Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Inderjeet @ Kala S/O Lt. Khyali Ram on 11 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.164/13
Unique Case ID No.02405R0198762013
State Vs. 1. Inderjeet @ Kala s/o Lt. Khyali Ram
R/o Bakkarwala Village,
Near Holi Chowk,New Delhi.
2. Nitin Sehrawat s/o Sh. Rakesh
House No. 255, Bakkarwala Village,
Near Holi Chowk, New Delhi.
3. Bijender @ Virender s/o Mahender Singh
House No. 255, Bakkarwala Village,
Near Holi Chowk, New Delhi.
Date of Institution :09.07.2013.
FIR No.88/13 dated 11.04.2013.
U/s. 328/376D IPC.
P.S. Najafgarh.
Date of reserving judgment/Order :03.12.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 11.12.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The three accused Inderjeet @ Kala, Nitin Sehrawat and Bijender @ Virender have been charge sheeted by the prosecution for the offences u/s 328/376(D) IPC.
2. As per the case of prosecution, an information had been received in the police station on 10.4.2013 at 9.30 pm to the effect that a girl is lying unconscious at Najafgarh, Nangloi Road, Near Udaseen Ashram, Near Gurudwara. The information was SC No.164/13 Page 1 of 26 recorded as DD No.68B and was intimated to SI Raj Singh for suitable action. SI Raj Singh reached the spot and found the prosecutrix 'S' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her identity) there who told him that she was left there by some boys after raping her. PCR officials also reached the spot who removed the prosecutrix to RTRM Hospital. Meanwhile, on the directions of the senior officers, SI Sunita alongwith constable Devraj also reached RTRM Hospital. She collected the MLC of the prosecutrix. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted in the hospital and the sealed exhibits as well as sample seal were seized by SI Sunita. Thereafter she recorded her statement wherein prosecutrix mentioned that accused Inderjeet, who is her fiancée, as their engagement has been performed on 18.2.2013, through her maternal aunt (mausi) namely Krishna, had committed sexual intercourse with her at her house against her consent and after ten days, he has refused to marry her. She further stated that on 10.4.2013, her maternal aunt Krishna had brought her from her house in village Gubana, District Jhajjar, Haryana to her own house (Krishna's house) at village Bakkarwala saying that her court marriage would be performed with Inderjeet. She remained in Krishna's house till 3.30 pm and then accused Inderjeet alongwith accused Nitin (s/o Krishna's brother in law and accused Bijender (son of S's another Mausi Kanta) came there. She left alongwith the three accused in accused Inderjeet's white colour Alto car so that they would drop her at her house at Village Ghubana. The accused offered her cold drink at about 4 pm at Bakkarwala stand on taking which her hands and feet became motionless and thereafter all the three accused committed rape upon her one by one in the moving car which was being driven SC No.164/13 Page 2 of 26 through Hiran Kudna Village. Thereafter she was thrown out of the car in a gali in Najafgarh at about 8.45 pm or 9 pm and the accused left.
3. FIR was registered on the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix. All the three accused came to be arrested. The Maruti Alto Car of white colour bearing registration No.DL2CN-4245, which was used in the commission of offence was seized. Medical examination of all the three accused was got conducted and the exhibits given by the doctors were seized. Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. The Alto car was inspected by the FSL Team. All the exhibits were also sent to the FSL for forensic examination. Statements of all the material witnesses were recorded.
4. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared by the IO and the same was laid before the concerned ld. MM. Upon committal of case to the Court of Sessions, charge u/s 328 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and u/s 376 (D) IPC was framed against all the three accused on 27.7.2013. Further charge u/s 376 IPC was also framed against accused Inderjeet on the same date regarding the rape incident dated 18.2.2013. The accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held.
5. At trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove the charges agfainst the accused .The accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.11.2014 wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. The accused Inderjeet further stated that prosecutrix has filed a false complaint SC No.164/13 Page 3 of 26 of rape in collussion with her mother in order to extort money from them and to usurp their property. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence.
6. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire material on record.
7. It would be totally unnecessary to burden this judgment by narrating herein the deposition of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. I find it appropriate to describe the testimony of only the material witnesses.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW2. She deposed that accused Bijender is the son of her maternal aunt (Mausi) namely Kanta and accused Nitin is the son of Kanta's brother-in-law (devar). According to her, accused Inderjeet used to reside opposite the house of her another maternal aunt Krishna in village Bakkarwal, Mundka, New Delhi and Krishna had got her engaged to Inderjeet about two years ago. After the engagement, accused used to come to her village alongwith her cousin to meet her. She deposed that about 8 months ago, (i.e. in the month of Feb. 2013 as her deposition was recorded on 7.10.2013), she had come to the house of her mausi Krishna. Accused Inderjeet also reached there after about two or three days. Krishna confined her and accused Inderjeet in a room of the house where Inderjeet raped her. Krishna had locked the room from outside. When she asked Krishna why did she do so, Krishna told her it does not make any difference as it had to happen after the marriage in any event. She was not satisfied by the explanation of Krishna and made a SC No.164/13 Page 4 of 26 telephonic call at telephone No.100 from her mobile phone. Police officials reached the house of Krishna and made inquiries from her but she did not recollect whether her statement was recorded. Accused Inderjeet was taken to the police station. She alongwith her mausi Krishna and Inderjeet's mother Nimli Devi also reached the police station where they told the police officials that she is going to be married to Inderjeet and therefore, the matter was settled. Accused Inderjeet also told the police officials that he is going to marry her and hence no further proceedings were conducted. She further deposed that Nimli Devi assured her that Inderjeet's marriage would be solemnised with her with great pump and show within the period of ten days but that was not to happen. After ten days, Inderjeet's family refused to solemnise his marriage with her. Accused Inderjeet also refused to marry her.
9. She further deposed that one day in the month of April, 2013, Krishna and her husband came to their house and brought her alongwith them to their house in village Bakkarwal saying that her marriage would be solemnised with accused Inderjeet. She remained in the house of Krishna till 3.30 p.m. on that day but nothing happened and thereafter Krishna told her that Inderjeet would drop her at her house. Accordingly she left house of Krishna alongwith Inderjeet and two other accused Nitin and Bijender in a Maruti Alto car of white colour. At about 4 pm when they reached near Bakkarwal Bus Stand, the accused offered her Pepsi cold drink in a plastic glass, which she took, whereafter she lost her consciousness. Accused drove the car to Hiran Kudna Village and all the three accused raped her one after the another. She deposed that first of all accused Bijender raped her on the SC No.164/13 Page 5 of 26 rear seat of the car while it was being driven by accused Inderjeet. Thereafter accused Inderjeet stopped the car and came to the rear seat from inside the car whereas Nitin took the steering of the car. Inderjeet raped her on the rear seat and thereafter accused Nitin came to the rear seat and raped her while the car was being driven by accused Bijender. She stated that the car was having dark tinted windscreen and nothing could be seen either from inside the car or from the outside. She was wearing a salwar suit at that time and it had been taken off by the accused Bijender before raping her. Thereafter she put on her salwar but could not find her underwear. She was pushed out of the car by the accused at about 8.30 pm in a gali at Najafgarh. She walked for a while and then fell unconscious on the road. When she regained consciousness she found herself surrounded by a number of persons. The police also reached the spot and took her to RTRM Hospital where she was medically examined. Her mother also reached the hospital. From the hospital, she was taken to Police Station where her statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded. She was again called to the police Station on 12th or 13th April, 2013 and then was produced before a ld. Magistrate in a Court who recorded her statement Ex. PW2/B. She had shown the crime spot to the police officials on 11.4.2013. She also deposed that she had identified the maruti alto car in the police station after about 3 days of the incident. According to her, she was raped by the accused in moving car on 10.4.2013. She could not tell the exact date when accused Inderjeet had raped her in the house of Krishna. She could not tell whether it had happened on 18.2.2013.
10. The prosecutrix was cross examined on 16.12.2013.
SC No.164/13 Page 6 of 26She admitted in her cross examination that she has been produced from judicial custody and is in custody in connection with FIR No.279/13 u/s 376/323/506/120B IPC which was registered on the complaint of one Ms. Rita. According to her she does not know the girl Rita. During her cross examination, CD Ex.P1 was played on the laptop and was watched by her in the witness box. She admitted that she as well as her mother are seen in the photograph and their photographs had been taken after the registration of this case. She denied that her mother is seen talking to a mediator in the CD and demanding a sum of Rs. 5 crores for withdrawing this false case. She denied that her mother told the mediator that she would take the amount of Rs. 5 crores and then would withdraw the present false case and that the talks took place on 12.5.2013 at Goria Tourist Resort, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. She admitted that she had been produced before the court on 16.11.2013 also for her cross examination and on that date, she told the court that she is not feeling well and cannot depose but denied that she did so as the many parokars of the accused were present outside the court and she demanded money from them for taking adjournment on that date. She was confronted with her statement to the police Ex. PW2/A wherein she had not mentioned that Krishna confined her as well as accused Inderjeet in a room of her house about 8 months ago, locked the same from the outside and opened the door after one hour; that Krishna and Nimli had also reached the Police Station where they told police officials that she (prosecutrix) is going to marry accused Indejeet and at their instance the matter was settled and Inderjeet also told police officials that he would marry her and that accused Bijender raped her first on the rear seat of moving car SC No.164/13 Page 7 of 26 after which accused Inderjeet raped her and lastly she was raped by accused Nitin. She further denied all the suggestions put to her by the ld. Cross examining counsel.
11. PW4 is Doctor Nikhil Nishant who had examined prosecutrix in RTRM Hospital on 10.4.2013 and prepared her MLC Ex. PW4/A. He did not find any external injury on her body. He referred her to Gyne Department for further examination. The gynecological examination of prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Chander Kant Garg on the same day i.e. 10.4.2013. He was not available for his testimony and his observations on the MLC were proved by PW6. He also had not found any visible external injury on the body of the prosecutrix. As per his observations, there was an old tear in the hymen. There was no bleeding, no fresh tear and no congestion in the hymen of the prosecutrix. He had preserved the clothes of the prosecutrix and also obtained her various samples which he handed over to the police officials in sealed condition.
12. The mother of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW8. She deposed that her sister Krishna and Krishna's husband, who reside in village Bakkarwal had aranged the marriage of her daughter 'S' with accused Inderjeet. She further deposed that Krishna and her hsuband had taken 'S' from their house on 10.4.2013 for solemnising her marriage with Inderjeet. At about 7.30 pm at 8 pm on the same day, she received a call from a resident of their colony saying that 'S' is lying somewhere in the colony and her condition is not well. She left the home immediately and on the way, she received a call from a police SC No.164/13 Page 8 of 26 official saying that 'S' has been taken to RTRM Hospital. Accordingly, she also reached RTRM Hospital and found her daughter 'S' admitted there. She asked 'S' what had happened, who told her that accused Inderjeet alongwith Nitin and Bijender have committed rape upon her. The doctor asked her to bring a spare set of clothes for 'S'. Accordingly, she returned home and brought a set of clothes to the hospital for her daughter 'S'. In the cross examination, she could not tell the number of mobile phone from which she received the call, being illiterate. She could not say whether she had received the call from mobile No. 9991705101. The caller did not tell her the exact location where her daughter was lying. She had not informed her brothers and sisters that her daughter 'S' had been taken by Krishna on 10.4.2013 for solemnisation of marriage with Inderjeet. She also did not tell Krishna and her husband that she herself also would accompany them for the marriage. She deposed that the date of marriage had not been fixed as 10.4.2013. The CD Ex. P1 was played on the laptop and shown to her in the witness box. She deposed that at one place in the CD, her daughter 'S' and she herself are seen in a car alongwith one Gunda of village Naare who was having a pistol in his hand at that time. She further stated that SI Kavita had called her as well as her daughter 'S' to the Police Station on 28.8.2013 from where they were brought to Dwarka Court in a car which was driven by driver named Sonu. 'S' was sitting in the front passenger seat and she herself alongwith SI Kavita and the aforesaid gunda were sitting on the rear seat. She stated that, however, they were not brought to the court but were taken to a jungle area and they asked her to demand money on the point of pistol. She was not aware at that time that the conversation is SC No.164/13 Page 9 of 26 being recorded. She deposed that she had made a demand of Rs. 5 crores at the instance of SI Kavita and aforesaid gunda. She was forced to say that 'S' will withdraw the case if Rs. 5 crores are paid in cash. She admitted that voices contained in the CD Ex. P1 are of her and of her daughter 'S' but added that they were forced to make such type of conversation. She further stated that they remained in the company of SI Kavita and the said gunda in the car for about 45 minutes and then were dropped near Gurukul at Majri Road at about 3.30 or 4 pm. She did not file any complaint as she was not aware that the conversation had been videographed. They did not approach any police station for filing the complaint regarding the said incident. They did not file any complaint before the cout also. She admitted that SI Kavita and the said gunda is not seen in the video. She further deposed that she did not mention about the said incident in her examination in chief as she was not asked to say so. She denied that she had met her daughter 'S' in the court and also in Tihar Jail after 'S's testimony had been recorded in this court. She denied that she knows any person by the name Lallu. She also denied that she had received phone call from Lallu on the date of incident. She produced the copy of complaint dated 28.3.2014 which she had submitted to Special Commissioner of Police regarding the conduct of SI Kavita and proved the same as Ex. PW8/A.
13. PW9 is Mrs. Krishna, the maternal aunt (Mausi) of the prosecutrix. She deposed that she is not on talking terms or on visiting terms with her sister Babli i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix. She had never visited their house for the last about 20 years and their relations are strained for the last 20 years on SC No.164/13 Page 10 of 26 account of some property dispute. She was declared hostile by ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by ld. APP, she denied that she had arranged the marriage of prosecutrix with Inderjeet or that their engagement was performed at her instance or that her sister Babli had stopped talking to her as Inderjeet had performed marriage with prosecutrix in a temple.
14. PW10 is Mrs. Nimli Devi, the mother of accused Inderjeet. She is the owner of Maruti Alto car bearing registration Number DL2CAN4245. She deposed that accused Nitin's father Rakesh @ Rakke drives the said car usually and her son Inderjeet drives the said car very rarely as he does not possess any driving licence. She was also declared hostile by ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by ld. APP she denied all the suggestions put to her. She denied that her son Inderjeet had taken the aforesaid car on 11.4.2013 to go to Haryana for some work with his friends. She also denied that her son Inderjeet's engagement was performed with prosecutrix.
15. The DD No.34A which had been recorded in P.S. Mundka on 19.2.2013 regarding rape of a girl in a house at Holi Chowk, Village Bakkarwala, was entrusted to PW4 SI Annu for suitable action. She deposed that when she reached the spot, she found that the quarrel was going on between the prosecutrix 'S', Nimli Devi and her daughter Rani. She brought all the three alongwith accused Inderjeet to the police station. She recorded their statement in the police station. She further stated that the prosecutrix 'S' stated that she had made a false call of rape as she apprehended that Inderjeet may leave her without marrying her.
SC No.164/13 Page 11 of 26Prosecutrix also stated to her that in fact only a quarrel had taken place and she wants to settle the matter. She deposed that an official from NGO was summoned to the police station for counselling the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix told the NGO official also the same thing. Inderjeet also stated that he is willing to marry the prosecutrix and accordingly no further proceedings were conducted and the DD was filed. She proved the copy of DD as Ex.PW3/A.
16. PW13 SI Raj Singh has deposed that he was on night emergency duty in P.S. Najafgarh on 10.4.2013 and at about 11.30 p.m. when he was attending some call, he received a call from Duty Officer that a girl is lying unconscious near Udaseen Ashram, Deepak Vihar. He alongwith a Constable reached the spot and found a girl sitting on the road and many people had gathered around her. The girl disclosed her name as 'S' and on his inquiries, told him that she was left there by some boys after raping her. SHO as well as PCR officials also reached the spot and she was sent to the hospital in PCR vehicle. He further deposed that he alongwith SHO also reached the hospital. SHO called SI Sunita to the hospital from the police station, who recorded the statement of 'S' in his presence. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Sunita and some Constables had reached village Bakkarwala during the same night and arrested the three accused from their homes. The Maruti Alto car of Inderjeet was also seized.
17. PW14 is the Ld. M.M., who had recorded the statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/B of the prosecutrix. She proved her certificate attached to the statement as Ex.PW14/A. SC No.164/13 Page 12 of 26
18. PW15 is Constable Surender Singh, who had taken the sealed pullindas and sample seals of this case from Malkhana on 26.4.2013 and deposited those in the F.S.L.
19. PW16 is SI Sunita, the initial Investigating Officer of the case. She deposed that she was posted in P.S. Delhi Cantt. in April, 2013. On 10.4.2013 she was diected to reach P.S. Najafgarh where call of rape had been received. Upon reaching P.S. Najafgarh, she was told that the prosecutrix is in RTRM Hospital. Accordingly, she alongwith one Constable reached RTRM Hospital where she met SI Raj Singh (PW13), Lady Constable Suman and the prosecutrix 'S'. By that time, the medical examination of the prosecutrix had already been conducted and SI Raj Singh handed over the MLC of the prosecutrix and the sealed exhibits to her. She seized the exhibits vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. She recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A and thereafter they all returned to the police station. She deposited the exhibits in the Malkhana, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. The prosecutrix was handed over to her mother who had reached the police station. She further deposed that on 11.4.2013, she alongwith SI Raj Singh and three Constables went to village Bakkarwala where all the three accused were arrested from their residence vide arrest memos Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F. She recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PWE16/D, Ex.PW16/I and Ex.PW16/J. She sent all the three accused to RTRM Hospital for medical examination and then seized their MLCs as well as sealed exhibits vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/K, Ex.PW16/L and Ex.PW16/M. She had also seized the Maruti Alto car of accused SC No.164/13 Page 13 of 26 Inderjeet from his residence vide memo Ex.PW12/A. She deposed that the FSL team had been summoned to the police station which inspected the said car and took a cutting from its back seat cover and also took out one T-shirt from the car. She sealed these items in separate pullindas and seized them vide memo Ex.PW16/N. She produced the prosecutrix before the concerned Ld. M.M. on 12.4.2013 who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC.
20. PW18 is the Nodal Officer of M/s. Idea Cellular Limited, who proved the customer details of mobile nos.9911598894, 9540883989 and 9992081074. He proved the customer application forms as Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/E respectively. He also proved the call detail records of mobile no. 9992081074 from 01.4.2013 to 01.5.2013 as Ex.PW18/G and the certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act in support of these call detail record as Ex.PW18/H. He also proved Cell ID Chart as Ex.PW18/I.
21. PW19 is the Nodal Officer of M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd., who proved the customer application form of mobile no. 9212750727 and its call details record from 10.4.2013 to 11.4.2013 as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/C respectively. He proved the certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act in support of these call detail records as Ex.PW19/D. He also proved the Cell ID Chart of the company as Ex.PW19/E.
22. The Nodal Officer of M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has also been examined as PW19 (it should have been numbered as PW20). He proved the customer application form of SC No.164/13 Page 14 of 26 mobile no. 8860903838 and its call detail records from 01.4.2013 to 11.4.2013 as Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/C respectively. He proved the certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act in respect of the said call detail record as Ex.PW19/D. He also proved the Cell ID Chart of the company as Ex.PW19/E.
23. PW17 is the IO SI Kavita. As per her deposition, the investigation of this case was entrusted to her in the first week of June, 2013. She had recorded the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix 'S'. She also recorded the statement of prosecutrix's mother Babli and Inderjeet's mother Nimli Devi. She also recorded the statement of the other material witnesses and then prepared the Charge Sheet. She further deposed that pursuant to the order dated 13.2.2014 of this court, she had obtained the call detail records of mobile nos. 9540883989, 8860903838, 9212750727 and 9911598894 and produced the same before this court. She deposed that the mobile no. 9212750727 and mobile no. 8860903838 are registered in the name of accused Bijender, mobile no. 9911598894 is registered in the name of accused Nitin and mobile no. 9540883989 is registered in the name of accused Inderjeet. She further deposed that she has also obtained the call detail records of mobile no. 9992081074 which is mentioned in the FIR and filed the same before this court.
24. In the cross examination, she stated that as per the mobile no. 9212750727 of accused Bijender, his location on 10.4.2013 was in JJ Colony, Bakkarwala, till 9 pm and at 9.19 p.m. his location was at Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi. Thereafter his location was again at JJ Colony, Bakkarwala at 11.53 p.m. onwards.
SC No.164/13 Page 15 of 26She further deposed that according to call detail record of another mobile no.8860903838 of Bijender, his location was at village Bakkarwala at 5.27 p.m. and 11.44 p.m. on 10.4.2013. She further deposed that as per the call detail records of mobile no. 9540883989 of accused Inderjeet, his location on 10.4.2013 was at village Bakkarwala till 12 p.m., then at village Hirankudna at 2.09 p.m. and in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, after 4 p.m. onwards. She further deposed that as per the call detail records of mobile no. 9992081074 of Babli, as mentioned in the FIR, she had entered Delhi on 10.4.2013 at 8.45 p.m. and its location was in village Mitraon till 8.45 p.m. and then in Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, till 8.48 p.m. and then in Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, at 8.52 p.m. and then at Opposite Thana Najafgarh till 8.58 p.m. and then again at Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, from 9.12 p.m. onwards.
25. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix 'S' is stated to have been raped by accused Inderjeet firstly on 18.2.2013 in the house of her maternal aunt Krishna and then gang raped by all the three accused in the moving car bearing no.DL-2CAN-4245 on 10.4.2013 from 4 p.m. onwards. It is not disputed that accused Bijender is the son of another maternal aunt of the prosecutrix namely Kanta and accused Nitin is the son of Kanta's brother in law (Devar). It is also the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix knew accused Inderjeet through her maternal aunt Krishna as Krishna had arranged the marriage talks between the two and the engagement of prosecutrix and Inderjeet had taken place in the year 2011.
26. However, Krishna appearing as PW9 has disputed the SC No.164/13 Page 16 of 26 prosecution case that she had arranged the marriage of the prosecutrix with Inderjeet. She has deposed that she has never visited the house of prosecutrix for the last 20 years as her relations with her sister Babli (prosecutrix's mother) are strained on account of property dispute. In view of the same, it becomes very difficult to believe that Krishna had got the prosecutrix engaged to Inderjeet in the year 2011, as deposed by the prosecutrix PW2 as well as her mother PW8 or that prosecutrix would have come to stay in the house of Krishna in October, 2013.
27. Regarding the rape incident dated 18.10.2013, it is to be noted that the prosecutrix has herself deposed that when she was not satisfied by the explanation of Krishna, she made a call at telephone no.100 from her mobile phone. Police officials reached the house of Krishna and made inquiries from her (prosecutrix) and took Inderjeet to police station. She has deposed that she alongwith Krishna and Inderjeet's mother Nimli Devi also reached the police station where Krishna and Nimli Devi told the police officials that she (prosecutrix) is going to marry Inderjeet and therefore the matter was settled. The deposition of PW3 SI Annu shows that the call made by the prosecutrix at telephone no.100 was transmitted to P.S. Mundka where it was recorded as DD No. 34A. The DD was entrusted to PW3 for suitable action. She has deposed that when she reached the spot, she found that a quarrel was going on between prosecutrix 'S', Nimli Devi and her daughter Rani. She brought all the three ladies alongwith Inderjeet to the police station and recorded their statements. As per her deposition, prosecutrix told her that she had made a false call of rape as she apprehended that Inderjeet may not marry her. PW3 SC No.164/13 Page 17 of 26 has further deposed that the prosecutrix said the same thing to NGO official also, who was summoned to counsel her and accordingly, no further proceedings were conducted on the DD and the same was filed.
28. Thus as per the own witness of the prosecution, no incident of rape had taken place on 18.2.2013 and the prosecutrix had made a false call of rape. It is also pertinent to note that prosecutrix's mother has not stated anything regarding the said rape incident in her testimony which too indicates that no such incident had taken place.
29. So far as the incident of gang rape dated 10.4.2013 is concerned, the prosecutrix has deposed that on that day, she was brought from her home by her maternal aunt Krishna and Krishna's husband saying that the court marriage would be solemnized between her and accused Inderjeet and kept her in their house at Bakkarwala till 3.30 p.m. but nothing happened. Thereafter, on the asking of Krishna, she left alongwith the three accused in the car of Inderjeet to be dropped at her house but on the way, she was gang raped by the three accused in the moving car. PW8, the mother of the prosecutrix, has also deposed that Krishna and her husband took the prosecutrix 'S' from her home in village Gobana, District Jhajjar, Haryana, on 10.4.2013 for solemnizing her marriage with Inderjeet and she was present in the home at that time. In the cross examination, she has deposed that the date of marriage had not been already fixed as 10.4.2013 and she did not tell Krishna and her husband that she would also accompany them for marriage. She did not inform any of her five SC No.164/13 Page 18 of 26 sisters and two brothers that her daughter 'S' has been taken by Krishna for solemnizing marriage with Inderjeet.
30. The conduct of prosecutrix's mother which is reflected from her statement in the cross examination, is totally unnatural. It is very intriguing that she sent her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix alone with Krishna and her husband for marriage with Inderjeet on 10.4.2013, even though no such date of marriage had earlier been fixed. Prosecutrix has deposed that accused Inderjeet has flatly refused to solemnize marriage with her and her parents were aware about the same. In such a situation, it was expected of PW8 as to first verify and make sure as to whether or not Inderjeet was ready and willing to marry the prosecutrix. Neither prosecutrix nor her mother did talk to Inderjeet to ascertain whether he has changed his mind and is willing to marry the prosecutrix. Even otherwise also since the marriage of a daughter is a very important and solemn occasion, it was expected of PW8 that she would accompany her daughter for the marriage ceremony and also intimate her near relatives about the same. She did not do either.
31. It is also clear from the deposition of prosecutrix that upon reaching the house of Krishna in village Bakkarwala. She did not try to contact Inderjeet. She did not tell Krishna or her husband to call Inderjeet and to take steps for the performance of court marriage between the two. She simply remained in the house of Krishna till 3.30 p.m. and then boarded the car of Inderjeet to be dropped at her house in Jhajjar.
SC No.164/13 Page 19 of 2632. The conduct of the prosecutrix and her mother, as noted herein-above, does not indicate that the prosecutrix had been brought to Delhi by Krishna and her husband on 10.4.2013. Their deposition itself brings the whole prosecution case within the sphere of doubt. Further, in the statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PW2/A recorded by the IO in RTRM Hospital after her medical examination, prosecutrix has mentioned her mobile no. 9992081074. The call detail records of the said mobile number have been proved by PW18 as Ex.PW18/G which show that this mobile number had entered Delhi at 8.45 p.m. on 10.4.2013. The IO appearing as PW17 has also deposed that the call detail records of the aforesaid mobile number show that it entered Delhi at 8.45 p.m. on 10.4.2013 and its location was in village Mitraon till 8.45 p.m. then in Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, till 8.48 p.m. and then in Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, at 8.52 p.m., Opposite Thana, Najafgarh, at 8.58 p.m. and then at Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, from 9.12 p.m. onwards. It is thus clearly manifest from the call detail records of the said mobile phone that the prosecutrix had entered Delhi on 10.4.2013 at 8.45 p.m. implying thereby that she was not present in Delhi during the whole day on 10.4.2013. Thus the call detail records of the mobile phone of the prosecutrix contradicts her version that she had been brought to Delhi by Krishna and her husband in the morning of 10.4.2013 and was gang raped by the three accused in the moving car from 4 p.m. onwards.
33. It appears that the prosecutrix had reached Delhi in the late hours of 10.4.2013 with the sole motive of creating a false story of rape and implicate the three accused on the false rape charge.
SC No.164/13 Page 20 of 2634. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix, she was gang raped by the three accused in moving car while travelling through Hirankudna village.
35. The testimony of PW17, PW18 and PW19 shows that accused Bijender was using mobile no.9212750727 and 8860903838, accused Nitin was using mobile no.9911598894 and accused Inderjeet was using mobile no. 9540883989 (though this mobile number was allotted in the name of accused Nitin). The three accused have not disputed these facts in their examination u/s.313 Cr.PC. The call detail records of mobile nos.9212750727 and 8860903838 Ex.PW19/C shows that their location was nowhere near the crime spot i.e. village Hirankudna on 10.4.2013. The location of mobile no. 9212750727 was in village Bakkarwala till 9 p.m. and then at vilage Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, and thereafter again at village Bakkarwala at 11.53 p.m. The location of mobile no. 8860903838 was also at village Bakkarwala at 5.27 p.m. and 11.44 p.m. on 10.4.2013. PW18 the Nodal Officer of M/s. Idea Cellular Limited had not brought the call detail records of mobile no. 9911598894 and 9540883989 as these had got deleted from their computer system being more than one year old. However, pursuant to the order dated 13.2.2014 of this court PW17 (IO) had obtained the call detail records of these two mobile numbers also and submitted the same before this court. She has deposed that the location of mobile no. 9540883989 was at village Bakkarwala till 12 p.m. on 10.4.2013 and then at village Hirankudna at 2.09 p.m. and after 4 p.m. its location was in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. As per call detail records of mobile no.
SC No.164/13 Page 21 of 269911598894 obtained by PW17, no call had been made from this mobile phone between 01.4.2013 to 01.5.2013. It is thus manifest that the location of the mobile phones of the accused was nowhere near the crime spot i.e. village Hirandkudna from 4 p.m. onwards on 10.4.2013 when the crime is stated to have been committed. It thus follows that none of the accused was present in village Hirankudna area on 10.4.2013 from 4 p.m. onwards and hence the version of the prosecutrix that she was gang raped by the three accused in a moving car in village Hirankudna on 10.4.2013 gets falsified.
36. An important piece of evidence has surfaced in this case in the nature of video CD Ex.P1 which was played to both the prosecutrix PW2 as well as her mother PW8 during their cross examination. PW2 admitted that she as well as her mother are seen in the said CD but denied that her mother is seen talking to a mediator and demanding a sum of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case. She denied that her mother had told the mediator that she would take the amount of Rs.5 Crores first and then would withdraw the present false case. However, PW8 candidly admitted that she as well as her daughter 'S' are seen in the CD and the voices contained in the said CD are her voice as well as that of her daughter 'S'. She also admitted that she is seen making a demand of Rs.5 Crores in the said CD. However, she deposed that one goonda of village Nare who was having a pistol in his hand and IO SI Kavita (PW17) were also present in the car at the time in which this conversation took place and they had forced her to say that her daughter 'S' will withdraw the case if Rs.5 Crores are paid in cash. She explained that her daughter 'S' was sitting in front SC No.164/13 Page 22 of 26 passenger seat and she herself alongwith SI Kavita and aforesaid gooda were sitting in the rear seat.
37. I have myself watched the video contained in the CD Ex.P1. PW8 is seen and her demanding a sum of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case. As noted herein-above that PW8 has herself admitted that she made such a demand but added that she was forced to do so by a goonda as well as by SI Kavita who were also sitting in the car at the time the video was shot but they are not seen in the video. If the contentions raised by PW8 that she was forced to demand this amount of Rs.5 Crores, is true, her daughter i.e. prosecutrix (PW2) would also have stated so when she was confronted with the CD during her cross examination. PW2, after watching a video denied that her mother had made demand of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case. She nowhere states that SI Kavita and an antisocial person were also sitting in the car when the video was shot and her mother was forced to make this demand. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that PW8 had not made the demand of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case voluntarily but was forced to do so by SI Kavita and an antisocial person. Further PW8 has deposed in her cross examination that she did not file any complaint against SI Kavita or that antisocial person as she was not aware that the conversation had been videographed. This too shows that her version recorded in the CD was a voluntary one and without any force or coercion exerted upon her. She means to say that she raised this demand as she did not know that her version was videographed or otherwise, she would not have done so. She was not under any threat or pressure from SI Kavita or the accused or SC No.164/13 Page 23 of 26 the above referred antisocial person after she was dropped from the car near Gurukul at Majri Road, as stated by her and therefore nothing prevented her from lodging any complaint in this regard in the police station or before higher police officers or in the court. She did not do either. Her conduct indicates that she had on her own and without any force or pressure demanded a sum of Rs.5 Crores from a mediator in the presence of her daughter 'S', for withdrawing this false case. I may also add here that the prosecutrix and her mother are seen in a very cheerful and smiling mood during the conversation recorded in the said CD Ex.P1. They are seen laughing also heartily at one occasion. It clearly appears that they were not under any kind of force or threat and the demand of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case was made voluntarily by PW8. Thus it is quite manifest that a false complaint of rape had been lodged against the three accused and they are totally innocent.
38. The falsity of the prosecution case has been exposed by the FSL result/DNA report Ex.PA also. It is the prosecution case itself that the clothes worn by the prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident of gang rape dated 10.4.2013 and her samples like vaginal swab, vulvul swab, nail clippings, pubic hair, cervical smear etc. collected by the doctor at the time of medical examination soon after the said incident alongwith blood samples of the three accused were sent to FSL for forensic examination. The DNA report Ex.PA shows that the DNA extracted from the Salwar of the prosecutrix was found to be not similar to the DNA extracted from the blood samples of each of the three accused. Therefore, the DNA report also rules out the gang rape of the SC No.164/13 Page 24 of 26 prosecutrix at the hands of the three accused on 10.4.2013, as alleged by the prosecution.
39. Even the medical evidence also does not support the version of the prosecutrix that she was gangrapped on 10.4.2013. No external injury was found on her body including private part during medical examination. There was no bleeding, no fresh tear and no congestion in her hymen. The hymen had an old tear. These findings are totally inconsistent with the version of gangrape of the prosecutrix.
40. The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecutrix was not raped by any of the three accused at any point of time and she lodged a false complaint of rape in collusion and consultation with her mother. After the FIR was lodged and the three accused were arrested in this case, the prosecutrix and her mother started bargaining with the accused through a mediator demanding a sum of Rs.5 Crores for withdrawing this false case. The conversation between the prosecutrix's mother and the mediator had been cleverly and clandestinely recorded by the mediator in a spy camera which was produced before the court during the cross examination of the prosecutrix and her mother by way of CD Ex.P1. This is a classic illustration where the three innocent persons were arraigned as accused in a false case of rape. They spent considerable time in jail as undertrial and suffered the rigorous of trial before this court till today when they are being acquitted. The misuse of law relating to sexual assault on women by scrupulous women is writ large in this case. It appears that the prosecutrix and her mother wanted to settle SC No.164/13 Page 25 of 26 scores with the three accused on account of some land dispute between them and hence got them implicated falsely in this rape case.
41. Resultantly, all the three accused are hereby acquitted. However, this court feels that it would be failing in its duty if the prosecutrix and her mother are not prosecuted for fabricating and giving false evidence before this court in this case. It is prima facie evident that the prosecutrix PW2 and her mother PW8 are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s. 193 IPC and u/s.196 IPC. Therefore, the Reader of this court is directed to file an appropriate complaint against PW2 and PW8 before the Ld. C.M.M., Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in this regard.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 11.12.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.164/13 Page 26 of 26