Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 1 Of 55 ::- on 11 February, 2013
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010.
State
versus
Mr.Deepak Dogra son of Mr. Amar Singh,
Resident of H.No. 45, Gali No.3,
Veer Bazar Road, Gaurav Nagar,
Mubarakpur, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 295/10
Police Station Punjabi Bagh,
Under sections 376, 496, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 02.12.2010
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 17.01.2011.
in the Sessions Court
Date of transfer of the file to this Court : 16.01.2013.
{ASJ (SFTC)-01, West, THC, Delhi}.
Arguments concluded on : 11.02.2013.
Date of judgment : 11.02.2013.
Appearances: Mr.Anil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused on bail with counsel, Mr.Rahul Nagpal.
************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010
FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh,
Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 1 of 55 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
"To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her, man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart than woman?"----Mahatma Gandhi.
1. Rape is a dark reality in Indian society like in any other nation. This abnormal conduct is rooted in physical force as well as familiar and other power which the abuser uses to pressure his victim. Nor is abuse by known and unknown persons confined to a single political ideology or to one economic system. It transcends barriers of age, class, language, caste, community, sex and even family. The only commonality is power which triggers and feeds rape. Disbelief, denial and cover-up to "preserve the family reputation" are often then placed above the interests of the victim and her abuse. Rape is an abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the victim is known to the culprit, as in the present case, who is allegedly subjected to unwanted physical contact by a perverted male adult on the pretext of promise to marry and whose trust is betrayed by a man in whom she reposes maximum trust so much so as to surrender herself before him into a physical relationship and then following refusal, she is made to undergo a farce of marriage ceremony which neither is lawful nor valid marriage.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 2 of 55 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
2. "Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because of lately crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasize that the courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation." The Supreme Court has made the above observations in the judgment reported as State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, JT 1996 (10) SC 550.
PROSECUTION CASE
3. Mr. Deepak Dogra, the accused has been charge sheeted by Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi for the offence under sections 376/496/420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that during the period of two and half years from the date 06.10.2010 at the factory of the grandfather of the accused at A-Block-733, Madipur Village, Delhi and also at the house of prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) within the jurisdiction of Police Station Punjabi Bagh, he had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her free consent under the promise to marry her and this continued for about 2-2 ½ years. Secondly, on 10.08.2010, at Shiv Mandir, Pocket-II, Paschim Vihar with Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 3 of 55 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
fraudulent intention, he went through the ceremony of marriage with the prosecutrix knowing that they are not lawfully married.
CHARGE SHEET AND COMMITTAL
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 02.12.2010 and after its committal, the case was assigned to the Court of the learned predecessor vide order dated 17.01.2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. Further, the case has been transferred and assigned to this Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 16.01.2013 vide circular number 20/372-512/F.3. (4)/ASJ/01/2013 Dated 04.01.2013 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.
CHARGE
5. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 376/496 of the IPC was framed against the accused Mr.Deepak Dogra by the learned predecessor on 14.03.2011.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix as PW1; Pandit Ramesh Chand Tiwari, Pujari in Mandir as PW2; SI Rajbir Singh, duty officer who had recorded the formal FIR of the case, as PW3; Dr.Ajay Kumar, who had medically examined the prosecutrix and referred to Gynae Department, as PW4; Lady Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 4 of 55 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
Ct. Sneh Lata, who had taken the prosecutrix to SGM hospital for medical examination as PW5; HC Bhagwan Sahai, who is Malkhana Moharrar, as PW6; Mr. Vipin Sharma, photographer as PW7; Ct. Virender who had taken the pullandas to the FSL, as PW8; Ct. Ladu Ram, who had taken the accused to SGM hospital as PW9; Mr. Andul Qadir, father of prosecutrix as PW10; SI Hari Krishan, witness of investigation, as PW10; ASI Subeydeen, the first Investigation Officer of the case, as PW11; Ms. Vandana Jain, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who recorded the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), as PW12; and ASI Neelam, who is the second Investigation officer of the case, as PW13.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C.
7. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., recorded on 13.09.2012, the accused Deepak Dogra has controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against him submitting that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point. I have also carefully perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 5 of 55 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
9. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused Mr.Deepak Dogra for having committed the offence under sections 376 and 496 of the IPC and submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable.
10. The counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has requested for his acquittal submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused persons on the record. He has also placed reliance on the following judgments:
a) Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma versus State of Bihar & anr., Manu/SC/3266/2007
b) Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639,
c) Rana Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand decided on 17th August, 2009 (Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court) &
d) Sujit Kumar v. State, CASE OF THE PROSECUTION, ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS
11. The allegations against the accused are that he befriended the prosecutrix and it converted into love. Under the promise to marry, he raped her for about 2-2 ½ years from 06.10.2010 at the factory of his grandfather and the house of the prosecutrix. On query of marriage, accused used to tell the prosecutrix that he would marry her after the marriage of his sister. When the prosecutrix came to know that his sister has married on her own, she again asked the accused to marry her as she was pregnant also. He refused to marry her and told her to get an abortion. So she went to PP Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 6 of 55 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
Madipur on 24.07.2010 and narrated about the incident to the police officials who called the accused there and he admitted his guilt and assured to marry her but later again refused. She then again went to PP Madipur where the accused and his family came, apologized and told that whatever she wanted would be done. On 10.08.2010, at Shiv Mandir, Pocket-II, Paschim Vihar with fraudulent intention, he went through the ceremony of marriage with the prosecutrix knowing that they are not lawfully married.
12. The prosecution story unfolds with the filing of the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) of the prosecutrix/ complainant (PW1) on 06.10.2010 on the basis of which the rukka (Ex.PW13/A) was written on which the FIR (Ex. PW3/A) was lodged. The endorsement (Ex.PW3/B) was made on the complaint after the registration of the FIR and the investigation was marked to the IO ASI Neelam (PW13). The initial investigation was conducted by ASI Subey Deen (PW11) on the earlier complaints of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had made complaints (Ex.PW1/B to E) earlier also. The prosecutrix was sent with Lady Ct.Sneh Lata (PW5) and she was medically examined in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital by Dr.Ajay Kumar (PW4) vide MLC (Ex.PW4/A) and vide the detailed report of the Gynae doctor, who had medically examined the prosecutrix (Ex.PW16/A). The exhibits pertaining to the prosecutrix were seized by the Investigation Officer vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A). On the pointing out by the prosecutrix, accused Mr.Deepak Dogra was formally arrested on 06.10.2010 vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/G) and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex.PW9/A). Accused Mr.Deepak Dogra was sent with HC Bahadur and Ct.Laddu Ram (PW9) and he was Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 7 of 55 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
medically examined in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital by Dr.Ajay Kumar (PW4) vide MLC (Ex.PW4/B). The exhibits pertaining to the accused were seized by the Investigation Officer vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/B). The site plan (Ex.PW1/DA) was prepared on the pointing out by the prosecutrix. The accused and the prosecutrix were produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded (Ex. PW1/F) by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ms.Vandana Jain (PW12) on the application of the IO (Ex.PW13/B) and a copy of the statement was supplied on the application of the IO (Ex.PW12/C). On 06.10.2010, IO deposited six parcels along with sample seal with HC Bhagawan, MHC (M) (PW6) vide entry Number 4261 in register number 19 (PW6/A). On 07.10.2010, IO deposited two parcels along with sample seal with HC Bhagawan, MHC (M) (PW6) vide entry Number 4264 in register number 19 (PW6/B). On 02.11.2010, all the parcels of the case were sent by Ct. Virender (PW8) vide RC number 96/21/10 (Ex.PW6/C) to the FSL where they were examined vide the FSL reports vide biological and serological reports (Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D respectively). Photographs of the marriage (Ex.PW7/A1 to Ex.PW7/A4) with negatives (Ex.PW7/B1 to Ex.PW7/B4) were taken by Mr.Vipin Sharma, photographer (PW7) and were collected. The undergarments of the prosecutrix (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) were examined in the FSL.
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
13. PW1, the prosecutrix, has deposed on oath that during the period Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 8 of 55 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
of two and half years from the date 06.10.10 at the factory of grandfather of accused Deepak Dogra situated at Kumar Dhaba Madipur Village, Delhi called her and took her in a room there and tried to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and she refused. Deepak told her that he would marry her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix told Deepak first he should marry her but he replied that he would marry her after marriage of his sister. Thereafter, Deepak had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent forcibly. Deepak used to maintain sexual relations with the prosecutrix from that day onwards sometimes at her house and sometimes at the factory of his grandfather. This continued for about 2-2 ½ years. Thereafter the prosecutrix was pregnant by two months at that time from accused Deepak and accused Deepak told the prosecutrix to get her abortion done and stopped meeting her. Then she went to PP Madepur on 24.07.2010 and told the whole incident to the police officials there. Thereafter, the police officials called accused Deepak and he admitted his guilt there in the presence of police officials and took her along with him by telling police officials that he would marry her but after coming out of police post Madipur, accused refused to marry her and left her at her house. She again went to PP Madipur probably on 29.07.2010 to complain about accused Deepak. On 10.08.2010, the accused Deepak and his family members took her pocket-II, Shiv Mandir, Paschim Puri and there the accused Deepak put Sindoor in her parting and exchanged garlands but no Saptpadi took place. Thereafter, accused Deepak and his family members left Mandir after leaving her in the Mandir and she reached her house. She got so much harassed by the acts of the accused Deepak and his family members that she became physically weak and as a result her pregnancy got terminated on its Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 9 of 55 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
own. She lodged complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh and her statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded by the police. Accused Deepak had got her abortion done at one time more prior to this incident. She had also lodged several complaints before police officials (Ex.PW1/B, C, D and E). Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/F) was recorded. She along with police office about 2 ½ months thereafter went to the factory of Deepak near Tikona Park and there on her pointing out accused Deepak was arrested from the factory vide memo (Ex.PW1/G) and his personal search was conducted. She identified the undergarments as Ex.P1 and P2 respectively as the same were taken by the doctor at the time of medical examination.
14. PW2, Pandit Ramesh Chand Tiwari, Pujari in Shiv Mandir, Pocket-II, Paschim Puri, Delhi has deposed that on 10.08.2010, the accused Deepak along with the prosecutrix had come to the Mandir along with 7/8 more persons at about 4:30 p.m. and there accused and prosecutrix had exchanged the garlands. He objected to the same as no marriages are solemnized in the Mandir but they did not listen to him and told him that they would solemnize the marriage in court and thereafter they left the Mandir. On 27.10.2010, some police officials came to the Mandir and showed him photographs of accused and prosecutrix. He identified those photographs (Mark A1 to A4) which have been taken in the Mandir. No Saptpadi ceremony took place in their Mandir on that day.
15. PW3, SI Rajbir Singh, is the Duty officer who had recorded the FIR (Ex.PW3/A) on the basis of rukka which was produced by ASI Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 10 of 55 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
Neelam.
16. PW4, Dr.Ajay Kumar, had medically examined the prosecutrix and has prepared the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, he referred the patient to Gynae Department. He had also medically examined the accused Deepak Dogra and has prepared his MLC (Ex.PW4/B).
17. PW5, Lady Ct. Sneh Lata, is a witness of investigation. She has deposed that on 06.10.2010, she along with H.C. Bahadur Singh went to SGM Hospital for getting prosecutrix medically examined and after the medical examination, the doctor handed over six sealed parcels along with sample seal having seal of SGM Hospital which she handed to ASI Neelam who seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/A). She has further deposed that thereafter they all went to Madipur to a cloth factory and there accused Deepak was apprehended and after interrogation, he was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW1/G) and his personal search was also conducted and papers relating to his arrest was prepared.
18. PW6, H.C. Bhagwan Sahai, is also a witness of investigation. He has deposed that on 06.10.2010, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as MHC (M) and on that day W/ASI Neelam of PS Paschim Vihar deposited six sealed parcels along with sample seal having seal of SGM Hospital with respect to prosecutrix for which he made entry in register No. 19 at Sl. No. 4261.On 07.10.2010, W/ASI Neelam again deposited two sealed parcels along with sample seal having seal of SGM Hospital and articles of personal search of accused for which he made entry in register NO. 19 at Sl. No. Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 11 of 55 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
4264 (Ex.PW6/B). On 02.11.2010, total 8 sealed parcels along with two samples were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Virender vide RC No. 96/21/10 (Ex.PW6/C) for which he made entry in register No. 19 at Sl. No. 4261 (Ex.PW6/A).
19. PW7, Mr. Vipin Sharma, photographer, has deposed that he was running a photo studio by the name of Amit Photo Studio and four photographs (Ex.PW7/A1 to A4) have been clicked by him in Shiv Mandir when the accused Deepak and prosecutrix were putting garlands to each other and the accused Deepak was putting Sindoor in the parting of the prosecutrix. He has further deposed that he had handed over negatives of these photographs (Ex.PW7/B1to B4) to the police and police recorded his statement. He could not identify the person who came to call him to take the photographs.
20. PW8, Ct. Virender had taken the exhibits of this case from the Malkhana to FSL.
21. PW9, Ct. Ladu Ram is the witness of investigation and has deposed that he along with ASI Neelam and HC Bahadur Singh and W/Ct. Sneh Lata along with prosecutrix in search the accused Deepak Dogra. Accused Deepak Dogra was arrested on the pointing out of prosecutrix on the direction of IO. His arrest memo (Ex.PW1/G) and personal search (Ex.PW9/A) was prepared. On the direction of IO, he went to the SGM hospital for medical examination of accused Deepak Dogra. After the medical examination, the doctor handed over the exhibits of the accused to Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 12 of 55 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
him and he handed over the same to IO W/ASI Neelam which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/B). IO deposited the exhibits to MHCM.
22. PW10, Mr.Abdul Qadir, is the father of prosecutrix. He had deposed that his neighbor, accused Mr.Deepak Dogra, used to come to his house and used to talk to his daughter in his absence and when he saw accused in his house, he told the accused not to visit his house but accused did not pay any attention. Then he asked his daughter not to talk to him but she told him that accused has agreed to merry her and that he would marry her after marriage of his sister. After few days, he asked accused to marry his daughter when he came to know that sister of accused Deepak Dogra had done love marriage with somebody, accused Deepak Dogra did not reply in positive manner. His daughter went to the PP Madipur and lodged the complaint against the accused. Thereafter, the accused agreed to marry his daughter and after few days he came to know that accused and his daughter had married in a Mandir by exchange of garlands and photographs of marriage were also taken. Accused Deepak Dogra did not take his daughter to his house and left her at his house. Accused Deepak Dogra had committed fraud with his daughter by making false promise of marriage to her.
23. PW11, SI Hari Krishan, is the initial Investigation Officer of the case on the earlier complaints of the prosecutrix. He has deposed that on 24.07.2010, an inquiry was marked to ASI Subey Deen, emergency officer of PP Madipur on the complaint of the prosecutrix. ASI Subey Deen after conducting the inquiry had told him that the prosecutrix and the accused had compromised the matter. On 27.08.2010, one complaint bearing No. Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 13 of 55 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
116/SHO/Punjabi Bagh from the prosecutrix was again marked to ASI Subey Deen for inquiry. After inquiry, he prepared the report and sent the same to the prosecution branch for opinion on 29.09.2010 and the matter was discussed with the SHO, Punjabi Bagh and was marked to ASI Neelam for investigation. He handed over the inquiry file to the ASI Neelam. IO had recorded his statement.
24. PW11 (wrongly numbered) , ASI Subey Deen is the initial Investigation Officer of the case on the earlier complaints of the prosecutrix.. He has deposed that on 07.08.2010, the complainant came to PP Madipur and lodged a complaint Ex.PW1/C that accused Deepak had raped her for the last 2 or 2 ½ years and had promised her to marry after the marriage of his sister and that his sister had got married and accused Deepak Dogra was denying to marry her. On the complaint of the prosecutrix, he called Deepak along with his father to the PP Madipur and compromised the matter and the father of the accused told that Deepak will marry with the complainant and the statement of the prosecutrix in this respect are recorded Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW1/E. On 27.08.2010, the prosecutrix again made a complaint to the DCP West and lodged her complaint that accused Deepak had got married with her on 10.08.2010 but is not residing with the prosecutrix and living separately from her and along with his parents at Mubarakpur. On 30.08.2010, accused Deepak moved an application for his anticipatory bail but the same was dismissed on 31.08.2010 by the court. On 21.09.2010, statement of prosecutrix Ex. PW11/A, statement of photographer Ex.PW11/B and statement of Pandit Ex.PW11/C respectively were recorded and complaint along with statements were handed over I/C Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 14 of 55 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
PP Madipur.
25. PW12, Ms. Vandana Jain, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, has recorded the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/F). Application for recording the statement of prosecturix (Ex.PW12/B) was moved. Certificate of the proceedings (Ex.PW12/A) was given. IO has identified the prosecutrix.
26. PW13, ASI Neelam. She deposed that on 06.10.2010, on the direction of Sr. Officers, SI Hari Kishan handed over various complaints of prosecutrix Saleena Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E along with photocopy of affidavits, marriage agreement along with legal opinion statements of various persons recorded by ASI Subey Deen and various documents and further investigation was handed over to her. She further deposed that she recorded the statement of prosecutrix Saleena Ex.PW1/A and got her medical examination done through Lady Ct. Sneh Lata at SGM Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW4/A and after her medical examination doctor handed over six sealed parcels and one sample seal having seal of SGM Hospital to Lady Ct. Sneh Lata and she handed over the same to her which she seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. She made endorsement on rukka Ex.PW13/A and got a formal FIR registered through HC Bahadur. She also recorded the statement of father of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They searched the accused Deepak Dogra and accused was found at WZ-411, Madipur in a cloth factory and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/G and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/A. Accused was medically examined at SGM Hospital vide MLC Ex. PW4/B and after his Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 15 of 55 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
medical examination doctor handed over two sealed parcels along with sample seal having seal of SGM Hospital which she seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/B and also prepared site plan Ex.PW1/DA on the pointing out of prosecutrix and deposited the case property with MHCM. Accused was sent to judicial custody. Statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/F was recorded on 07.10.2010 and the IO obtained the copy of the same vide her application Ex.PW12/C. On 27.10.2010, she recorded the statement of Pandit Ramesh Chand Tiwari, Pujari in Shiv Mandir where prosecutrix stated to have got married with the accused Deepak Dogra and also recorded statement of photographer Vipin Sharma who photographed of marriage. On 02.11.2010, the parcels were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Virender vide RCNo. 96/21/10. FSL result is Ex.PW13/C and serological report is Ex.PW13/D and recorded the statement of various witnesses. After completing the investigation challan was filed.
27. The accused and his counsel have preferred not to cross examine PWs 3, 4, 11 and 12. Their evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to have been admitted as correct by the accused.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
28. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 16 of 55 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concretized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
29. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 17 of 55 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED
30. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused Mr.Deepak Dogra who has been identified by the prosecutrix. It is also not in dispute that they were known to each other prior to the lodging of the FIR.
AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
31. There is no dispute that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident.
VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED
32. The accused has been medically examined by Dr.Ajay Kumar (PW4) vide MLC (Ex.PW4/B) wherein it is opined that "There is nothing to suggest that the above person is incapable of performing sexual act)"
33. This report indicates that the accused is virile and is capable of performing sexual act and is capable of committing the act of rape.
MLC OF THE PROSECUTRIX AND FSL REPORTS
34. The MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW4/A) shows that the absence of hymen and mentions the history of sexual assault 2-2 ½ years back and is continuing since then.
35. PW4, Dr.Ajay Kumar has not been cross examined and therefore his testimony and the MLC of the prosecutrix stand impliedly admitted by Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 18 of 55 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
the accused.
35. Also the FSL reports (Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B) also show that human semen was detected on the underwear of the prosecutix. The same have not been disputed by the accused and stand impliedly admitted by the accused.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
36. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has given mainly three word answers by saying "It is incorrect" to most of the questions or feigning ignorance by saying "I do not know". He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix and her father for blackmailing him and to extort money from him and his family. The father of the prosecutrix, PW10, has not even been given such a suggestion in his cross examination. Except for a cursory suggestion to the prosecutrix to the same effect which has been denied by her, the accused has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence in support of his stand.
37. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no veracity in the defence of the accused.
STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX
38. It is necessary to discuss and analyse the testimony of the most material witness i.e. PW1, the prosecutrix.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 19 of 55 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
39. In the Court, during trial, the prosecutrix, as PW1, in her evidence, has deposed that has deposed on oath that during the period of two and half years from the date 06.10.10 at the factory of grandfather of accused Deepak Dogra situated at Kumar Dhaba Madipur Village, Delhi called her and took her in a room there and tried to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and she refused. Deepak told her that he would marry her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix told Deepak first he should marry her but he replied that he would marry her after marriage of his sister. Thereafter, Deepak had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent forcibly. Deepak used to maintain sexual relations with the prosecutrix from that day onwards sometimes at her house and sometimes at the factory of his grandfather. This continued for about 2-2 ½ years. Thereafter the prosecutrix was pregnant by two months at that time from accused Deepak and accused Deepak told the prosecutrix to get her abortion done and stopped meeting her. Then she went to PP Madepur on 24.07.2010 and told the whole incident to the police officials there. Thereafter, the police officials called accused Deepak and he admitted his guilt there in the presence of police officials and took her along with him by telling police officials that he would marry her but after coming out of police post Madipur, accused refused to marry her and left her at her house. She again went to PP Madipur probably on 29.07.2010 to complain about accused Deepak. On 10.08.2010, the accused Deepak and his family members took her pocket-II, Shiv Mandir, Paschim Puri and there the accused Deepak put Sindoor in her parting and exchanged garlands but no Saptpadi took place. Thereafter, accused Deepak and his family members left Mandir after leaving her in the Mandir and she reached her house. She got so much Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 20 of 55 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
harassed by the acts of the accused Deepak and his family members that she became physically weak and as a result her pregnancy got terminated on its own. She lodged complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh and her statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded by the police. Accused Deepak had got her abortion done at one time more prior to this incident. She had also lodged several complaints before police officials (Ex.PW1/B, C, D and E). Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/F) was recorded. She along with police office about 2 ½ months thereafter went to the factory of Deepak near Tikona Park and there on her pointing out accused Deepak was arrested from the factory vide memo (Ex.PW1/G) and his personal search was conducted. She identified the undergarments as Ex.P1 and P2 respectively as the same were taken by the doctor at the time of medical examination.
40. In her cross examination by the accused, she has deposed that she had come to Delhi with her Chacha and Chachi (paternal uncle and his wife) about four years ago (date of evidence is 11.07.2011) and she stayed with them. Her father stayed there for about two years and they had taken a rented room in the same house as her Chacha and there were 8-9 rooms in the house. She stayed with her father in one room which was on the first floor while her Chacha was in the other room. Her Chacha and father used to leave at the same time at about 8 am. Her father used to return at about 5 pm. Her Chachi is a housewife. She (prosecutrix) used to leave for her job in Jai Mata factory situated at Madipur village, whose owner was Mr.Surender Kumar. Accused used to live at a very short distance from her house in the same gali (road/street) with his family. She did not disclose Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 21 of 55 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
about her affair with the accused to her family members during the entire period and even to the parents of the accused. She could not tell the name and address of the factory of the grandfather of the accused nor the number of persons working in it. She had met/seen the grandfather of the accused but never talked to him nor had he asked her anything. She was 20 years old when the affair between her and the accused had started. She had not got abortion done in any hospital but the accused had brought her pills of abortion on two occasions. She had lodged 5-6 complaints. She has admitted to be correct that she knew at the time of her love affair that the accused is Hindu by religion and she is a Muslim. She did not want to change her religion. She was not legally married to the accused. She has admitted that she had put garland on the accused and he had put garland on her. She has admitted that he had put sindoor on her head. She did not know that there could not ne a valid marriage until the change of religion. She has admitted the photographs taken in the temple. After the ceremonies in the temple, she went to her house. She has denied the numerous suggestions given to her on behalf of the accused.
41. In her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), she has leveled allegations similar to her evidence.
42. In her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has leveled allegations similar to her evidence that the accused under the promise to marry her after his sister's marriage developed physical relations with her and then refused to marry her. She had three abortions. In order to save himself in a criminal case, he took her to Shiv Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 22 of 55 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
temple where her photographs were taken and then she was left outside the temple.
43. Section 375 of the IPC enumerates six circumstances wherein the sexual intercourse committed amounts to rape which read as under:
First - Against her will.
Secondly - Without her consent.
Thirdly - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly - With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
CONSENT OF THE PROSECUTRIX
44. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
45. It may be observed here that consent is an act of reason coupled with deliberation, after the mind has weighed the good and evil on each side in a balanced manner. Consent denotes an active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of an act complained off. Consent on the part of a woman, as a defence to an allegation of rape, requires voluntary Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 23 of 55 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
participation, not only after the exercise of intelligence, based on the knowledge of the significance and the moral quality of the act, but after having freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent.
46. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecutrix, her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) as well as her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she has stated all through out that the accused developed physical relations with her on the promise to marry her after the marriage of his sister. Had he not so promised, she would not have allowed him to have physical relations with her.
47. After the marriage of the sister of the accused, he refused to marry her and broke his promise on which she was left with no other course but to make a complaint against him to the police.
48. Prosecutrix reacted immediately upon coming to know that the accused has broken his promise to marry her and had been establishing sexual relations with her on the basis of false promise, implying thereby that her consent for the sexual act was obtained under a misconception of fact, thus constituting rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC.
49. The veracity of the testimony of the prosecutrix remained unshattered and unimpeached despite lengthy cross examination. She deposed that the accused continued to establish sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 24 of 55 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judicial
pronoucements has also laid down that the deposition of the prosecutrix in a rape case is vital and can be relied upon without looking for any corroboration if the testimony of prosecutrix is otherwise credible and inspires confidence.
51. In the case reported as State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1393(1), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.......The courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges on rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
52. The accused and his counsel have relied upon following judgments in support of the arguments that the offence of rape is not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case:
a) Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma versus State of Bihar & anr., Manu/SC/3266/2007
b) Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639,
c) Rana Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand decided Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 25 of 55 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
on 17th August, 2009 (Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court) &
53. I have carefully perused the same in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
54. In its landmark judgment in Uday vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" There is no strait jacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact. 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".
55. In the above referred case the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the consent given by the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love, who had promised that he would marry her at later date cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.
56. This view of Hon'ble Apex Court was again followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar, AIR 2005 SC 2003, where it was held that where prosecutrix was raped with her consent even before promise to marry was given, consent by victim girl cannot be said to be given on misconception under Section 90 IPC.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 26 of 55 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
57. In the case of Manish Kumar Jayant vs. State & Anr., 2005(3) JCC 1611 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court also relied upon the cases of Uday and Deelip Singh vs. State of Bihar and observed that the offence of rape is not made out on the allegations that physical relations developed between the prosecutrix and the accused out of a love affair and it is only subsequent to the such relations that the accused had promised to marry her which remained unfulfilled.
58. However, in the case of Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar, AIR 2005 SC 2003, the Hon'ble High Court further observed that "In other words, if the promise to marry the prosecutrix was only to seduce the prosecutrix to the sexual act, sexual intercourse on consent so derived would be an offence of rape."
59. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Superior Courts, it is apparent that where the sexual relations between the victim and the accused arise out of a love affair and subsequently accused fails to fulfill his promise to marry the victim, the offence of rape cannot be said to be made out in such circumstances. However, the present case, in my opinion, stands on a totally different footing.
60. A view which is likely to result in vicitimization or exploitation of innocent girls needs to be avoided and the Courts need to take a view which would discourage unscrupulous from taking advantage of innocent girls by alluring them and having physical relations with them on a false promise of marriage. If a view otherwise is taken, it will amount to putting premium on the mis-conduct of a men which is not only highly reprehensible and Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 27 of 55 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
abhorable but also criminal in nature. If this allowed to happened it will enable immoral and dishonest persons to exploit girls by alluring them with a false promise of marriage, pressurizing them to have physical relations with them by making them believe that they are going to marry them and there is nothing wrong in having relations with a person who is very soon going to be her husband and later on turn their back at her in a comfortable belief that the law being on their side, they can easily get away with their misdeeds. The Court can not and should not give such a licence to those who keep on looking for opportunities to exploit the sentiments and vulnerability of Indian girls who perceive marriage as a pious bonding and not as a union of two bodies. Allowing such persons to go scott free after exploiting poor and helpless girls in this manner could not have been the intention of the legislature which considered rape to be such heinous as to attract imprisonment upto life.( Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 01.02.2010 in Nikhil Parasar versus The State Govt NCT Of Delhi in bail application no.1745/2009.)
61. Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 04.01.2013 in Dilroze Ahmed versus State in bail application no.5/2013 dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused in a case similar to the present case, where the accused giving promise to marry had physical relations with the prosecutrix and later refused to marry her.
62. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 05.01.2012 in Chanchal versus State & anr., in Crl. Rev.P. No. 366 of 2008 upheld the order of framing the charge for the offence under section 376 IPC where the Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 28 of 55 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
accused on the promise to marry had physical relations with the prosecutrix and later refused to marry her.
63. In Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma versus State of Bihar & anr., Manu/SC/3266/2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to misconception of fact within the meaning of Section 90, I.P.C., it needs to be clarified that a representation deliberately made by the accused with a view to elicit the assent of the victim without having the intention or inclination to marry her, will vitiate the consent. If on the facts it is established that at the very inception of the making of promise, the accused did not really entertain the intention of marrying her and the promise to marry held out by him was a mere hoax, the consent ostensibly given by the victim will be of no avail to the accused to exculpate him from the ambit of Section 375 of the IPC clause second.
64. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported as Yedla Srinivasa Rao versus State of A.P (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 615 observed that value of consent when obtained under misconception by playing fraud by the accused by making a false promise to marry which he never intended to fulfill then such fraudulent consent cannot be said to be a consent so as to condoned the offence of the accused and such consent was of no consequence. The act fail in the second category as numerated section 375 of the IPC (sexual intercourse without consent of victim). The conviction and sentencing of the accused under section 376 IPC were held to be justified.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 29 of 55 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
65. The prosecutrix 'K' being a young girl of impressionable age (she was about 20 years old) was kept under false promise of marriage by the accused. She deposed before the Court that the accused who was living in her neighbourhood got acquainted to her and their acquaintance converted into love. He told her that he loved her very much and tried to have physical relations with her which she resisted. Then he told her that he would marry her after the marriage of his sister and had physical relations with her which he continued for about 2- 2 ½ years. On the assurance that he would marry her, he raped her. Even after the marriage of his sister, he did not marry her. On learning that she is pregnant, he told her get an abortion done and refused to marry her. She went to the police station on 24.07.2010 and gave her complaint (Ex.PW1/D) where he was called and assured her that he will marry her on which the prosecutrix mentioned that they have compromised and he would marry her. But he did not marry her. Then she gave her complaint on 07.08.2010 (Ex.PW1/C) where again he assured that he will marry her but did not marry her. Then she gave her complaint to the DCP, West (Ex.PW1/B) but he did not marry her in a legal and valid manner. On 10.08.2010, she was taken by the accused and his family to Shiv temple where they exchanged garlands and he put sindoor in her head (which is not a proper marriage) and photographs of the same were taken.
66. All these facts indicate that since the beginning of relationship with the prosecutrix, he did not have any intention to marry her although he promised to marry her and has only exploited her by having physical relations with her for about 2- 2 ½ years. Had she known that he would not Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 30 of 55 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
marry her, she would not have had any physical relationship with him . Her so called consent for physical relations is based on misconception and is neither free nor voluntary and therefore, the same amounts to rape, as defined under section 375 of the IPC.
67. It has been argued that there is a discrepancy in the number of abortions suffered by the prosecutrix in her different statements which indicates that no offence has been committed. However, I am of the considered opinion that the accused has not been charged for the offence under section 313 of the IPC and even the application for the said purpose by the prosecution had been dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2013, this contention of the counsel for the accused is of no help to the accused as the issue is not the number of abortions but whether the prosecutrix was rape under the garb of promise to marry or whether the physical relationship was with free consent.
68. Similarly, the argument made on behalf of the accused that the prosecutrix as PW1 has deposed that her own family was not aware about the affair while her father as PW10 has deposed that he was aware about the same and had seen the accused in his house had objected about and accused did not pay any attention while his daughter had told him that the accused would marry her after the marriage of his sister.
69. Here, it may be observed that a father of a daughter who has been made to have physical relations under a promise to marry and later refused would in his anxiety say more than required but it does not wash Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 31 of 55 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
away the evidence of the prosecutrix.
70. It has also been argued that all the details are not mentioned in the complaints (Ex.PW1/A to E) and this makes the prosecution version unbelievable. It seems that the same is not tenable as the first complaint was given by her to the police in haste on 24.07.2010, when the accused refused to marry her. All the details find mention in her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.PC, which was the first occasion when the prosecutrix gave her statement before the Court of learned Magistrate and then in her evidence. In my considered opinion, not much relevance can be attached to the fact that all the details are not mentioned in the first complaint, in view of the fact that the prosecutrix was never confronted with the question in her entire cross examination on behalf of the accused. The fact that the prosecutrix was neither cross examined on this aspect nor confronted with her complaint in this respect would imply that the details are not disputed.
71. Moreover, it is well settled law that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of facts of any case. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as Rajinder @ Lala & etc. vs. State reported as 2010 Crl.L.J. 15, wherein it has been categorically held that "It is no longer res integra that it is not the requirement of law that every minute detail of the occurrence needs to be recorded in the FIR. The FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario of the crime.........The legal principle which can be culled out is that the omission of material facts Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 32 of 55 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
pertaining to the crime in the FIR is a relevant factor in judging the veracity of the evidence of the maker of the FIR but by itself is not sufficient to throw the evidence of the said witness. If the evidence of said witness is otherwise found to be credible, the omission in the FIR is of no consequence."
72. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. It may be mentioned here that the period is 2-2 ½ years prior to 06.10.2010 that the accused continued to have sexual relations with her on the pretext of marrying her after the marriage of his sister. From her deposition, it is clear that the accused kept on assuring her that he would marry her only. W.e.f. 24.07.2010 to 06.10.2010 when she was coming to the police with her complaints that the accused kept assuring her of marriage and even his family joined in the assurance.
73. Therefore, upon a complete and careful reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that the prosecutrix remained under the impression that the accused is going to fulfill his promise of marrying her. Infact, he had no such intention and has only exploited the prosecutix.
74. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgments relied upon by accused have no application to the present case, they being totally distinguishable on facts.
75. In the present case, it is not the plea of the accused that the prosecutrix consented to establish sexual relations with the accused as she was in love with him. Not even a single suggestion to this effect was given Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 33 of 55 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
to the prosecutrix during her entire cross examination. Rather, from the deposition of the prosecutrix, it has been established on record that the accused established sexual relations with the prosecutrix after keeping her under a false promise that he would marry her. She continued to have sexual relations with the accused believing his promise to be true though the accused apparently made promise to marry the prosecutrix only to seduce her into the physical relationship and in fact never intended to marry her. In such circumstances, it is certainly not a case where the consent of the prosecutrix can be said to be free or voluntary and not based on misconception.
76. It is chrystal clear from the unshaterred evidence of the prosecutrix that the accused during the period of two and half years from the date 06.10.2010 at the factory of his grandfather called her and took her in a room there and tried to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and she refused. He told her that he would marry her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix told Deepak first he should marry her but he replied that he would marry her after marriage of his sister. Thereafter, the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent forcibly. The accused used to maintain sexual relations with the prosecutrix from that day onwards sometimes at her house and sometimes at the factory of his grandfather. This continued for about 2-2 ½ years. Thereafter the prosecutrix was pregnant by two months at that time from the accused and he told her to get her abortion done and stopped meeting her thereby refusing to marry her.
77. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 34 of 55 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
prosecution is fully reliable, believable and trustworthy regarding the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution has successfully established the commission of the offence of rape.
78. Consequently, in the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC clearly proved to have been committed by the accused considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
SECTION 496 OF THE IPC
79. Section 496 of the IPC reads as follows:
496. Marriage ceremony fraudulentrly gone through without lawful marriage-Whoever dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention,goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years,and shall also be liable to fine.
80. In the present case, it is alleged against the accused that on 10.08.2010, at Shiv Mandir, Pocket-II, Paschim Vihar with fraudulent intention, he went through the ceremony of marriage with the prosecutrix knowing that they are not lawfully married.
81. Needless to mention here that the accused is a Hindu and the prosecutrix is a Muslim and the two could not have married unless one of them converted to the religion of the other or they got married under the Special Marriage Act.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 35 of 55 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
82. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecutrix that a farce of marriage ceremony was conducted in the temple by the accused and the prosecutrix exchanging garlands and the accused putting sindoor on the head of the prosecutrix (which is also admitted by the accused in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.). This indicates that the accused never had any intention to marry her. Knowing fully well that he is a Hindu and the prosecutrix is a Muslim and the fact that the marriage cannot be solemnized without a priest (pandit), the accused went ahead with the farce of the marriage ceremony even after being told by PW2 that the marriage is not performed in that temple. He even took photographs to show that he had married the prosecutrix.
83. It is clear that neither this farce of marriage ceremony gives it any legality in the eyes of law or the religions of both the accused and the prosecutrix nor it is a valid marriage.
84. It is clear that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 496 of the IPC.
MENS REA / MOTIVE
85. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 36 of 55 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
86. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unnameable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
87. In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 37 of 55 ::-
-:: 38 ::-
relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
88. In the present case, a story has been projected that the accused has raped the prosecutrix and this version appears to be true as there is no reason why he would promise to marry her in order to have physical relations and then refuse to marry her. Further, the farce of marriage which he conducted in the temple by exchanging garlands and putting sindoor on the head of the prosecutrix (which is admitted by the accused in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.) alos shows of his ill intention to marry her. Knowing fully well that he is a Hindu and the prosecutrix is a Muslim and the fact that the marriage cannot be solemnized without a priest (pandit), the accused went ahead with the farce of the marriage ceremony even after being told by PW2 that the marriage is not performed in that temple. He even took photographs to show that he had married the prosecutrix. There does appear to be criminal intention and mens rea on the part of the accused.
INVESTIGATION
89. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by PWs 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 (SI Hari Krishan), 11 (ASI Subeydeen) and Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 38 of 55 ::-
-:: 39 ::-
13. The FIR has been proved by PW3. The MLCs of the prosecutrix and the accused have been proved by PW4. The FSL reports have been proved by PW13. There is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has not been conducted properly, fairly and impartially.
90. The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second IOs. They have clearly deposed that they were informed about the rape of the prosecutrix; the accused as well as the prosecutrix were taken to the hospital for their medical examination; accused was arrested; documents pertaining to his arrest were prepared; parcels of the accused and the prosecutrix were seized; medical documents were prepared; parcels were collected from the doctor and sent to the FSL for examination; etc. There is nothing on the record to show that their testimonies are false or not reliable.
91. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation. Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of PW1, then the investigation becomes less important as PW1 has not only deposed regarding the manner of commission of the crime but has also elaborated all the details and has assigned a clear and specific role to the accused.
92. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 39 of 55 ::-
-:: 40 ::-
not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
93. It may also be observed here that the accused has also failed to show that he is not the person who had raped the prosecutrix under the promise to marry and made her go through a farce of marriage ceremony which is not lawful and valid. He has also failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim or falsify the prosecution version or show that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable and credible.
CONCLUSION
94. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
95. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 40 of 55 ::-
-:: 41 ::-
should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
96. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the evidence of the prosecution especially the prosecutrix is reliable, believable and trustworthy and the prosecution has established the case of wrongful confinement, rape, threat and simple hurt. The facts of the case are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
97. The prosecution has successfully proved that during the period of two and half years from the date 06.10.2010 at the factory of the grandfather of the accused at A-Block-733, Madipur Village, Delhi and also at the house of prosecutrix, the accused Mr.Deepak Dogra had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her free consent under the promise to marry her and this continued for about 2-2 ½ years. Secondly, on 10.08.2010, at Shiv Mandir, Pocket-II, Paschim Vihar with fraudulent intention, he went through the ceremony of marriage with the prosecutrix knowing that they are not lawfully married.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 41 of 55 ::-
-:: 42 ::-
98. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, MLC, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to build up a continuous link. All the facts relevant in respect of the offences punishable under sections 376 and 496 of the IPC have been properly proved.
99. In view of the foregoing reasons, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Deepak Dogra regarding the commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 496 of the IPC.
100. Accordingly, the accused, Mr.Deepak Dogra, is hereby convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 376 and 496 of the IPC.
101. Let him be heard of the point of sentence.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 42 of 55 ::-
-:: 43 ::-
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
this 11th day of February, 2013. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************ Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 43 of 55 ::- -:: 44 ::- IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013. Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010. State versus Mr.Deepak Dogra son of Mr. Amar Singh,
Resident of H.No. 45, Gali No.3, Veer Bazar Road.
Gaurav Nagar, Mubarakpur, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 295/10 Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 02.12.2010 the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Date of receipt of file after committal : 17.01.2011. In the Sessions Court Date of transfer of the file to this Court : 16.01.2013. {ASJ (SFTC)-01, West, THC, Delhi}.
Date of judgment : 11.02.2013. Date of conclusion of arguments on sentence : 11.02.2013. Date of order on sentence : 11.02.2013.
Appearances: Mr.Anil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict in judicial custody.
Mr.Rahul Nagpal, counsel for the convict.
*********************************************************** ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. In pursuance of judgment dated 11.02.2013 as passed by this Court convicting the accused namely Mr.Deepak Dogra for offence Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 44 of 55 ::-
-:: 45 ::-
punishable under sections 376 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), I have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the convict on the point of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convict and also perused the case record.
2. It has already been observed in the judgment that this case is a glaring example of the growing menace of sexual abuse. Rape is an abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the victim is subjected to unwanted physical contact by a perverted male adult who on the assurance and promise to marry had physical relationship with her and then refused to marry her and further, in order to save himself, went through a farce of marriage ceremony knowing that the same is neither lawful nor valid.
3. "The psychological harm on the victim is massive as it evokes doubts, raises questions for which answers are not easy to get. The victim may suppress emotions or be filled with feelings of rage, guilt and shame. It is difficult for such victims to trust others later on in life. The victim needs to stand up for himself/herself and not allow the trauma to make them psychologically and socially weak. Active social support from family, friends, guidance centres and counselors can bring the victim's faith in the goodness of human beings back." ---Dr.Sanjay Chugh, Senior Consulting Psychiatrist.
4. The victim lacks self-confidence and is always under a sense of guilt and denial. It's not about the body. It's more about the mind. Sexual Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 45 of 55 ::-
-:: 46 ::-
abuse is a rape of the mind and thought processes.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that he does not deserve any leniency keeping in view the offence committed by him.
6. The convict and his counsel, on the other hand, have requested for a lenient view to be taken against him and for his release on probation as the convict hails from a modest family. He is an unmarried young man, aged about 21 years. He was working as an employee in a factory. He lives with his parents and his father is financially independent. He is in custody w.e.f. 06.10.2010 to 12.10.20111. He is a first offender and has never committed any offence earlier. It is also submitted that he shall not commit any offence in future.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions from both the sides, the family circumstances of the convict and perusing the case record, I consider it proper to award a substantive sentence upon the convict. Rape in itself is abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the convict under the guise of promise to marry the prosecutrix has violated her person and soul by having physical relationship wfor about 2-2 ½ years and then refused to marry her. In order to save himself from a criminal case, he went through farce of a marriage ceremony also knowing that the same is neither lawful nor valid. He has subjected the prosecutrix to unwanted physical contact by a perverted male adult as had she known that he would not marry her, he would not have surrendered herself to him into a Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 46 of 55 ::-
-:: 47 ::-
physical relationship. Her conset was obtained by fraud and on mis- conception of facts.
8. Keeping in view the offence committed by the convict, I am not inclined to take a lenient view against him and release him on probation. He has raped a young woman who was helpless, defenceless, vulnerable and an easy prey. He has violated the very sanctity of the relationship between them.
9. I am of the considered opinion that the convict should be awarded a substantive, stern and firm sentence because he has defiled her. As per social morality which attaches highest importance to the chastity of a woman, the outrage and breach of her privacy and modesty is a heinous offence. Keeping into consideration the fact that the act of rape is an act of a perverted man, the minimum sentence provided of seven years or a lesser imprisonment should not be awarded to the convict. I do not find any mitigating factors. The
10. The object of sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The welfare and interest of other women in the society also needs to be protected for the reason that if the convict is Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 47 of 55 ::-
-:: 48 ::-
released, they may be subjected by him in a similar offence with them.
11. It has been held in the judgment reported as State of Karnataka v. Raju, 2007 (11) SCC 490, as follows:
"The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused . It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent. ? To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The legislative mandate to impose a sentence, for the offence of rape on a girl under
12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life and also to fine reflects the intent of stringency in sentence."
12. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats.
13. In AIR 2000, Supreme Court, 1470, the Supreme Court held has under:
Socio-economic, status, religion, race caste or creed o the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 48 of 55 ::-
-:: 49 ::-
facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court.
14. In the judgment reported as Shri Bodhisattwa Gautm v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:"
The entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions."
15. In the present case, the convict has committed rape on a pregnant young woman. Due to her medical condition and the threat extended to her by the convict, she was in a position to offer much resistance to the convict. The convict has taken advantage of a helpless and defenceless vulnerable prey. She must have undergone immense physical pain and agony when the offence was committed. The convict went on to commit the ghastly, abominable, inhuman and barbaric act of rape, violating her person and giving her a lifelong trauma.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 49 of 55 ::-
-:: 50 ::-
16. A view which is likely to result in vicitimization or exploitation of innocent girls needs to be avoided and the Courts need to take a view which would discourage unscrupulous from taking advantage of innocent girls by alluring them and having physical relations with them on a false promise of marriage. If a view otherwise is taken, it will amount to putting premium on the mis-conduct of a men which is not only highly reprehensible and abhorable but also criminal in nature. If this allowed to happened it will enable immoral and dishonest persons to exploit girls by alluring them with a false promise of marriage, pressurizing them to have physical relations with them by making them believe that they are going to marry them and there is nothing wrong in having relations with a person who is very soon going to be her husband and later on turn their back at her in a comfortable belief that the law being on their side, they can easily get away with their misdeeds. The Court can not and should not give such a licence to those who keep on looking for opportunities to exploit the sentiments and vulnerability of Indian girls who perceive marriage as a pious bonding and not as a union of two bodies. Allowing such persons to go scott free after exploiting poor and helpless girls in this manner could not have been the intention of the legislature which considered rape to be such heinous as to attract imprisonment upto life.( Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 01.02.2010 in Nikhil Parasar versus The State Govt NCT Of Delhi in bail application no.1745/2009.)
17. Sexual violence apart from the being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 50 of 55 ::-
-:: 51 ::-
It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) the Courts, are therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A society sensitized judge is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions (Reliance can be placed upon 2004 IX AD (S.C.) 5 and Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922).
18. Recently, crime against women generally and rape in particular is on the increase and the society also appears to be concerned for the honour of women. In this backdrop, this Court is required to treat the issue with more sensitivity. The object of sentence is not only required to be reformative but it should also be punitive, preventive and deterrent. The offences against women are on a rise and there is an urgent need to curb this tendency by awarding deterrent punishment to perpetrators of this grave offence.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 51 of 55 ::-
-:: 52 ::-
19. In the present case, the act of the convict is most deplorable, both legally and morally. It is time for realization that certain category of sexually depraved behaviour is totally unacceptable in the Indian Socio- Legal System which seeks to protect the chastity the first virtue of a woman and such behaviour can prove to be costly as has happened in the present case. The victim is a young woman who reposed trust in the convict and on his promise to marry him surrendered before him into a physical relationship which lasted for about 2-2 ½ years. Then the convict shattered her faith and trust in him and refused to marry her. When she approached the police, he went through a farce of marriage ceremony which neither is lawful nor valid.
20. Keeping in view the ghastly and inhuman act of the convict, a substantive and stern sentence is required to be imposed upon the convict so that it is not only in commensuration with the gravity of the crime but also serves as an example for the others who might also venture on the same forbidden path. The convict does not deserve any leniency.
21. Therefore, considering these aggravating facts, I hereby sentence Mr.Deepak Dogra, the convict as follows:
1. for offence under section 376 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; and
2. for offence under section 496 of the IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine in the Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 52 of 55 ::-
-:: 53 ::-
sum of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
22. All the sentences shall run concurrently, in the event of the fine not being realized.
23. Benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules. The convict is in judicial custody. He is sent to judicial custody for serving the remaining sentence.
24. The entire amount of fine, if realized, is awarded to the prosecutrix as compensation for the benefit of the prosecutrix.
25. Further, this Court directs that the State shall pay to the prosecutrix/victim a sum of Rs.One lac as victim compensation in terms of Rules 3 and 5 read with Entry 2 to the schedule of the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme 2011 (notified on 02.02.2012) read with section 357- A of the Cr.P.C. The terms of the scheme entitle every rape victim to minimum compensation of Rs.2 lacs and a maximum compensation of Rs.3 lacs. Having regard to the facts of the case and the circumstances of the prosecutrix/victim, the Government of NCT is directed to pay the said maximum amount of Rs.one lac to the victim. 75 % of the amount shall be deposited in a fixed deposit, in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheme, in a nationalized bank for a period of three years and the remaining 25 % shall be available for utilization and initial expenses by the victim/prosecutrix. Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 53 of 55 ::-
-:: 54 ::-
26. These directions shall be complied within six weeks. The Delhi Legal Services Authority, which is the designated body under the said Scheme, shall oversee the implementation of these directions. The State shall ensure that the victim is duly informed within one week. The victim shall appear the Delhi Legal Services Authority on 25.02.2013 for the said purpose.
27. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
28. A copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2013 and a copy of the or- der on sentence dated 11.02.2013, duly attested, besides the complete set of copy of the relevant case record, in compliance of directions of the High Court, be given to the convict, namely, Mr.Deepak Dogra, free of cost im- mediately.
29. A copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2013 and a copy of the or- der on sentence dated 11.02.2013 also be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 54 of 55 ::-
-:: 55 ::-
30. Before parting, I would also like to observe that Mr.Anil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr.Rahul Nagpal, advocate, counsel for the convict in this case have made very sincere and laborious efforts in this case with their very able assistance and regular appearance, thereby enabling the Court to dispose the matter expeditiously.
31. After completion of the formalities and expiry of the period of limitation, the ahlmad is directed to consign the file to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 11th day of February, 2013. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************ Sessions Case Number : 57 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0559232010 FIR No. 295/10, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Under sections 376, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Deepak Dogra. -:: Page 55 of 55 ::-