Delhi District Court
Sc No: 296/17 State vs . Ramesh Munda & Ors. on 9 April, 2018
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-FAST TRACK
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 296/17
FIR No. 83/17
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Under Section 376/342/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Ramesh Munda
S/o Sh. Balu Munda
2. David Munda
S/o Sh. Balu Munda
3. Smt. Ranjeeta
W/o David Munda
all R/o Village Deemakuchi,
PO Kali Khola
District Udaiguri, Assam.
4. Raja Gorh
S/o Sh. Ramfal Gorh
R/o Village Paneery Teh. Estate,
PO Paneri Hat, PS Panery,
District Udalguri Btad, Assam. .....Accused Persons
Judgment Page No.1 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
Date of institution 16.05.2017
Judgment reserved on 23.03.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 09.04.2018
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Raja Gorh is facing trial on the allegations of committing rape on prosecutrix 'A' aged 18 years. Accused Ramesh Munda, David Munda and Ranjeeta are facing trial on allegation of wrongful confining her.
2. FIR in question was registered on 19.02.2017 on statement of prosecutrix who alleged that she is native of West Bengal and on 17.01.2017 she was brought to Delhi in office of Ranjeeta Munda. She was employed to work in different houses as house maid. Prosecutrix alleged that accused Raja Gorh, who was working in office forcibly raped her two weeks before lodging of complaint. She narrated act of accused Raja Gorh to accused Ranjeeta, Ramesh Munda & David Munda and told them she is Judgment Page No.2 of17 SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
not interested to work and wanted to go back but they told prosecutrix to return expenses incurred on her and then she would be sent back. On 14.02.2017 accused David Munda sent prosecutrix with accused Ramesh Munda to a house in Rana Pratap Bagh.
3. Prosecutrix was got counseled and was medically examined. During her medical examination, prosecutrix was found pregnant. Her statement was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, by orders of CWC, pregnancy of prosecutrix was medically terminated.
4. Accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted. Charge for offence punishable U/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Raja Gorh. Charge for offence punishable U/s 342/34 IPC was framed against accused Ramesh Munda, David Munda and Ranjeeta. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Judgment Page No.3 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
5. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses.
6. PW1 prosecutrix supported prosecution case and deposed on the lines of her complaint. She proved her statement (initial complaint) as Ex. PW1/A, her medical examination vide MLC Ex. PW1/B. Prosecutrix deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. as Ex. PW1/C was recorded. She proved arrest of accused David Munda, Ramesh Munda and Ranjeeta vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/D, E & F.
7. PW2 Surender Gupta employed prosecutrix in his house to work as a maid servant. He deposed that on 14.02.2017 till 19.02.2017 prosecutrix stayed in their house and thereafter police took her.
8. PW3 Rakesh Kumar Pandey proved date of birth of prosecutrix as 18.11.1998 as per her school record as Ex. PW3/A. Judgment Page No.4 of17 SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
9. PW4 Geeta Devi deposed that accused persons were residing in house let out by her bearing house No. 53, III rd floor, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
10. PW5 WSI Anita Rani, Investigating officer got registered FIR, arrested accused persons, collected exhibits of prosecutrix and accused Raja Gorh after their medical examination and sent exhibits for forensic examination to FSL. She collected FSL result as Ex. F-1.
11. PW6 Ct. Suresh Chand recorded DD No. 6PP dated 19.02.2017 about the wrong act committed with a lady as Ex. PW6/A. He also recorded DD No. 7PP dated 19.02.2017 that a lady was forced for committing wrong act.
12. Accused persons gave a statement admitting FIR in question, certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act, their medical examination and of prosecutrix. Accused persons admitted Judgment Page No.5 of17 SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
statement of prosecutrix recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as the FSL result. In view of their statement, relevant witnesses to prove the aforesaid documents were dropped from array of witnesses.
13. Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all of them stated that they have been falsely implicated by prosecutrix.
14. It is contended on behalf of accused persons that there is substantial delay in lodging of FIR which creates doubt over truthfulness of the version of the incident given by prosecutrix. It is further stated that the DNA report in respect of exhibits of accused Raja Gorh and tissue obtained after termination of pregnancy of prosecutrix indicate that accused Raja Gorh is not biological father of tissue. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record that other accused persons confined prosecutrix and hence all accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
Judgment Page No.6 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
15. On the other hand Ld Addl. PP submits that prosecutrix in all her statements categorically stated that accused Raja committed rape upon her and other accused persons confined her. It is argued that no material contradiction has come in testimony of prosecutrix and as such case against accused persons stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
16. I have given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced at bar and perused the entire material on record.
17. Versions of prosecutrix: Loose English Translation of initial statement of prosecutrix Ex. PW1/A reads as under:
"I am resident of aforesaid address. In West Bengal a person Poulas who resides in Susti Jot gets job in Delhi. Poulas left me at Haiskuhar, West bengal with Ranjeeta wife of David Munda. Ranjeeta Munda brought me at her office in Uttam Nagar, Delhi on 17.01.2017 and employed me in houses at Janakpuri, Chanakya Puri, Pritam Pura for a week. In Uttam Nagar office, there is one boy namely Raja Gorh who about two weeks ago established forcible physical relations with me in Uttam Nagar office. I informed about the act of accused Raja to Ranjeeta, Ramesh Munda and Judgment Page No.7 of17 SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
David Munda and stated that I do not want to work and to send me back to my house. But these people asked me to return the money spent on me and then they would send me to my house. David Munda then sent me with Ramesh to a house in Rana Pratap Bagh on 14th February. Raja Gorh forcibly established physical relations with me. Lawful action be taken against Raja Gorh, David Munda, Ramesh Munda and Ranjeeta."
18. English Translation of statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex PW1/C) dated 20.02.2017 reads as under:
"Agency people brought me to work. I am native of West Bengal. There is one boy Raja who is from Assam. On 14.01.2017 at about 7-8 pm, Raja did wrong act with me. Against my consent he had sex me. For complete night he was with me at House No. 44, Gali No. 3, Om Vihar, New Delhi and forcibly committed sex with me for three times. He told me not to say anything to anybody. I was not having any mobile and agency people were not allowing me to go out. Yesterday morning I went to PS Rana Pratap Bagh to report."
19. In her statement, prosecutrix deposed as under:
"I am native of West Bengal. On 14.01.2017, I came to Delhi with Ranjita Munda ... who came to my native village to bring me to Delhi for an employment. Ranjita and her husband David ...
Judgment Page No.8 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
kept me in their office at Uttam Nagar. One day, accused Raja .... who was working in the office of Ranjeeta committed rape upon me. Thereafter, Ranjeeta got me employed in a house at Janakpuri. There I worked for a week. Thereafter at Chankya Puri, Pitampura and Rana Pratap Bagh and at all places I worked for about a week. I came back to office of David & Ranjeeta and told them that I wanted to go back to my native village. Accused David & Ranjeeta along with Ramesh .... who was running the office of Ranjeeta started demanding money and told me to repay the amount which they have spent to bring me to Delhi. Then I lodged a complaint on 19.02.2017 against accused Raja at PS Rana Pratap Bagh but the case was transferred in present police station."
20. Prosecutrix testified that accused Raja who was working in the office of co-accused Ranjeeta committed rape upon her. During course of her cross-examination, she explained that accused Raja committed sexual assault on her after 4-5 days of her arrival to Delhi and at that time nobody else was present in that office.
21. Relevant portion of her cross-examination in respect of the incident reads as under:
Judgment Page No.9 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
"At the time of the incident accused Ramesh & David were out of station. Ranjeeta was out for market. After 2-3 hours Ranjeeta came from Market. In the night Ranjeeta, myself and accused Raja remained in the house and slept there. Accused established physical relations with me during the time when Ranjeeta was in market. Ranjeeta went at about 9 PM and came before 12 midnight. I did not raise any alarm when accused established physical relations with me. I did try to resist the act of accused by pushing him. Accused started touching me when I was sleeping. I did not resist when accused removed my clothes. When Ranjeeta returned I was awake. Accused threatened me as such, I did not disclose act of accused to Ranjeeta."
22. It is evident from the aforesaid deposition that prosecutrix did not try to resist the act of accused and did not resist when accused was removing her clothes. It is also evident that prosecutrix did not disclose act of accused to Ranjeeta when she came back from the market. Prosecutrix and was able bodied and had every opportunity to resist the act of accused but she did not do so nor did she make any complaint to Ranjeeta.
Judgment Page No.10 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
23. Though prosecutrix stated that accused threatened her as such she did not disclose act of accused to Ranjeeta but in her testimony of earlier versions prosecutrix did not narrate threat extended to her by accused nor explained extent of threat. Nonetheless, in her statement Ex PW1/C, prosecutrix stated that for complete night accused was with her and forcibly committed sex with her for three times but in her testimony she does not say that for entire night accused was with her rather stated that Ranjeeta came from market at 12 midnight.
24. After the alleged incident, prosecutrix was employed at Janakpuri where she worked for a week and thereafter at Chanakya Puri, Pitampura and Rana Pratap Bagh. Admittedly prosecutrix did not lodge complaint to police nor narrated incident to her employers. Though prosecutrix deposed that she could not muster courage to report matter to police as she was frightened but she has not explained as to how suddenly she overcome fear and mustered courage to make a report to police.
Judgment Page No.11 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
25. FSL result Ex F-1 in respect of comparison of DNA profiling of the tissue (conserved after medical termination of pregnancy of prosecutrix) and DNA extracted from blood of accused indicate that accused is not biological father of tissue.
26. Prosecutrix in her entire testimony did not say that she was in relationship with any other person prior or after the alleged incident. Her testimony indicates that she is concealing material facts as the forensic examination shows that accused was not the biological father of the tissue extracted from prosecutrix.
27. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr 2006 (10) SCC 92, Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating that in a rape case, accused could be convicted on sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is capable of inspiring the confidence in the mind of the Court, put a word of caution that the Court should be extremely careful while accepting the testimony when entire case is improbable and unlikely to have happened.
Judgment Page No.12 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
"It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the 'whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set; up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."
28. In 'Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam', (2010) 12 SCC 115, observing that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"Though the statement of prosecutrix must be given prime consideration, at the same time, broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there could be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. In the instant case, not only the testimony of the victim woman is highly disputed and unreliable, her testimony has been thoroughly demolished by the deposition of DW-1."
Judgment Page No.13 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
29. It is evident that though prosecutrix alleges her sexual assault after 4-5 days after coming to Delhi but she did not lodge any complaint against accused for more than the period of one month despite having opportunity to do so. Prosecutrix was not residing in the company of accused persons rather she was residing in different houses of her employers. Prosecutrix could have narrated the incident to them or at-least could have escaped from there to report incident to the police. Prosecutrix did neither.
FSL result Ex F-1 in respect of comparison of DNA profiling of the tissue (conserved after medical termination of pregnancy of prosecutrix) and DNA extracted from blood of accused indicate that accused is not biological father of the source of the tissue.
Thus, testimony of the prosecutrix is highly doubtful and unreliable.
Judgment Page No.14 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
30. Allegations against accused Ranjeeta, David & Ramesh Munda of confining prosecutrix: Prosecutrix alleged that accused Ranjeeta, David & Ramesh Munda were not allowing her to go out and then she went to PS Rana Pratap Bagh to report the matter. DD Nos 6PP & 7PP (Ex PW6/A & B) were recorded at PP Sangam Park, PS Sangam Vihar in respect of call by prosecutrix that she was forced to work in a house.
31. PW2 deposed that on 14.02.2017 Ramesh came along with prosecutrix at about 10 p.m for trial purpose for work of maid servant and after one or two days prosecutrix informed him that she is not interested in working and she wanted to talk to her parents and family. On 19.02.2017 at about 5 a.m police came to our house and took prosecutrix along with them.
32. Testimony of PW2 and DD entries Ex PW6/A & B indicate that prosecutrix was not in confinement of accused persons rather she was working as a maid in a house at Rana Judgment Page No.15 of17 SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
Pratap Bagh of PW2 Surender Gupta and from there she informed police that she was made to do wrong work. Prosecutrix also admitted to have worked in other houses in different localities.
Therefore, accused Ranjeeta, David & Ramesh Munda cannot be held guilty for confinement of prosecutrix.
33. From above stated discussions it emerges that :
i) Prosecutrix is native of West Bengal who came to Delhi in search of work.
ii) Prosecutrix was employed by accused Ranjeeta, David & Ramesh Munda in different houses.
iii) From testimony of prosecutrix it is evident that she did not raise any alarm or reported the incident on the date of alleged incident.
iv) There is substantial delay in lodging of FIR in respect of incident of sexual assault.
v) Forensic examination (Ex F-1) of DNA profiling of tissue extracted after medical termination of pregnancy of prosecutrix and blood sample of accused Raja Gorh exonerates accused Raja.
Judgment Page No.16 of17
SC No: 296/17 State Vs. Ramesh Munda & Ors.
vi) There is no evidence on record to suggest confinement of prosecutrix by accused Ranjeeta, David & Ramesh Munda.
34. Conclusion: In the light of above discussions, it is held that prosecution has failed to bring on record clear, cogent and consistent evidence against accused persons. Accordingly, they are acquitted. Their surety is discharged. Bail bond stands canceled. Accused persons are directed to furnish a personal & surety bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C which shall remain in force for period of six months. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 9th day of April, 2018.
GAUTAM Digitally signed by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2018.04.12 21:53:49 +0530
GAUTAM MANAN
Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC)
South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi
Judgment Page No.17 of17