which may throw even a slightest doubt on the prosecution version of the incident. Though the suggestion by the defence to PW11 Prosecutrix that she did not stop the accused at any point of time or that the accused had never threatened her to put her photographs on internet because there were no such photographs or that she had made the story of the photographs and threatened on the tutoring of the IO only to make up a case against the accused or that she had never become unconscious or that she made physical relations with the accused with her consent and free will because she was in love with the accused or that accused never made any promise to marry her or that on the basis of tutoring by her family members and the Police she made a false statement against the accused and the suggestions to PW10 - Mrs. Madhu that the accused had never allured her daughter and promised her for marrying at any point of time or that her daughter made physical relations with the accused with her own consent without any allurement or inducement of marriage and there was no question of the accused promising her any marriage or that they had filed a false complaint against the accused, were put, which were negated by the said PWs but the same have not 54 of 92 55 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar at all being made probable much established by any cogent evidence. Further there is not an iota of evidence or even a suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated because of animosity.
20. It is well settled that rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim.
It is to be noticed that the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at page 369 which reads as : "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the 55 of 92 56 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one."
In Parikh's Textbook of Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found:
"Sexual intercourse: In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."
In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) at page 1356, it is stated:
".....even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary."
On analysing the testimony of PW11 - Prosecutrix in the light of medical evidence, gynaecological examination from portion 'X' to 'X1 on MLC Ex. PW8/A of the prosecutrix, DNA Finger Printing evidence Ex. PX6, MLC of accused Lalit Chauhan Ex. PX5, as discussed hereinbefore, the act of performing of sexual intercourse activity by 56 of 92 57 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen or by partial penetration of the penis with emission of semen, within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda stands proved consequent upon which pregnancy occurred resulted in the delivery of a baby.
In the circumstances, it stands clearly established on the record, of the performance of the acts of sexual intercourse by the accused Lalit Chauhan with PW11 - Prosecutrix without her consent. Whereupon PW11 - prosecutrix became pregnant and delivered a baby whose DNA profiling matched with accused Lalit Chauhan as a biological father.
21. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that accused and the prosecutrix (name withheld) were known to each other since last two years period from the date which is said to be the date when the alleged rape has been committed that is 25/12/2011 and there was love and affection between the accused and the prosecutrix therefore it cannot be established that intercourse which has been done between the accused and the prosecutrix is under misconception of fact and under danger to life and limb.
57 of 92 58 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
Admittedly, the fact regarding of having repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix has not been disputed by the accused. Nor the fact regarding the pregnancy of the prosecutrix consequent upon the act of having repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix has been disputed by the accused. Nor the fact regarding the baby girl born to PW11 - prosecutrix on 04/09/2012 was fathered by accused Lalit Chahan has been disputed by the accused.
At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to reproduce examinationinchief of PW11 - prosecutrix which reads as under : "On 25/12/2011, the accused called me at Purana Killa Old Ford (Fort) there he gave a cold drink and after I consumed the same on which I became unconscious. During this period when I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness I found that I was not having clothes on my body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with me. I started crying and thereafter he told me that he will marry me. The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet. He also 58 of 92 59 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar kept on promising me that he would marry me. I became pregnant and the accused thereafter stopped coming to me and it was then that I disclosed this fact to my mother and my mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between myself and the accused. It was thereafter, I made a complaint to the Police which complaint is Ex. PW11/A bearing my signature at point 'A'."
"A baby girl has been born to me on 04/09/2012 which was fathered by the accused Lalit."
During her crossexamination PW11 - prosecutrix has deposed that : "It is wrong to suggest that the accused had never threatened me to put my photograph on Internet because there was no such photographs. It is wrong to suggest that I have made the story of photographs and threatened on the tutoring of the IO only to make up a case against the accused."
"It is wrong to suggest that the accused had never offered cold drink to me laced with seditive (sedative). It is wrong to suggest that I have never become unconscious. It is wrong to suggest that I made physical relations with the accused with my consent and free will because I am in love with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused never made any promise to marry me. It is wrong to suggest that on the basis of tutoring by my family members and the Police I am making a false statement against the accused....."
In view of above clear, categorical testimony of PW11 -
59 of 92 60 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar prosecutrix, it does not lie in the mouth of accused to utter that it is not established that the intercourse which was done between the accused and the prosecutrix was under misconceptions of fact and under threat but was due to love and affection between them.
In the circumstances, "the theory of sexual intercourse between accused and prosecutrix due to love and affection and not under a misconception of fact and under threat" so propounded by the accused falls flatly on the ground.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled as 'State of H.P. Vs. Mange Ram', AIR 2000 SC 2798 while dealing with the issue held : "Submission of the body under the fear or terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 required voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances."
In 'Uday Vs. State of Karnataka', AIR 2003 SC 1639, a similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing : 60 of 92 61 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar ".....We are inclined to agree with this view that there is no strait jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntarily, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the Courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the Court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them."
In 'Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.', AIR 2007 SC 3059, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "9. The crucial expression in Section 375 which defines rape as against her will. It seems to connote that the offending act was despite resistance and opposition of a woman. IPC does not define consent in positive terms. But what cannot be regarded as consent is explained by Section 90 which reads as follows :
"consent given firstly under fear of injury and secondly under a misconception of fact is not consent at all."
That is what is explained in first part of Section 90. There are two grounds specified in Section 90 which are analogous to coercion and mistake of fact which are the familiar grounds that can vitiate a transaction under the jurisprudence of out country as well as other countries. The factors set out in first part of Section 90 are from the 61 of 92 62 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar point of view of the victim and second part of Section 90 enacts the corresponding provision from the point of view of the accused. It envisages that the accused has knowledge or has reason to believe that the consent was given by the victim in consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact. Thus the second part lays emphasis on the person who obtains the tainted consent. The requirements of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied. In other words, the Court has to see whether the person giving the consent has given it under fear or misconception of fact and the Court should also be satisfied that the person doing the act i.e. the alleged offender in conscious of the fact or should have reason to think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would not have been given. This is the scheme of Section 90 which is couched in negative terminology. As observed by this Court in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2005 (1) SCC 88), Section 90 cannot be considered as an exhaustive definition of consent for the purposes of IPC. The normal connotation and concept of consent is not intended to be excluded.
10. In most of the decisions in which the meaning of the expression consent under the IPC was discussed, reference was made to the passages occurring in Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Jowitts Dictionary on English Law, Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn. And other legal dictionaries. Stroud defines consent & quot ; as an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side & quot;, Jowitt while employing the same language added the following :
"Consent supposes three things a physical power, a mental power and a free and serious use of them. Hence it is that if consent be obtained by intimidation, force, meditated imposition, circumvention, surprise, or undue influence, it is to be treated as a delusion, and not as a 62 of 92 63 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar deliberate and free act of the mind. :
11. In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 8A, the following passages culled out from certain old decisions of the American Courts are found :
"...adult females understanding of nature and consequences of sexual act must be intelligent understanding to constitute consent."
Consent within penal law, defining rape, required exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent..."."
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
22. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that if the evidence of PW11 - prosecutrix in the present case is taken she has made number of false allegations and has improved the same from time to time and has given serious contradictions in the statement which he has made under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement made before the investigation officer. That the prosecutrix has provided in her chief that the accused Lalit not known to her previously. It was in the year, 2011 that one day she suddenly received a call from wrong number and it was from there that she and the other person of the wrong number started talking to each other. She had started speaking to him on the said phone number. That 63 of 92 64 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar one day she asked him on the phone as to what is his identity and why he is speaking to her on which he called her near Inder Lok Metro Station. It was not the accused who had first asked the prosecutrix of her identity and of her meeting to him, an inference can be drawn that the prosecutrix was more keen on finding the identity of the accused being oblivious of the fact and without taking any precautions that it would have also led to some mishappening. Thereafter, from the said incident they started speaking to each other on telephone.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
Except for the bare submission Learned Counsel for the accused failed to point out what are those false allegations, what are the improvements and what are those serious contradictions made by PW11
- prosecutrix in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW11/B and in her Police statement Ex. PW11/A. As regards the remaining part of the plea as to how and in what manner phone speaking started between PW11 - prosecutrix and the accused, it is not made clear by Learned Counsel for the accused as to what benefit he intends to reap from the same and as to what he wants to convey. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 - prosecutrix 64 of 92 65 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar is very clear, natural and categorical on this aspect as discussed herein before.
At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of examinationinchief of PW11 - prosecutrix, which reads as under : "I am residing at the aforesaid address (G304, J.J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi) for the last more than two years. Accused Lalit was not known to me previously. It was in the year, 2011 that one day I suddenly received a call from wrong number and it was from there that I and the other person of the wrong number started talking to each other. I had started speaking to him on the said phone number. One day I asked him on the phone as to what is his identity and why he is speaking to me on which he called me near Inder Lok Metro Station and it was then I came to know that his name was Lalit who is present in the Court today and (correctly identified). I had identified him on the basis of the description of the clothes given by him. Thereafter, from then onwards we started speaking to other on telephone."
During her crossexamination PW11 - prosecutrix has specifically deposed that : "Between the time before 25/12/2011 and after I first met the accused at Metro station, I and the accused had also met on 56 occasions. Vol. It was the accused who used to insist upon meeting me though I was not much inclined."
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so 65 of 92 66 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
23. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the evidence of PW8, Dr. Rachit provide for that according to MLC no fresh external injury was seen. That PW9 Dr. Seema provides for that prosecutrix did not allow her internal examination so her internal examination could not be done and she had already changed her undergarments and clothes so her clothes were not collected. Prosecutrix had consented for the physical relations in the said love affair and due to repeat sexual intercourses she had become pregnant and she knew about it that on the medical examination it would reveal the truth, so she denied the same. Had it been if she would have been forcibly assaulted by the accused she would have been the first one to get the internal examination done.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
PW8 - Dr. Rachit, CMO, BJRM Hospital, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted on 05/03/2012 by Dr. Amit, J.R., under his supervision vide MLC no. 38655 Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Amit at point 'A' and deposed 66 of 92 67 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar that as per the MLC no fresh external injury was seen and the patient/prosecutrix was referred to Gynae Department for further examination.
PW9 - Dr. Seema, MO, BJRM Hospital, Delhi, who proved the medical examination of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) as was conducted on 05/03/2012 by Dr. Anshu Gupta, from point 'X' to 'X1' on MLC Ex. PW8/A signed by Dr. Anshu Gupta at point A and deposed that Dr. Anshu Gupta medically examined the patient/prosecutrix with alleged history of assault on 21/05/2011 and repeatedly after that by that same person and UPT was done on 05/03/2012 which was positive. Prosecutrix did not allow her internal examination, so her internal examination could not be done and she has already changed her undergarments and clothes, so her clothes were also not collected. Dr. Anshu Gupta advised ultrasonography of pelvis of prosecutrix.
On careful scrutiny of the said plea, it is not clear as to what Learned Counsel for accused wanted to convey and what benefit he intends to reap. He does not seem to be clear and is blowing hot and cold in the same breath.
67 of 92 68 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Learned Counsel for the accused seems to have forgot that medical examination of PW11 - prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW8/A dated 05/03/2012 does not pertain to stage, soon after the first sexual assault or repeated sexual assaults thereafter, but pertain to stage when PW11 - prosecutrix was made pregnant by accused Lalit Chauhan by repeated sexual assaults and her UPT done on 05/03/2012 was found positive.
Further, for the refusal of her internal examination by PW11
- prosecutrix was at the stage, when she was pregnant. Learned Counsel for the accused failed to specify, if internal examination would have been allowed by her, then what truth it would have revealed, especially in view of fact that accused has not denied the factum of having repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and of the consequent pregnancy of the prosecutrix and of the delivery of a baby girl by the prosecutrix on 04/09/2012 fathered by him (accused Lalit Chauhan).
As regards the "theory of love affair for repeated sexual intercourse with prosecutrix" as propounded by the accused has already been dealt with hereinabove and is found to be devoid of substance.
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
68 of 92 69 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar
24. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that on reading of the evidence of prosecutrix and her mother the mobile number which was used for speaking by the prosecutrix was given by the accused and the same was not in the knowledge of the mother of the prosecutrix and the same has been admitted by the mother an inference can be drawn that, which shows she was a consenting party even otherwise there are continuous serious (series) of calls between the prosecutrix and the accused.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
Learned Counsel for the accused failed to explain as to how and in manner, PW11 - prosecutrix became a consenting party, if she was speaking to accused by using the mobile phone given by the accused and there were series of calls between them and the said mobile number was not in the knowledge of her mother (PW10 - Mrs. Madhu). Does it mean, using of mobile phone by PW11 - prosecutrix given to her by the accused, gives a licence to accused to have sexual intercourse at any time, anywhere any number of times with PW11 - prosecutrix at 69 of 92 70 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar his whims and fancies without her consent and also to make her pregnant; does it also give licence to accused to make her unconscious by giving sedative laced cold drink, then to remove her clothes and to photograph her naked body and to give threat to defame her in School and to download on the Internet her naked photos if she disclosed the incident to anyone; Does it also give licence to the accused to continuously threat her on phone to get her killed or to throw acid on face, if she lodged any complaint against him.
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
25. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the prosecutrix had made allegations that the accused had taken her nude photographs and made a video of the same and has threatened her of defaming her in School and uploading the same over the internet. On the examination of the evidence by the prosecutrix, she has made a statement that she has not seen any photographs of herself in the mobile phone of the accused and the statement given by PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, FSL, 70 of 92 71 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Hydrabad and the examination report submitted by him provide that there was a presence of large number of obscene files, image, videos etc. were found in the said mobile phone, but on examination of the same none were of the prosecutrix. Therefore an inference can be drawn that the charges levelled against the accused of section 292 are false and concocted story of the prosecutrix.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that no charge u/s 292 IPC has been framed against accused Lalit Chauhan. However, charge for the offence u/s 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been framed against the accused.
Section 503 IPC provides for criminal intimidation. It reads as under :
503. Criminal intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such 71 of 92 72 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar threat, commits criminal intimidation.
S. 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short IT Act) provides for punishment for violation of privacy. It reads as under : 66E. Punishment for violation of privacy. Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.
PW11 - prosecutrix has specifically deposed in her examinationinchief which reads as under : "The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet."
During her crossexamination PW11 - prosecutrix deposed that : "It is correct that I have not seen any photograph of myself in the mobile phone of the accused. Vol. He also used to threat me that he has these photographs."
72 of 92 73 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar "It is wrong to suggest that the accused had never threatened me to put my photographs on Internet because there was no such photographs."
From the aforesaid narration of PW11 - prosecutrix it is clearly indicated that the accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with her under the threat that he would put her photographs which he had taken of her while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason she kept quiet and thereby accused threatened her with injury to her reputation with intent to cause alarm to her.
It does not matter that PW11 - prosecutrix has not seen any photograph of herself in the mobile phone of the accused as the offence u/s 503 IPC is complete the moment the threatening is made to another with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that person.
PW5 - Sh. M. Krishna, Scientist B, CFSL, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, who proved the detailed examination report of the mobile phone, SIM and MSD Ex. PW5/A (running into three pages) signed by him at point A and the annexure attached with the report as Ex. PW5/B (17 pages) and the CD part of the report Ex. PW5/C. 73 of 92 74 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar The relevant part of examinationinchief of PW5 - Shri M. Krishna reads as under : "...I opened the parcel and found one mobile phone make NOKIA model No. C101, IMEI No. 359763/04/647173/6 marked Q1ME and one SIM of airtel marked as Q1SIM and one memory card MSD of 2GB marked as Q1MSD and the seal was found intact. I examined the abovesaid mobile phone, SIM and MSD and my detailed examination report is Ex. PW5/A (running into three pages) bearing my signatures at point 'A' and the annexure attached with my report is Ex. PW5/B (17 pages) and the CD part of my report is Ex. PW5/C."
On a conjoint reading of reports Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C and the testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix, it clearly indicates that a large number of obscene video clips, images and voice recordings were found captured in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q1MSD (Memory Card) belonging to accused Lalit Chauhan for the purpose of publication or transmission, whereby the offence is squarely covered u/s 66E IT Act, 2000. It does not matter that same (obscene video clips, images etc.) as argued, were not of the prosecutrix as the offence u/s 66E IT Act, 2000 is complete the moment whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person.
74 of 92 75 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving that a large number of obscene video clips, images and voice recordings were found captured in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q1MSD (Memory Card) belonging to accused Lalit Chauhan and that under the threat, he would put her photographs which he had taken of her while making physical relations on Internet and show it to everybody, he repeatedly made physical relations with her.
Accused was under an obligation to explain how and under what circumstances, a large number of obscene video clips, images and voice recordings were found captured in the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q1MSD (Memory Card) belonging to him and which were those photographs and where are those photographs which he had taken of her while making physical relations and were threatened by him to put on Internet to show them to everybody and under the threat of which he repeatedly made physical relations with her.
The absence of such an explanation both in the section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused and his omission to lead any evidence in this regard and his complete denial becomes an additional link in the 75 of 92 76 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar prosecution case.
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
26. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix provide for, it is correct that accused also used to come to my house frequently an inference can be drawn from this that she was living in a house where both the parents were working and only she knew the timings of their returning to home from their respective work place and till the time she used to be alone at home. An inference can be drawn that after the intimacy developed between the accused and prosecutrix she only would have told the accused about her being alone at home, this provides for that she meekly submitted to the advances of the accused. All this shows that she was in love with the accused and was a consenting party. The consent given by her does not get diluted merely because, after the pregnancy was detected and she was confronted with this fact by her family members, she stated that accused had established sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage. Above all, prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the 76 of 92 77 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix right from the beginning and had extended the same only to establish sexual relations with her. Even if it were so, there is hardly any evidence to prove the fact that the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented to having sexual intercourse with him only as a consequence of her belief.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
As far as the plea raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused on the basis of as to what PW11 - prosecutrix has deposed in crossexamination that "It is correct hat accused also used to come my house frequently" that she meekly submitted to the advances of the accused and all this shows that she was in love with the accused and was a consenting party and the consent given by her does not get diluted merely because, after the pregnancy was detected and she was confronted with this fact by her family members, she stated that accused had established sexual intercourse with her on false promise of marriage, is concerned is found to have no substance in view of the categorical testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix as discussed hereinabove.
77 of 92 78 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar At the cost of repetition, PW11 - prosecutrix in her examinationinchief has specifically deposed that : "On 25/12/2011, the accused called me at Purana Killa Old Ford (Fort) there he gave a cold drink and after I consumed the same on which I became unconscious. During this period when I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness I found that I was not having clothes on my body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with me. I started crying and thereafter he told me that he will marry me. The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet. He also kept on promising me that he would marry me. I became pregnant and the accused thereafter stopped coming to me and it was then that I disclosed this fact to my mother and my mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between myself and the accused. It was thereafter, I made a complaint to the Police which complaint is Ex. PW11/A bearing my signature at point 'A'."
During her crossexamination PW11 - prosecutrix has deposed that : "It is correct that I am in love with the accused. Vol. After I became pregnant he started distancing himself from me. Between the rime before 25/12/2011 and after I first met the accused at Metro Station I and the accused had also met on 56 occasions. Vol. It was the accused who used to insist upon meeting me though I was not much inclined. It 78 of 92 79 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar is correct that for the first time the accused made physical relations with me on 25/12/2011. It is correct that accused also used to come my house frequently. The accused made relations with me on a large number of occasions. It is wrong to suggest that I did not stop the accused at any point of time. Vol. I had objected to him on large number of occasions but could not stop him. It is correct that I have not seen any photograph of myself in the mobile phone of the accused. Vol. He also used to threat me that he has these photographs. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had never threatened me to put my photographs on Internet because there was no such photographs. It is wrong to suggest that I have made the story of the photographs and threatened on the tutoring of the IO only to make up a case against the accused."
"It is wrong to suggest that the accused had never offered cold drink to me laced with seditive (sedative). It is wrong to suggest that I have never become unconscious. It is wrong to suggest that I made physical relations with the accused with my consent and free will because I am in love with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused never made any promise to marry me. It is wrong to suggest that on the basis of tutoring by my family members and the Police I am making a false statement against the accused....."
From the aforesaid narration, it is clearly indicated that PW11 - prosecutrix was not a consenting party at all to the physical relations established by accused with her as has been attempted to be projected by Learned Counsel for the accused under the garb that she was in love with the accused. To be in love and to be a consenting 79 of 92 80 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar party to physical relations are entirely two different things. If prosecutrix was in love with accused does it give a licence to the accused to make physical relations with her and to make her pregnant. The clear, natural and categorical testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix as reproduced hereinabove knocks out the bottom of "the theory of PW11 - prosecutrix being a consenting party to physical relations established with her by the accused" as propounded by the accused.
As regards the plea that prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix right from the beginning and had extended the same only to establish sexual relations with her, is concerned, for such intentional matter of the accused, it was not for the prosecution to adduce any evidence but it was for the accused to discharge the burden of the plea so raised. This fact was especially within his knowledge.
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for,burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. It reads as under
: 106 "Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the 80 of 92 81 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar burden of proving that fact is upon him."
As regards the plea that there is hardly any evidence to prove the fact that the accused knew or had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented to having sexual intercourse with him only as a consequence of her belief.
The clear, cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix as discussed hereinabove is on the record which makes this plea devoid of substance.
However, at the cost of repetition, PW11 - prosecutrix has specifically and categorically deposed in her examinationinchief that : "On 25/12/2011, the accused called me at Purana Killa Old Ford (Fort) there he gave a cold drink and after I consumed the same on which I became unconscious. During this period when I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness I found that I was not having clothes on my body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with me. I started crying and thereafter he told me that he will marry me. The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet. He also kept on promising me that he would marry me. I became pregnant and the accused thereafter stopped coming to me and it was then that I 81 of 92 82 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar disclosed this fact to my mother and my mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between myself and the accused. It was thereafter, I made a complaint to the Police which complaint is Ex. PW11/A bearing my signature at point 'A'."
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
27. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that a perusal of both the statements of the prosecutrix that is, one made before the Police and the other before the Court, one thing is clear that she has made improvements on material points while deposing in the Court. Initially she had stated that appellant had established sexual relations with her by extending promise to marry her. However, while in the witness box she has introduced the allegations of molestation, use of force and threats. In view of the shifting stands taken by her, story propounded by her that appellant committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes by using force or extending threats, cannot be given much credence. It is a case of consensual sex between the two adults. Even otherwise from the conduct of the prosecutrix it can be inferred that she was in love with the 82 of 92 83 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar appellant, which might have developed between them as they had been meeting on regular basis.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
The testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix as reproduced and discussed hereinabove on careful perusal and analysis is found to in consonance with her statement made to Police Ex. PW11/A bearing her signature at point 'A', therefore there is no question of making any improvements in her testimony in the Court. Moreover exaggerations per se do not render evidence brittle. Normal discrepancies do not corrode credibility of party's case (Ref. Guddu Rathore Vs. State 2013 III AD (Cri.) (DHC) 7). It appears that Learned Counsel for the accused has either misread or not read the testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix and her statement made to the Police Ex. PW11/A. As regards "the theory of consensual sex between the two (prosecutrix and accused)" has already been dealt with hereinbefore and no further discussion on it is called for.
In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
83 of 92 84 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar
28. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that reverting back to the facts of this case, prosecutrix is a grown up woman, passed from higher secondary, aged about 22 years living in a meetropolis like Delhi and was expected to know the consequences of indulging in sexual activity with a man. She continued to have sex with the accused for more (than) one year. Even after she became pregnant, she did not immediately disclose this fact to anyone including her mother. At the time when FIR was lodged, she was three months pregnant. In her deposition she has admitted that after two months she became aware that she was pregnant. Meaning thereby, even after prosecutrix became pregnant she did not disclose this fact to her family members immediately. There was no reason for her not to disclose to her mother that accused had promised her to marry. She disclosed this fact only when she did not get her menstrual cycle for two months and thereafter being questioned by her mother that if she had any affair with any boy and thereafter she disclosed all the facts to her mother.
I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.
84 of 92 85 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of examinationinchief of PW11 - prosecutrix which reads as under : "On 25/12/2011, the accused called me at Purana Killa Old Ford (Fort) there he gave a cold drink and after I consumed the same on which I became unconscious. During this period when I was unconscious and when I regained consciousness I found that I was not having clothes on my body. Accused Lalit had forcibly made physical relations with me. I started crying and thereafter he told me that he will marry me. The accused thereafter repeated (repeatedly) made physical relations with me under the threat that he would put my photographs which he had taken of me while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody and it is for this reason I kept quiet. He also kept on promising me that he would marry me. I became pregnant and the accused thereafter stopped coming to me and it was then that I disclosed this fact to my mother and my mother went to meet the accused at his house and the family members of the accused after coming to know about the entire details refused for marriage between myself and the accused. It was thereafter, I made a complaint to the Police which complaint is Ex. PW11/A bearing my signature at point 'A'."
From the aforesaid narration of PW11 - prosecutrix it is clear that reasons for keeping quiet and for the delay in lodging the Police complaint have been sufficiently and satisfactorily explained.
At the cost of repetition the testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix is clear, natural, cogent, reliable and inspires confidence.
85 of 92 86 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar She has withstood the rigors of crossexamination without being shaken. Her version on the core spectrum of crime has remained intact. The testimony of PW11 - prosecutrix has also been corroborated by her mother PW10 - Mrs. Madhu, to whom she disclosed the facts relating to the crime shortly after she realized that her periods had stopped being relevant u/s 6 & 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Inspite of incisive crossexamination of PW10 - Mrs. Madhu nothing material has been brought out so as to impeach her creditworthiness. Her testimony on careful perusal and analysis is found to be clear, natural, cogent, convincing and having a ring of truth.
The sight cannot be lost of the fact that the Indian women has tendency to conceal offence of sexual assault because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the Police Station and lodge a case.
Normally a woman would not falsely implicate for the offence of rape at the cost of her character. In Indian society, it is very unusual that a lady with a view to implicate a person would go to the extent of stating that she was raped. [Ref. Madan Lal Vs. State of MP 86 of 92 87 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar (1997) 2 Crimes 210 (MP)].
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P (1995) 5 SCC 518, has held : "7.......The submission overlooks the fact that in India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less then promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false (emphasis added)."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 in case Rajinder V. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 3022 has interalia held : "21. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman victim of sexual aggression would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the 87 of 92 88 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind that no selfrespecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for......."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 13 in case Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 2214 has interalia held : "13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case......"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20 in case Satyapal V. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 2190 has interalia held : "20. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that 88 of 92 89 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon......."
In the case of 'Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', (2010) 2 SCC 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "It is a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as such she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as the western countries are."
In the circumstances, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.
29. Learned Counsel for the accused referred to cases and are reported as 'Uday Vs. State of Karnataka', (2003) 4 SCC 46; 'Jayanti Rani Panda Vs. State of West Bengal', 1984 Crl.L.J. 1535; 'Krishna Pada Mahato Vs. State of West Bengal', 2005(3) Crimes 644; 'Kuber Chandra 89 of 92 90 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Das Vs. State of Bihar', 2004 Crl.L.J. 4776, 'Dilip Mahto Vs. State of Bihar' 2003 (1) Crimes 45 and 'Baldhari Ohdar Vs. State of Bihar', 2001 Crl.L.J. 883.
I have carefully gone through the same, with due respect there is no dispute as to what has been held therein. In case titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State 181 (2011) DLT 528(DB) it was held that "No case can strictly be a precedent in a criminal matter for the reason no two criminal trials would unfold the same story and the same evidence. Thus, a decision cited pertaining to the desination reached at a particular criminal voyage has to be carefully applied, on a principle of law, in a subsequent voyage".
30. In view of above and in the circumstances, prosecution has proved its case beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts that on 25/12/2011, at Purana Kila, Old Fort, Delhi, accused Lalit Chauhan administered some stupifying or intoxicating substance in the cold drink of PW11 prosecutrix with intent to cause hurt to her and to commit rape upon her and he captured nude photographs of the prosecutrix without her consent and violated her privacy and forcibly committed rape upon 90 of 92 91 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar her without her consent and thereafter, at her house at G - 304, J. J. Colony, Wazir Pur, Delhi he committed rape upon the prosecutrix many times between 25/12/2011 to 03/03/2012 without her consent and under the threat that he would put her photographs which he had taken of her while making physical relations on the Internet and show it to everybody with intent to cause alarm to her and to silent her and further he repeatedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the promise that he will marry her which was merely a hoax and being conscious of the fact that, Had he not promised to marry the victim/PW11 - prosecutrix, she would have never allowed him the physical intimacy with her and further the consent of PW11 prosecutrix for cohabitation/sexual intercourse was obtained by the accused Lalit Chauhan under the misconception of fact by deceitfully causing her to believe that he will marry her whereupon PW11 - prosecutrix became pregnant and after she became pregnant he stopped coming to her and PW11 - prosecutrix delivered a baby girl on 04/09/2012 whose DNA profiling matched with accused Lalit Chauhan as a biological father.
I accordingly hold accused Lalit Chauhan guilty for the offences punishable u/s 328/376/506 IPC and u/s 66E of the 91 of 92 92 FIR No. 59/12 PS - Bharat Nagar Information Technology Act, 2000 and convict him thereunder.
31. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of the accused Lalit Chauhan in the commission of the offences u/s 328/376/506 and u/s 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is concerned, the same is sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the accused Lalit Chauhan beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is no room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused. I, therefore, hold accused Lalit Chauhan guilty for the offences punishable u/s 328/376/506 IPC and u/s 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and convict him thereunder. Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Additional Sessions Judge st on 01 Day of June, 2013 Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 92 of 92