Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Parmod Kamlani -:: Page 1 on 7 September, 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                                          : 36 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number                                         : 02401R0544982012.

State
                                                 Versus
Mr.Parmod Kamlani
Son of Mr.Ghan Shyam Kamlani,
Resident of M-1, WZ-169, II Floor, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.

First Information Report Number : 207/12.
Police Station Hari Nagar,
Under sections 376,  and  of the Indian Penal Code.

Date of filing of the charge sheet before                              : 19.11.2012.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal                                : 08.01.2013.
Arguments concluded on                                                 : 07.09.2013.
Date of judgment                                                       : 07.09.2013.

Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              State.
              Accused on bail with counsel, Mr.Chandra Mohan Thapliyal
              and Mr.Kishore Sakhrani.
**************************************************************
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 Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                         -:: Page 1 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 2 ::-



the heart than woman?"----Mahatma Gandhi.

1. This is shockingly yet another case in this Court of alleged rape of a maid from a Placement Agency in the house of her employer by the employer except that this time the allegations go a step further and the paternity of the child of the maid is attributed to the employer.

2. 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.

3. "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 Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 2 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 3 ::-

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

4. Mr.Parmod Kamlani, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi for the offence under sections 376, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that in the month of Holi, 15-20 days prior to Holi at about 12.00 noon at House No.M-1, WZ-169, II Floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi and thereafter 15-20 days after Holi at the aforesaid place, he forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) against her consent and threatened her to kill, if she raised alarm and he also gave beating to her.

5. As the prosecutrix was not certain who was the father of her child, the accused or Mr.Vijay Bagi, her previous employer, Mr.Vijay Bagi was kept as a suspect while the accused was chare sheeted and prosecuted by the prosecution.

CHARGE SHEET AND COMMITTAL Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 3 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 4 ::-

6. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.11.2012 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court for 08.01.2013 vide order dated 07.01.2013 of the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi.

CHARGE

7. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections 376/506 and 323 of the IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 04.04.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix as PW1; Dr. A.K.Srivastava, Deputy Director (Biology), FSL, as PW2; SI Ravi Dutt, the Duty Officer who had recorded the formal FIR of the case, as PW3; HC Sanjay, MHC (M), as PW4; WHC Geeta, who had taken the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for medical examination, as PW5; Dr. Narayan Waghmare, FSL Expert, who had given a FSL report, as PW6; SI Manish, who had taken the accused to DDU hospital for medical examination, as PW7; Mr. Viplav Dabas, learned Civil Judge, who had recorded the statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) of the prosecutrix, as PW8; Dr. Deepshikha, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, as PW9; Mr. Jai Mangal Dahanga, whio runs the placement agency from where the prosecutrix was employed in the house of the accused as a maid, as PW10; Ms.Magdleen Marin, the counsellor, who had given a counselling report, as PW11; Ms. Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 4 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 5 ::-

Saroj, a public witness who was present when the prosecutrix had given birth to a baby boy, as PW12; Dr. Shashi Lata Kabra, who had been deputed to depose in place of Dr. Aradhna, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, as PW13; Dr. Rajesh Kohli, who had been deputed to depose in place of Dr.Nitin Seth, who had medically examined the accused and Mr. Vijay Bagi, suspect, as PW14; and SI Usha Sharma, Investigation Officer of the case, as PW 15.

9. The accused and his counsel have preferred not to cross examine PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 due to which their evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to have been admitted as correct by the accused.

10. The prosecution preferred not to examine Ms.Virago Devi and Ct.Tara Chand submitting that the evidence of Ms.Virago Devi is not relevant and evidence of Ct.Tara Chand is repetitive in nature, as elaborated in the statement dated 30.07.2013 of the Additional Public Prosecutor.

STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C.

11. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., recorded on 08.08.2013, the accused has controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against him submitting that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix, one Ms. Bamani Devi, Mr. Bamdev and Mr. Deepak who tried to extort money from him but as he refused to given, Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                 -:: Page 5 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 6 ::-

prosecutrix levelled false allegations of rape against him. She has made this case against him out of vengeance as he and his family had complained to Mr. Jai Mangal about her inefficient working and requested for a replacement. He stays at his flat with his family comprising of his wife, two minor children and his aged parents. He was not in India in January 2012. He has preferred to lead defence evidence.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

12. In his defence, the accused moved and application under section 315 of the Cr.P.C. and examined himself as DW1.

ARGUMENTS

13. 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.

14. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence under sections 376, 506 and 323 of the IPC 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.

15. The counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has requested for his acquittal submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 6 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 7 ::-

on the record. There is a delay in lodging of the FIR which otherwise is also without the details. There are several contradictions in the different statements of the prosecutrix. It is clear from the FSL report that the accused is not the father of the child of the prosecutrix.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

16. 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 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 Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                     -:: Page 7 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 8 ::-



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.

17. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION, ALLEGATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

18. The prosecution case unveils with the prosecutrix (PW1) coming to the Police Station Hari Nagar with Mr.Jai Mangal (PW10) and an advocate (not examined) and lodging her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) against the accused by meeting SI Usha Sharma (PW15) in the PS Hari Nagar on 08.06.2012. Duty Officer SI Ravi Dutt (PW3) has recorded the FIR (Ex.PW3/A) and made endorsement on rukka (Ex.PW3/B). On 08.06.2013, SI Usha Sharma (PW15) informed the NGO, DCW to reach the PS for counselling the prosecutrix (PW1) and Ms. Magdleen Marin (PW11) came to the PS and counselled the prosecutrix (PW1) vide report (Ex.PW11/A). W/HC Geeta (PW5) was called to PS Hari Nagar and prosecutrix (PW1) was sent to DDU hospital for her medical examination and ultrasound was conducted and prosecutrix (PW1) was pregnant at that time. On identification Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 8 
of 65 ::-
                                                   -:: 9 ::-

of the prosecutrix, accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. PW1/D) and his personal search was taken vide personal search memo (Ex PW15/A). The prosecutrix pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo (Ex.PW1/C) was prepared and site plan (Ex. PW15/X) was prepared at the instance of prosecutrix. The accused had clicked naked photographs of prosecutrix from his mobile phone make Blackberry and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW15/B).The prosecutrix (PW-1) was taken by W/HC Geeta (PW5)) to DDU hospital where she was medically examined by Dr. Deep Shikha (PW-9) vide MLC (Ex.PW1/F). She was examined by Dr. Aradhna (who has since the left services of the hospital ) in the Gyane Department and the MLC has been proved by Dr. Shashi Lata Kabra (PW-13) and casualty card bearing the writing of Dr. Aradhana (Ex. PW13/A). Accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani and one suspect Mr. Vijay Baghi were taken to DDU hospital by SI Manish (PW7) and SI Usha Sharma (PW15) for their medical examination and three samples along with one sample seal pertaining to accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani and two sealed samples along with sample seal pertaining to suspect Mr. Vijay Baghi were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). Accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani and one suspect (Mr. Vijay Baghi) were medically examined by Dr. Nitin Seth (who has since left the services of the hospital) in DDU hospital vide MLCs (Ex. PW14/A) and (Ex. PW14/B) and the MLCs have been proved by Dr. Rajesh Kohli (PW14). The statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E) was recorded by Mr. Viplav Dabas, learned Civil Judge (PW8) on the application of the IO for recording the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW8/A) and copy Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                      -:: Page 9 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 10 ::-

of the statement was given to the IO on his application (Ex.PW8/B). An application of the IO for sending the prosecutrix in safe custody (Ex. PW8/C) was filed and statement of Mr. Jai Mangal (PW10) was recorded on the application (Ex. PW8/D). On 09.06.2012, W/SI Usha Sharma (PW15) had deposited five sealed parcels, two sample seals and one mobile phone in the malkhana with HC Sanjay, MHCM (PW-4) and the entry to this effect was made in register no. 19B at Sl. no. 3648 (Ex.PW4/A). On 11.06.2012, two sealed parcels and two sample seals were sent to FSL, Rohini through SI Usha Sharma (PW-15) vide RC No. 80/21/12 (Ex. PW4/B) for deposit of the same which was deposited vide acknowledgement receipt (Ex. PW4/C). On 22.06.2012, one mobile phone was sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 94/21/12 (Ex. PW4/D) for deposit of the same which was deposited vide acknowledgement (Ex.PW4/E). The exhibits of this case were examined by the FSL expert (PW2) Dr.A.K Srivastva vide his detailed FSL reports (Ex.PW2/A) and forwarding letter is (Ex.PW2/B). The exhibits of this case were examined by the FSL expert Dr.Narayan Waghmare (PW6) vide his detailed FSL reports (Ex.PW6/A).

19. As per the allegations of the prosecution, accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani in the month of Holi, 15-20 days prior to Holi at about 12.00 noon at Flat no. M-1, WZ-169, II Floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi and thereafter 15-20 days after Holi at the aforesaid place, forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix (PW1) against her consent and threatened her to kill, if she raised alarm and also gave beating to her. The prosecutrix (PW1) was residing Flat no. M-1, WZ-169, II Floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi i.e. the flat of the accused, where she Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                           -:: Page 10 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 11 ::-

was working as a maid. Mr. Jai Mangal (PW10) who runs a placement agency under the name and style of Mangal Placement had got the prosecutrix (PW1) employed as a maid in the house of the accused on 13.01.2012 at a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month. Earlier in September, 2011 the prosecutrix had come from the village to Delhi to work as a maid and she was employed in a house at Prem Nagar of one Mr. Vijay Bhagi at a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month who had raped her and threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed about the incident. Out of fear, she did not report the matter to the police. Thereafter, she had joined the services of the accused. During the winter season of 2012, when on one day in the afternoon (dupahar) while the proseuctrix (PW1) was dusting in the house, the accused was at home, his wife had gone for her work and his children were sleeping, the accused raped the prosecutrix in the room where the children used to study. The prosecutrix did not want to stay in the house of the accused and she was not permitted to talk to the owner of the placement agency as she wanted to leave the work. After about 2/3 months, the accused made her talk to Mr. Jai Mangal (PW10) and he came the house. Mr. Jai Mangal (PW10) told the prosecutrix to stay and work in the house of the accused just as the other girls were doing. As accused and his family were going to Shimla, the prosecutrix was left by him in the house of his mother in-law at Lawrence Road. Mr. Jai Mangal came to the house of his mother in law and brought the prosecutrix back to the office of the placement agency at Mukund Pur, Janta Vihar. The prosecutrix was pregnant but she did not know who was the father. She told Mr. Jai Mangal about the incident in Mr. Bhagi's house as well as in the house of the accused. The prosecutrix wanted to abort the child as it was too late, it could not be Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 11 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 12 ::-

done. Mr. Jai Mangal advised the prosecutrix to lodge a complaint with the police and she went to police station Hari Nagar with Mr. Jai Mangal and one advocate and lodged the complaint.

TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

20. It is necessary to elaborate and discuss the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution in brief.

The Most Material Witness-Prosecutrix

21. PW1, the prosecutrix, has deposed that earlier she was residing at 817, Janta Vihar, A-Block, Mukund Pur, Delhi i.e. the house of the accused where she was working as a maid. One Mr. Jai Mangal who runs a placement agency under the name and style of Mangal Placement had got her employed as a maid in the house of the accused on 13.01.2012. Earlier in September, 2011, she had come from the village to Delhi to work as a maid and she was employed in a house at Prem Nagar of one Mr. Bhagi who had raped her and threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed about the incident. Out of fear, she did not report the matter to the police. Thereafter, she had joined the service of the accused. She did not remember the exact date and month but it was during the winter season of 2012 when on one day in the afternoon (dupahar) while she was dusting in the house, accused was at home. His wife had gone for her work and his children were sleeping. The accused raped her in the room where the children used to study. She did not want to stay in the house of the accused. She was not permitted to talk to the owner of the placement agency as she wanted to leave the work. After about 2/3 Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 12 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 13 ::-

months, the accused made her talk to Mr. Jai Mangal and he came to the house of accused. He told her to stay and work in the house of the accused just as the other girls were doing. As the accused and his family were going out somewhere, she was left by him in the house of his mother in law. Mr. Jai Mangal came to the house of the mother in law of the accused and brought her back to the office of the placement agency at Mukund Pur, Janta Vihar. He may have been told about the address by the accused himself. She was pregnant but she did not know who was the father. She told Mr. Jai Mangal about the incident in Mr. Bhagi's house as well as in the house of the accused but he did not believe her. She wanted to abort the child as it was too late, it could not be done. Mr. Jai Mangal advised her to lodge a complaint with the police. She went to police station Hari Nagar with Mr. Jai Mangal and one advocate and lodged the complaint against Mr. Bhagi and the accused (Ex. PW1/A). Although, she cannot read and write in Hindi but she can sign in Hindi. She was taken to a hospital where she was medically examined.

22. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, she has been cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that she was paid fixed a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month in the house of accused. She was paid Rs. 2000/- per month in the house of Mr. Bhagi. She has identified the form of Mangalkari Gharelu Karamchari Society bearing the photograph of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/B). She has identified her photograph and her signature on the same submitting that it is in respect of her employment in the house of Mr. Bhagi at Prem Nagar. She has admitted that Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 13 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 14 ::-

she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that 15-20 days prior to the month of Holi in the year 2012, Ms. Mamta Kamlani, the wife of accused had gone for her work and the children were away to school and the accused was at home as he had taken leave from his office and at about 12:00 noon when she was doing dusting of the drawing room, accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his bed room where he forcibly raped me after closing the door of the bed room. She has admitted to be correct that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that the accused had also taken her nude photographs from his mobile and threatened to get her killed in case she told anyone about the incident. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that due to the incident she was frightened and could not tell anyone about it. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that after 3/4 days of the incident accused had beaten her and again threatened to get her killed and that even her body could not be traced if I disclosed the incident. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that 15-20 days after Holi in the year 2012, Ms. Mamta Kamlani, the wife of accused had gone for her work and the children were away to school and the accused was at home as he had taken leave from his office and at about 10:00/11:00 AM when she was doing cleaning the utensils in the kitchen, accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his bed room where he forcibly raped her and again threatened to kill her. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that on 13.05.2012 when the accused with his family was going to Shimla, he had left her in the house of Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 14 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 15 ::-

his mother in law at Lawrance Road. Mr. Jai Mangal and his wife who run Mangalkari Gharalu Karamchari Society came to Lawrance Road and brought her back to their office in Mukund Pur. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that Mr. Jai Mangal and his wife went to Jharkhand and returned in June, 2012. They saw that she had swelling in her feet and on enquiry, she told them that she was pregnant with the child of the accused. She had told them earlier but they did not believe her. She has admitted that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that she lodged the complaint with the police on 08.06.2012. She has denied she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) that only the accused Pramod had raped her and not about the Bhagi raping her. She had told Mr. Jai Mangal about Mr. Bhagi raping her but that may not have been mentioned in the report. She has denied that she had taken the police to the house of the accused and had pointed out the place of incident and the site plan as well as the pointing out memo were prepared at her instance. She has admitted that the pointing out memo (Ex. PW1/C) bears her signature at point A. She has admitted that the accused was arrested in her presence and the arrest memo (Ex. PW1/D) was prepared. She has admitted that she was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari Courts who recorded her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/E). She has admitted that she had stated in her statement (Ex. PW1/E) that she was employed in the house of accused Pramod on 13.01.2012 and after 10 or 15 days in the month of January, 2012 accused had raped her at about 11:00 AM/12:00 Noon. She had stated in her statement (Ex. PW1/E) that the second incident of rape had occurred in the Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                           -:: Page 15 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 16 ::-

study room which took place after Holi. She had mentioned about only incident of rape in her examination in chief due to lapse of time as she had forgotten about second incident of rape. Accused Pramod Kamlani had raped her twice. She was medically examined vide MLC (Ex. PW1/F). She has admitted to be correct that she had told the doctor that she did not wish to get herself admitted in the hospital which is mentioned at portion B to B in the MLC (Ex. PW1/F). Later, she was admitted in the hospital after one week.

23. She has been cross examined at length on behalf of the accused.

Public Witnesses

24. PW10, Mr.Jai Mangal Dahanga, had deposed that in the month of October -November 2012 one agent namely Mr. Dinesh Kumar has brought the prosecutrix to his placement agency from Jharkhand. Prosecutrix was got employed in the house of one Mr. Vijay Baghi at Prem Nagar, near Tilak Nagar, Delhi after about a week. He had brought a copy of Karyakarta ka Ghoshna (Anumati Patra) of Mangal Kari Gharelu Karamchari Welfare Society (Mark PW10/A- Ex.PW1/B.) Photocopy of receipt of Mangal Kari Gharelu Karamchari Welfare Society dated 13.01.2012 was issued by him bearing his signatures point A (Mark PW10/B). The said receipt was issued by him when the [rosecutrix was left in the house of accused for employment. He did not remember the period during which the prosecutrix had worked in the house of Mr. Vijay Baghi. Her salary was fixed at Rs.2200/- per month. He did not remember the exact date but it may be 12 or 13 day of January of 2012 that she had been sent as a maid in the house of accused. He along with Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                 -:: Page 16 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 17 ::-

my wife Ms.Sanarthi Kungari used to visit the house of accused every month for collecting salary of prosecutrix and they used to ask prosecutrix where or not she had any problem in the house. Prosecutrix never complained against accused or any of his family members. On 18.05.2012, the marriage of his sister in law (sister of his wife) was to be scheduled in Jharkhand for which he was supposed to go to Jharkhand to attend the wedding. One week prior to that, father in law of accused telephoned him asking him to take back prosecutrix from his house at Lawrence Road as accused along with his family had gone somewhere out of Delhi. He along with his wife went to the house of father in law of accused and collected the salary of the prosecutrix from the father in law of accused. He had specifically asked prosecutrix, if she had any problem as she was having swelling in her both feet. Prosecutrix did not make any complaint and by issuing receipt (Mark PW10/C) to father in law, he had specifically mentioned "Aaj se aage Parmod Kamlani ki ko jimewari nahi hai aur Prosecutrix (name withheld although it is mentioned in the receipt and evidence) ne poore kaam ke paise le liye". Thereafter, he had brought her to his placement agency. Since he was supposed to leave on 16.05.2012 for Jharkhand, he telephoned Mr. Dinesh Kumar to take back the prosecutrix. Mr. Dinesh had replied that he had no time and prosecutrix had been turned out of her house from Jharkhand by her brother, so he was not interested in taking her back for her native village. Thereafter, he contacted one Ms.Swarn Choudhary and requested her to keep the prosecutrix for about a week. In the house of Ms. Swarn Choudhary, he had got employed other house maids from his placement agency earlier so he knew her. Ms. Swarn Choudhary agreed for the same so he left the prosecutrix in her house at Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 17 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 18 ::-

Shakti Vihar. After about one week of 18.05.2012, Ms. Swarn Choudhary telephoned him informing him that the prosecutrix was pregnant and requested him to come at the earliest. On 30.05.2012, he came back to Delhi and brought the prosecutrix to his placement agency on 01.06.2012. He and his wife enquired from the prosecutrix regarding her pregnancy but she did not disclose anything to them. Thereafter, his mami saas Ms. Bahmani Toppno enquired from the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix narrated her everything that accused Parmod Kamlani had raped her during her stay in his house. Ms. Bahmani suggested to him to make a complaint against accused Parmod Kamlani but he tried to convince her not to make complaint immediately as accused was his 7-8 years old client and he knew him and advised Ms. Bahmani to have talks with the accused first, but Ms. Bahamni did not go according to his advise and the matter was reported to the police. After the statement of the prosecutrix before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, she was asked by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as to where she wanted to go, on which she replied that she wanted to accompany with him. One Pabandi nama in this regard was executed (Ex.PW10/X). Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix back to his office of placement agency. Ms. Bahamani had also accompanied the prosecutrix in the Court when she came for her statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Prosecutrix was sent to hospital for her medical examination. Next day of recording the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., Ms. Bahamani took Rs.500/- from him on the pretext that she wanted to get the proscutrix medically examined again in some other hospital. Ms. Bahmani along with his wife took the prosecutrix to Safdarjung Hospital for her medical examination. After medical examination, Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                           -:: Page 18 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 19 ::-

his wife came back and the prosecutrix and Ms. Bahamnai did not return till one week. He contacted Ms.Bahmani number of times but her phone was found switched off. When the prosecutrix and Ms. Bahamani did not return, he went to PS, the name of PS he did not remember, to lodge a complaint but his complaint was lodged in the PS. Accused was arrested by the police in my presence vide arrest memo (Ex.PW1/D).

25. PW12, Ms. Saroj, had deposed that she knows Ms. Bahmani paternal aunt (bhua) of the prosecutrix. She had met the prosecutrix through her aunt. Last year i.e. in the year 2012, she did not remember the exact month but it was 12th of that month, Ms. Bahmani had called her as the prosecutrix was to be taken to hospital. By the time she reached the house of Ms. Bahmani, labour pain had already started and there was no time to take the prosecutrix to the hospital. She had helped in delivery of prosecutrix which was done in the house of Ms. Bahmani due to shortage of time. In the morning, delivery had taken place at about 10.30 a.m and the prosecutrix had given birth to baby boy. Later on, police had recorded her statement in this case.

Medical Witnesses

26. PW9, Dr.Deepshikha, Medical Officer, had medically examined the prosecutrix and has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/F).

27. PW13, Dr.Shashi Lata Kabra, Specialist (Gynae) had been deputed to depose in place of Dr. Aradhana, who had medically examined the prosecutrix and has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/F).

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                          -:: Page 19 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 20 ::-

28. PW14, Dr.Rajesh Kohli, Medical Officer, had been deputed to depose in place of Dr.Nitin Seth who had medically examined the accused Parmod Kamlani and Mr. Vijay Bagi and has proved the MLCs (Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B).

Forensic Witness

29. PW2, Dr.A.K.Srivastva, Deputy Director (Biology), FSL, had examined the exhibits in connection with case FIR No. 207/2012 and prepared the report (Ex.PW2/A), forwarding letter (Ex.PW2/B), Genotype analysis along with report (Ex.PW2/C), the photocopy of office copy (Ex.PW2/D).

30. PW6, Dr. Narayan Waghmare, Assistant Deputy Director (Biology), FSL, had examined the exhibits in connection with case FIR No. 207/2012 and prepared the report (Ex.PW6/A) Official Witness

31. PW8, Mr. Viplav Dabas, learned Civil Judge-11 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, had recorded the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/E) on the application of Investigating Officer (Ex. PW8/A) and the copy of the statement was provided to the IO on application (Ex. PW8/B). On the application of the IO for sending the prosecutrix in safe custody (Ex.PW8/C), the statement of Mr. Jai Mangal Dahanga was recorded on the application (Ex.PW8/D).

Police Witnesses-Formal Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                      -:: Page 20 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 21 ::-

32. PW3, SI Ravi Dutt, Duty Officer, who had recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PW3/A) in the present case, made the endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW3/B) and after registration of the FIR, copy of the FIR and original rukka sent to WSI Usha Sharma for the investigation of the case.

33. PW4, HC Sanjay, is the MHCM. He has proved the relevant entries in register number 19 and 21 (Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/E) pertaining to the FIR No. 207/2012, PS Hari Nagar regarding the deposit of the samples in Malkhana and thereafter sending the same to FSL for examination.

34. PW5, WHC Geeta has deposed that on 08.06.2012, she had taken the prosecutrix to DDU hospital for her medical examination. The prosecutrix was medically examined from DDU hospital. Doctor handed over MLC of prosecutrix and ultrasound report, which she further handed over to the IO.

35. PW7, SI Manish has deposed that on 09.06.2012, he had accompanied the IO and took the accused Parmod Kamlani and one suspect Mr. Vijay Baghi to DDU hospital for their medical examination. Accused and Mr. Vijay Baghi were medically examined from DDU hospital. Doctor handed over three sealed pulendas pertaining to accused Parmod Kamlani and two sealed samples pertaining to suspect Mr. Vijay Baghi along with sample seals. Same were seized by the IO vide seizure memos (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B).

36. PW11, Ms.Magdleen Marin has counseled the prosecutrix and Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                           -:: Page 21 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 22 ::-



filed her counseling report (Ex.PW11/A).


Police Witnesses-Material

37. PW15, SI Usha Sharma, is the Investigation Officer of the case and has deposed that on 08.06.2012, the prosecutrix along with her employer, Mr.Jai Mangal, met her in PS Hari Nagar. She conducted inquires from both of them. She informed the NGO, DCW and asked them to reach the PS for counseling of the prosecutrix. Ms. Magdleen Marin came to the PS and counseled the prosecutrix vide report (Ex. PW11/A). W/HC Geeta was called to PS Hari Nagar and prosecutrix was sent to DDU hospital for her medical examination with W/HC Geeta. Ultrasound of the prosecutrix was conducted but no exhibit were taken as prosecutrix was pregnant at that time. She recorded the statements of prosecutrix, Mr. Jai Mangal and W/HC Geeta u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Next day, the prosecutrix along with Mr. Jai Mangal came to the PS for purpose of investigation. On that day i.e. on 09.06.2012, she along with prosecutrix, Mr. Jai Mangal, Ct. Tara Chand and SI Manish went to the house of accused Parmod Kamlani i.e flat no. M1WZ-169, Hari Nagar. Accused Parmod Kamlani was found present in his house at that time. On identification of the prosecutrix, accused was arrested vide his arrest memo (Ex. PW1/D). The personal search of accused was taken vide personal search memo (Ex.PW15/A). The prosecutrix pointed out the place of occurrence and she prepared the pointing out memo (Ex. PW1/C). She had prepared site plan (Ex. PW15/X) at the instance of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had alleged that accused had clicked her naked photographs from his mobile phone so she had seized the mobile phone make Blackberry from the Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                  -:: Page 22 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 23 ::-

possession of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex. PW15/B). Accused was sent for his medical examination along with SI Manish to DDU hospital. During investigation Mr. Jai Mangal had submitted few documents of his placement agency showing that prosecutrix had earlier worked in the house of Mr. Vijay Baghi at Prem Nagar. She alongwith Mr. Jai Mangal and prosecutrix went to the house of Mr. Vijay Baghi and conducted inquiries from him regarding the employment of prosecutrix in his house. After discussing the matter with concerned SHO, PS Hari Nagar, suspect Mr.Vijay Baghi was taken to DDU hospital for his medical examination and his blood sample was taken for the purpose of ascertaining his DNA in respect of the unborn child of the prosecutrix. She seized the exhibits in respect of accused Parmod Kamlani and suspect Mr. Vijay Baghi handed over by the doctor vide seizure memos (Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). Mr. Vijay Baghi and prosecutrix were made free from the investigation of this case. She along with SI Manish, accused Parmod Kamlani and Ct. Tara Chand went to the Court where accused Parmod Kamlani was produced. Accused was sent to judicial custody She deposited the exhibits in malkhana and recorded the statement of the PWs. On 11.06.2012, she received the exhibits of the case from malkhana and deposited the same in the office of FSL, Rohini. She recorded the statement of MHCM under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. On 12.06.2012, she got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. After the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., her custody was handed over to Mr. Jai Mangal by the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. On 22.06.2012, she received the sealed mobile phone from malkhana and Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                    -:: Page 23 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 24 ::-

deposited the same in the office of FSL Rohini for expert opinion. On 13.09.2012, she received telephonic call from Mr. Bamdev, known to the prosecutrix who informed her that prosecutrix had delivered a male baby on 12.09.2012. In the month of October, 2012 blood sample of the prosecutrix and newly born child was taken in the office of FSL for the purpose of DNA analysis. She had also recorded the statement of Ms.Saroj, the midwife and mother of the prosecutrix under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was prepared and filed before the Court. She collected the FSL results (Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW2/C, Ex. PW2/D and Ex. PW6/A) and placed the same before the Court vide application (Ex. PW15/C). She identify the mobile phone seized by from the possession of the accused (Ex. P-1).

TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED IN DEFENCE

38. It is also important to elaborate the evidence of the defence witness in brief.

39. The accused, as DW1, has deposed on the lines of his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He has proved the placement documents i.e. Karyakarta ka ghoshna (anumati patra) (Ex.DW1/A), domestic servant employee verification form (Ex.DW1/B), his own passport (Ex.DW1/C), certificate of his employer (Ex.DW1/D), clearance slip/receipt issued by Mr.Jai Mangal (Mark PW10/C- Ex.DW1/E) and complaint made by him t Commissioner of Police against the prosecutrix on 28.08.2012 (Mark DX1).

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                          -:: Page 24 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 25 ::-



OFFENCES OF RAPE, THREAT AND SIMPLE HURT

40. It would be relevant to elaborate the relevant provisions for which the accused has been charged.

41. 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.

42. Section 506 of the IPC is elaborated herein under as follows:

Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And ift he threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or {imprisonment for life}, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 25 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 26 ::-

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

43. Section 323 of the IPC reads as follows:

Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED

44. There is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani 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. He is also named in the FIR.

45. Therefore, the identity of the accused stands established.

AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX

46. There is no dispute that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of the incident. In her evidence before the Court, she has stated that she is about 18 years old. In her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E), she has stated that her date of birth is 1994, she has stated that she is about 18 years old. In her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), she has mentioned that her age is 18 years old.

47. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecutrux was a major at the time of incident.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 26 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 27 ::-




VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED

48. The accused has been medically examined by Dr.Nitin Seth (left the services of the hospital) vide MLC (Ex.PW14/B) which has been proved by Dr.Rajesh Kohli (PW14) wherein it is opined that "There is nothing to suggest that person is not capable to perform sexual act"

49. Otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that the accused is married and is a father of two children.

50. The MLC of the accused 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

51. The MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/F) shows that when on 08.06.2012 at 2.59 am, the prosecutrix was medically examined, she did not have any external injury.

52. Thereafter, when she was sent for medical examination in the Gynecology Department, in the history has told the doctor of sexual assault by owner of the house where she was maid servant.

53. She has neither given the name of the culprit (accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani) nor the time or date of the alleged sexual assault. She had also Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 27 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 28 ::-



refused for admission in the hospital.

54. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that as there is no medical evidence against the accused, it indicates that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

55. It is settled law that absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix improbabilise the prosecution version that she has been raped. Absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix generally gives rise to an inference that she was a consenting party. In the present case, therefore, it can be said as there is no injury on the body of the prosecutrix (as is clear from her MLC-Ex.PW1/E, the probability is that rape is not committed.

56. These facts indicate that the prosecution version regarding the prosecutrix being raped are false as had she been actually raped, she would have received some injuries, maybe minor and she would have got herself admitted in the hospital.

FSL REPORTS-FORENSIC EVIDENCE

57. The FSL reports (Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D) show that "The alleles from the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Pramod Kamlani) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of suspect Vijay Bhagi) are not accounted in alleles from the source fo exhibit '4' (Blood sample of Baby boy Nishant). However one set of alleles from the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld although it is mentioned Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 28 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 29 ::-

in the FSL reports) are accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit '4' (Blood sample of Baby boy Nishant)."

58. In Conclusion in FSL report (Ex.PW2/A) it is mentioned as follows:

"The DNA profiling 9STR analysis) performed on the exhibits "1', '2', '3' & '4' provided is sufficient to conclude that the DNA Profile of the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Pramod Kamlani) & exhibit '2' (Blood sample of suspect Vijay Bhagi) are not the biological father of exhibit '4' (Blood sample of Baby boy Nishant). However, the DNA profile of the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld although it is mentioned in the FSL reports) is the biological mother of exhibit '4' (Blood sample of Baby boy Nishant).

59. PW2, Dr.A.K.Shrivastava, Deputy Director (Biology) DNA FP Unit, FSL, Delhi has not been cross examined by the accused and therefore her evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to be admitted by the accused.

60. Further, the FSL report (Ex.PW6/A) of Dr.Narayan Waghmare, Assistant Director, FSL, Delhi (PW6) shows that the mobile phone of the accused did not contain any obscene or naked photographs of the prosecutrix. Even PW6 has not been cross examined by the accused.

61. Therefore, it is clear that the FSL reports are in favour of the accused and do not help the prosecution case in any manner as it is clear from them that the accused is not the father of the male child of the prosecutrix nor Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 29 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 30 ::-

his mobile phone contains any obscene material pertaining to the prosecutrix.

DELAY IN FIR

62. The contention of the advocate for the accused that there was a delay in lodging of the FIR which is fatal is now being taken into consideration. It is claimed by the accused that as the FIR has been lodged on 08.06.2012 at 23:00 hours while the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) are that she was sexually assaulted 15-20 days prior to Holi and 15-20 days after Holi. The delay in lodging of the FIR 15-20 days prior to Holi and 15-20 days after Holi has been not explained by the prosecution.

63. Further, in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E) which was after her medical examination and she knew that the conception of her child had occurred in January, 2012, she has given a new version that after her joining the services of the accused on 13.01.2012, after 10-15 days, the accused had raped her. The delay in lodging of the FIR 10-15 days after her joining service on 13.01.2012 has also been not explained by the prosecution.

64. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Delay in lodging of the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after thought. It is therefore that the delay in lodging the FIR be Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 30 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 31 ::-

satisfactorily explained. The purpose and object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.

65. In the case reported as State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy. Similar view was taken in Tulshidas Kanolkar v. The State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:

"The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstances for the accused when accusation of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered , the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactory explain the delay and there s possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay , it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 31 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 32 ::-

66. It may be observed that it is not that every delay in registration of the FIR would be fatal to the prosecution. Once the delay has been sufficiently explained, the prosecution case would not suffer. However, it is necessary for the Courts to exercise due caution particularly in the cases involving sexual offences because the only evidence in such cases is the version put forwarded by the prosecutrix.

67. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745, has held that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy.

68. In the judgment reported as Devanand v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2003 Crl.L.J. 242, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:

"The above said statement clearly show that at the earliest opportunity the prosecutrix had not made any complaint to her mother in this regard. Reading of the examination-inchief reveals that first time she was raped as per her own version after about 30-36 days of coming of the appellant but in any case she admits that she has been raped many a times and she only complained to her mother few days after he had left. The appellant stayed in the house of the prosecutrix for more than year."

69. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the judgment reported as Babu Lal and Anr v. State of Rajasthan, Cri.L.J. 2282, has held as under:

"No doubt delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cannot normally damage the version of the prosecutrix as held the Hon'ble Supreme Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 32 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 33 ::-

Court in various judgements but husband of the prosecutrix is there and report is lodged after one and half months, such type of delay would certainly be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case"

70. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment reported as Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madya Pradesh, 1992 Cr.L.J. 715, has held as under:

"in conclusion, having regard to the conduct of the prosecutrix in not making any kind of complaint about the alleged incident to anybody for five days coupled with late recording of report by her after five days with false explanation for the delay, in the context also of the Lax Morals of the Prosecutrix, it is very unsafe to pin faith on her mere word that sexual intercourse was committed with her by five accused persons or any of them . It is also difficult to believe her version regarding the alleged abduction in jeep. In the circumstances it must be held that the prosecutrix story was not satisfactorily established"

71. I find on perusal of the record that indeed the criminal action was swung into motion o 08.06.2012 when the allegations are of rape after 10-15 days of 13.01.2012, 15-20 days prior to Holi and 15-20 days after Holi, as per the different statements of the prosecutrix which indicates that it is after about five months (as per the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C-Ex.PW1/E) after about three months (as per complaint of the prosecutrix-Ex.PW1/A) It is also clear that she continued to remain and work in the house of the accused after the alleged rape. The prosecutrix has deposed in her evidence that out of fear of the accused, she did not report the matter earlier. However, it is also clear that she was taken by Mr.Jai Mangal (PW10) from the house of the parents in law of the accused at Lawrence Road on 14.05.2012 (Mark PW10/C-Ex.DW1/E) and was no longer the supposed fear and threat of the accused. (The allegations of threat shall be considered while discussing the Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 33 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 34 ::-

evidence of the prosecutrix) However, still she preferred to wait till 08.06.2012 for making the complaint. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why she did not tell anyone about the incident (s) of rape with whom she may have come in contact after the alleged incident. She was not under the control of the accused between this period and could have easily disclosed about the incident if she wanted to. It also cannot be ignored that the prosecution has neither furnished any justified reason for the delay nor produced nor examined any witness to substantiate the stand of the prosecutrix in respect of the delay of about five to three months in lodging the case against the accused.

72. These facts indicate that the possibility of the version of the prosecutrix being untrue cannot be completely ruled out.

73. Therefore, it can be said that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about five to three months which is fatal to the prosecution story. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

PUBLIC WITNESSES HOSTILE, DROPPED NOT CITED

74. The public witness, PW10, Mr.Jai Mangal Dahanga, is hostile and has supported the version of the accused by deposing that the prosecutrix in collusion with others was extorting Rs.15 lacs from the accused. The accused has not committed any offence.

75. The prosecution has failed to examine some very material Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 34 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 35 ::-

witnesses and this lapse gives a severe blow to the prosecution case.

76. The prosecution has also dropped a public witness, Ms.Virago Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, from the list of witnesses as the prosecution did not want to examine her as her evidence was of not relevant.

77. Ms.Bahmani and Mr.Bamdev, who are very material witnesses, have neither been cited as witnesses nor produced nor examined by the prosecution. Their evidence could have facilitated the Court in adjudicating the matter.

78. Mr.Dinesh, who had brought the prosecutrix from her native place to Delhi to work and later after the case refused to take the prosecutrix has also neither been cited as witness nor produced nor examined by the prosecution.

79. Ms.Swarn Chaudhary, with whom the prosecutix had stayed after she was brought by Mr.Jai Mangal from the house of the parents in law of the accused while Mr.Jai Mangal went to his native place and who had informed Mr.Jai Mangal about the pregnancy of the prosecutrix has also neither been cited as witness nor produced nor examined by the prosecution.

80. By not citing, producing and examining the above named persons, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 35 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 36 ::-



accused.


DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED

81. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has given mainly three word answers by saying "It is wrong" to most of the questions or has denied the evidence against him. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that "I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case I have not committed any offence. I have been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix, one Ms. Bamani Devi, Mr. Bamdev and Mr. Deepak who tried to extort money from me but as I refused to given, Ms. Jagpati levelled false allegations of rape against me. She has made this case against me out of vengeance as I and my family had complained Mr. Jai Mangal about her inefficient working and requested for a replacement. I stay at my flat with my family comprising of my wife, two minor children and my aged parents." He has also claimed that he was away to Paris and London w.e.f. 22.01.2012 to 05.02.2012 and was not in Delhi when the rape was allegedly committed 10-15 days after 13.01.2012 when the prosecutrix joined his services as a maid. Complaint had been made about the inefficiency of the prosecutrix and the accused had requested for replacement from PW10 and out of vengeance she had lodged this case.

82. In his evidence as DW1, the accused, has deposed on similar lines. He has proved the placement documents i.e. Karyakarta ka ghoshna (anumati patra) (Ex.DW1/A), domestic servant employee Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                 -:: Page 36 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 37 ::-

verification form (Ex.DW1/B), his own passport (Ex.DW1/C), certificate of his employer (Ex.DW1/D), clearance slip/receipt issued by Mr.Jai Mangal (Mark PW10/C- Ex.DW1/E) and complaint made by him t Commissioner of Police against the prosecutrix on 28.08.2012 (Mark DX1).

83. Mr.Jai Mangal Dahanga (PW10) who runs the placement agency from where the prosecutrix was employed as a maid in the house of the accused has also supported the version of the accused. In his cross examination, PW10 has categorically deposed in favour of the accused that he has not committed any offence and this case has been lodged against the accused for extortion of Rs.15 lacs. He used to visit the house of the accused and the prosecutrix used to talk on the landline phone. He has deposed as follows:

".....It is correct that the prosecutrix did not tell me anything against the accused. Whatever may have been told by the prosecutrix to Ms. Bhamani was not in my presence. This case has been lodged by the prosecutrix at the instance of Ms. Bhamani in order to extort money to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs from the accused as the prosecutrix had not been able to earn since she had come from her village and the amount was to be shared with her Chacha. The money was not demanded by the accused in P.S. They had demanded the money from the accused in my presence. I was taken forcibly. It is correct that the money was demanded in a park near the house of the accused. The prosecutrix was agreeable for extortion from the accused.......The complaint made by the prosecutrix to the police was drafted as per instructions of Ms. Bhamni. I did not lodge any complaint regarding the prosecutrix not returning after her medical examination where she had gone with Ms. Bhamani.....It is correct that I had sent maids to work in the house of the accused for last about 7-8 years and have never had any problem from the accused or his family. During her stay in the house of accused and even thereafter till date Prosecutrix had never made any Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                           -:: Page 37 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 38 ::-

complaint against the accused. She used to talk to me from the landline phone in the house of the accused and I also used to visit her about once in a month. It is correct that accused has been falsely implicated in this case."

84. Ex.DW1/E clearly shows that w.e.f. 14.05.2012, there is no responsibility of the accused towards the prosecutrix and the dues of her salary are cleared. Infact, Rs.18,000/- were refunded also.

85. Therefore, it is clear that the version of the prosecutrix and the prosecution case cannot be relied upon, as discussed above, and the version of the defence appears to be believable and worthy of credence.

MENS REA / MOTIVE

86. 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 complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.

87. 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 Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 38 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 39 ::-

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.

88. In the present case there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused did not 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 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.

89. In the present case, a story has been projected that the accused Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 39 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 40 ::-

raped the prosecutrix for the first time in January, 2012 and thereafter again raped her in March, 2012 and this version appears to be untrue as there is no reason why he would do so. The prosecutrix was a maid in his house i.e.she was under his protection and shelter. No reason has been shown by the prosecution why an educated man, her employer would stoop to the level of raping his own employee.

90. There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on the part of the accused.

STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX IN TOTALITY WITH OTHER EVIDENCE

91. It is necessary to discuss and analyse the testimony of the most material witness i.e. PW1, the prosecutrix.

92. In the Court, during trial, the prosecutrix, as PW1, in her examination in chief, has ostensibly deposed in favour of the prosecution case (as elaborated above). However, on careful perusal of her evidence, several overwhelming contradictions and inconsistencies are revealed which give a shattering blow to the case.

93. In her examination in chief, first of all, the prosecutrix has furnished the details of the address of the accused wrongly by deposing it as 817, Janta Vihar, A-Block, Mukund Pur, Delhi which infact is the house of Mr. Jai Mangal who runs a placement agency under the name and style of Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 40 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 41 ::-

Mangal Placement and who had got her employed as a maid in the house of the accused on 13.01.2012. The address of the accused is different.

94. In her examination in chief, she has deposed that she was raped only once when she has deposed that she did not remember the exact date and month but it was during the winter season of 2012 when on one day in the afternoon (dupahar) while she was dusting in the house, accused was at home. His wife had gone for her work and his children were sleeping. The accused raped her in the room where the children used to study.

95. She has not mentioned anything in her examination in chief about her being raped 15-20 days prior to Holi and after 15-20 days of Holi, threats by the accused, beating by accused and his taking her obscene photographs on his mobile phone. Although she does mention about the same in her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor but her failure to do so about such material evidence in her examination in chief throws a shadow of doubt on her veracity making her evidence unreliable and unbelievable.

96. She has deposed in her examination in chief that she did not want to stay in the house of the accused and she was not permitted to talk to the owner of the placement agency as she wanted to leave the work. This has been denied by PW10 Mr.Jai Mangal Dahanga who has deposed that she used to talk to him from landline and also when he visited the house of the accused. Later, in her cross examination, the prosecutrix has admitted that she met Mr.Jai Mangal in the house of the accused and could also talk from the Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 41 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 42 ::-



landline.

97. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was pregnant but she did not know who was the father but has leveled allegations that the accused is the father of her child. However, it is clear from the FSL reports (Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D) that neither the accused nor Mr.Vijay Bhagi (suspect) are the biological father of the male child of the prosecutrix. It is clear that she had physical relations with some other male who has fathered her child.

98. Further, regarding the allegation of the prosecutrix that the father of her child is either the accused or Mr.Vijay Bhagi, her previous employer, it may be observed that as is clear from the FSL reports, both are not the biological father of her child which indicates that some other man with whom she had physical relations is the father and she is deliberately not disclosing his name. The purpose also becomes clear from the evidence of PW10 that extortion was being done from the accused by the prosecutrix and others.

99. She has deposed that she told Mr. Jai Mangal about the incident in Mr. Bhagi's house as well as in the house of the accused but he did not believe her. She wanted to abort the child as it was too late, it could not be done. Mr. Jai Mangal advised her to lodge a complaint with the police. However, this part of the deposition of the prosecutrix is falsified from the deposition of PW10 who has not so deposed before the Court.

100. She has admitted in her cross examination by the Additional Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 42 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 43 ::-

Public Prosecutor that she had told the police and mentioned in her complaint Ex. PW1/A that 15-20 days prior to the month of Holi in the year 2012, Ms. Mamta Kamlani, the wife of accused had gone for her work and the children were away to school and the accused was at home as he had taken leave from his office and at about 12:00 noon when she was doing dusting of the drawing room, accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his bed room where he forcibly raped me after closing the door of the bed room. The accused had also taken her nude photographs from his mobile and threatened to get her killed in case she told anyone about the incident. Due to the incident she was frightened and could not tell anyone about it. After 3/4 days of the incident accused had beaten her and again threatened to get her killed and that even her body could not be traced if she disclosed the incident. 15-20 days after Holi in the year 2012, Ms. Mamta Kamlani, the wife of accused had gone for her work and the children were away to school and the accused was at home as he had taken leave from his office and at about 10:00/11:00 AM when she was doing cleaning the utensils in the kitchen, accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his bed room where he forcibly raped her and again threatened to kill her. The prosecutrix has failed to furnish all these material details in her examination in chief attributing it to lapse of time. However, it does not appear to be believable that a victim would forget all the major details of the incident including the number of times she was raped, where she was raped, whether her obscene photographs were taken, whether she was threatened, etc. her failure to depose about all the material facts in her examination in chief creates a doubt on the veracity of her testimony.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 43 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 44 ::-

101. The prosecutrix has denied that she had taken the police to the house of the accused and had pointed out the place of incident and the site plan as well as the pointing out memo were prepared at her instance but on perusal of the same it transpires that they bear her signatures and this flaw has not been explained by the prosecution. If the site plan and the pointing out memo were not prepared at the instance of the prosecutrix, then how the same were prepared has not been explained by the prosecution.

102. The veracity of the testimony of the prosecutrix stands shattered in her cross examination by the accused wherein she has deposed that "......The gap between the first and second incident of rape was of about one month.... The first incident of rape occurred in the study room of children and the second incident of rape occurred in the bed room of the accused. The children were out of the house at the time of first incident of rape and they were at home and sleeping at the time of second incident of rape. I did not shout for help as the accused had closed my mouth with his hand. I had tried to escape but could not as the door was closed from outside...... The second incident had occurred after two months of Holi..... I was permitted to go out of the house but I preferred not to go out. I did not tell anyone about my rape by the accused by going out of the house..... There was a land line phone in the house of the accused and I know how to use a phone. I did not tell anyone about the rape on phone as I did not have any number of any relative. The residence of the accused is in a residential area with adjoining accommodation... The second incident of rape occurred at about 2:00 PM. The first incident of rape occurred at about 11:00 AM....."

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 44 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 45 ::-

103. Further the prosecutrix had refused the admission in the hospital despite the medical advice and the explanation given by her in her cross examination is that "I had refused to get myself admitted in the hospital even after the advice of the doctor out of fear of the accused. I had fear of operation and for this reason I had refused to get myself admitted in the hospital. I had pregnancy of six months at that time. I am aware that the delivery is not done when the pregnancy is of six months and it is generally when the pregnancy is of nine months." This fact also makes her evidence unreliable as she was aware that her delivery was still time away but she still refused her admission.

104. The prosecutrix has made some major contradictions in her evidence which are fatal blemishes and strike at the root of the prosecution case.

105. One major contradiction is regarding the place where she was allegedly raped by the accused for the first time. On one hand in her examination in chief, she has deposed that while she was dusting in the house in the afternoon in winter, accused was at home, his wife had gone for her work and his children were sleeping, the accused raped her in the room where the children used to study. On the other hand, in her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecutrix has deposed that Ms. Mamta Kamlani, the wife of accused had gone for her work and the children were away to school and the accused was at home as he had taken Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 45 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 46 ::-

leave from his office and at about 12:00 noon when she was doing dusting of the drawing room, accused caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his bed room where he forcibly raped me after closing the door of the bed room.

106. Here, it may also be mentioned that in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/E) that the prosecutrix has stated that she was employed in the house of accused Pramod on 13.01.2012 and after 10 or 15 days in the month of January, 2012 accused had raped her at about 11:00 AM/12:00 Noon.

107. Another major contradiction coming in her evidence is regarding the place where she was raped for the second time. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, she had stated in her statement (Ex. PW1/E) that the second incident of rape had occurred in the study room which took place after Holi. However, in her cross examination by the accused, she has deposed that the second incident occurred in the bed room of the accused.

108. Another major contradiction coming in her evidence is regarding the presence of the children of the accused at the time of first incident of rape. On one hand, in her examination in chief, the prosecutrix has deposed that the children were sleeping. On the other hand, in her cross examination she has deposed that the children were out of the house at the time of first incident of rape.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 46 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 47 ::-

109. Yet another major contradiction coming in her evidence is regarding the presence of the children of the accused at the time of second incident of rape. On one hand, in cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecutrix has deposed that the children were away to school. On the other hand, in her cross examination she has deposed that the children were at home and sleeping at the time of second incident of rape.

110. The prosecutrix has alleged in her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) that the first incident of rape was 15-20 days prior to Holi and the second incident was 15-20 days after Holi. In her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E) she has stated that the first incident of rape was after 10-15 days of 13.01.2012 when she had joined the services of the accused and the second incident was after Holi. However, in her cross examination by the accused, she has deposed that "The gap between the first and second incident of rape was of about one month." The contradictions in the time and duration of the two incidents has not been explained by the prosecution.

111. Here, it would be relevant to note that in her complaint (Ex.PW1/A) on 08.06.2012, the prosecutrix mentions about the first incident of rape in 15-20 days prior to Holi. (Holi is generally in March). Till then she had not been medically examined. In her MLC dated 08.06.2012, she came to know that she had conceived in second or third week of January, 2012 and there was a pregnancy of 24 weeks. It appears that in order to cover this period, she has modified and altered the time of her rape for the first time by stating in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E) that it Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 47 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 48 ::-

was in January, 2012 after 10-15 days of her joining on 13.01.2012 which would be 23-28.01.2013. Between January and March, there is another month February. If the second rape was 15-20 days after Holi, then the gap between the first and rape would be about 0ne and half to two months and not one month as deposed by the prosecutrix.

112. Also, here it is relevant to take note of the passport of the accused (Ex.DW1/D) which he has produced in his defence as DW1 where his date of leaving India is mentioned as 22.01.2012. When the accused was not in Delhi w.e.f. 22.01.2012 till 05.02.2012, then he could not have raped the prosecutrix between 23.01.2012 and 28.01.2012, as claimed by her.

113. The version of the prosecutrix is unreliable as in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/E), the prosecutrix has stated that she has never had physical relations with any one else and the child in her womb is of the accused. However, later, she has leveled allegations against Mr.Vijay Bhagi (suspect) being the father of her child. The FSL reports (Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D) show that neither the accused nor Mr.Vijay Bhagi are the biological father of the child of the prosecutrix which indicates that the prosecutrix had physical relations with some other man who has fathered her child.

114. Further, the allegations of the prosecutrix that the accused had taken her nude photographs with his mobile phone are also falsified by the FSL report (Ex.PW6/A) whereby the phone of the accused was examined and Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 48 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 49 ::-

no obscene or incriminating material was found in the same.

115. Regarding the alleged threats given by the accused to the prosecutrix, it may be observed that neither the prosecutrix has given the details of the words used by the accused not their impact on her which makes her evidence unbelievable. Had there been any threat, it would have been only for a particular time and not for an indefinite period. She was living in a residential area, going out to work, in association with others, in contact with the others including Mr.Jai Mangal, and could have taken their help if there was any threat or she needed help. The effect of the alleged threat, has not been disclosed anywhere. Neither the words used nor the impact of the threat have been furnished by the prosecution. Merely making a bald allegation that she was threatened does not suffice for convicting the accused and there was no reason why she could not have disclosed about the alleged threat to the others with whom she had come in contact with. The fact that she chose to remain silent, only shows that there was no danger nor any threat. There should be some positive corroborating evidence.

116. She has also failed to give the details and particulars of the advocate from whom she had got the complaint typed and who had accompanied her and Mr. Jai Mangal to the Police Station.

117. Regarding her allegations of alleged rape by Mr.Vijay Bhagi, the same are not required to be discussed as the same is not the subject matter of this case nor any charge has been framed. Even otherwise, from the FSL Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 49 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 50 ::-

reports, it is clear that just as the accused, even Mr.Vijay Bhagi is not the biological father of the child of the prosecutrix.

118. The prosecutrix, in her cross examination has deposed that "I did not shout for help as the accused had closed my mouth with his hand. I had tried to escape but could not as the door was closed from outside. Although, there was some noise at the time of closing the door but he articles had not scattered or fallen down when I was trying to escape from the accused at the time of second incident of rape." If the accused was raping her in the study room or the bedroom, there was no occasion of the door being closed from outside. Also, if the prosecutrix did not shout for help or struggle to free herself, the same also makes her version unbelievable.

119. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment reported as Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.

(a)By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

(b)Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(c)The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 50 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 51 ::-

image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(d)By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(e)In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(f)Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron.

(g)A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.

120. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. The inherent contradictions strike at the very root of the prosecution story making it unbelievable and improbable. In the instant case, the evidence and different statements of the victim/prosecutrix suffers from such infirmities and the probabilities due to which the prosecution has come out with a story, which is highly improbable. The overwhelming contradictions are too major to be ignored and they strike a fatal blow to the prosecution version. In fact what Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 51 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 52 ::-

emerges from the evidence of the prosecutrix is she has leveled false allegations of rape, threat and beating against the accused.

121. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:

"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."

122. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.

123. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offences as the prosecutrix has made different inconsistent statements due to which her testimony becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence.

124. Where the evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material points with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no injury on her person even though her version may Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                 -:: Page 52 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 53 ::-

be otherwise, then no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected. Prosecutrix knew the accused prior to the incident. If evidence of prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other evidence on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition does not inspire confidence. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (5) LRC 137 (SC).

125. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness-prosecutrix was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).

126. It is a case of heinous crime of rape, which carries grave implication for the accused, if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that the of a high standard and not mere Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 53 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 54 ::-

possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and not merely dwell upon the shortcoming of defence.

127. If one integral part of the story put forth by witness was not believable, then the entire case fails. It is settled law that where witness makes two inconsistencies statements in their evidence either at one stage of both stages, the testimony of said witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstance; no conviction can be based on the evidence of said witness.

128. As has been held by Apex Court in a catena of judgments that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so the court must test the credibility of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the court as wholly truthful, and must appear to be natural and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 54 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 55 ::-

129. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offence under section 376 of the IPC as the prosecutrix has made inconsistent statements due to which her testimony becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. There is no material on record that the prosecutrix was forced by the accused.

130. In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, in para 25 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted......"

131. This brings me to the final question as to whether it was she was raped and threatened by the accused. In this regard it is no doubt true that in her statement before this Court she has stated that she had been raped by the accused but there are several contradictions in her statements which remain unexplained and indicate that no such offence was ever committed by the accused.

132. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 55 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 56 ::-

but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.

133. In the judgment reported as Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979, SC 1408, it was held that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses.

134. In the judgment reported as Devu Samal v. The State, 2012 (2) JCC 1039, it was held that the contradictory testimony of the prosecutrix not supported by the FSL report makes it a fit case of grant of benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

135. All the above facts and the ration of the above referred judgments indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case in respect of the offence of rape, threat and beating of the prosecutrix by accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani and the accused merits to be acquitted for the offence under sections 376, 506 and 323 of the IPC.

CHARACTER / CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTRIX

136. From the evidence of the prosecution, including PWs 1 and 10, it appears the conduct and the character of the rposecutrix are not above board.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 56 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 57 ::-

137. PW1, the prosecutrix, despite claiming that she did not have physical relations with any one else except the accused who raped her and was the father of her child, later levelled allegations of rape against her previous employer Mr.Vijay Bhagi (suspect). However, these allegations have been found to be false, as discussed above. It has become clear from the FSL reports that neither accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani nor suspect Mr.Vijay Bhagi are the biological father of the male child of the prosecutrix. The same further indicate that the prosecutrix had physical relations with some other man who has fathered her child and she is deliberately not disclosing his name.

138. Further, PW10, Mr.Jai Mangal Dahanga, has deposed in his cross examination that "...Mr. Dinesh had told me that her nature is bad (nature kharab hai) and she had to remain in Delhi for 2-3 years. Her conduct was not proper in her village (chhal chalan thik nahin hai). Her brother had also hit her on the head and she had an injury mark.....Mr. Deepak and Prosecutrix had separate rooms Vol. I had noticed that on two-three nights after drinking liquor he had slept in the room of Prosecutrix .....It is correct that the prosecutrix did not tell me anything against the accused. Whatever may have been told by the prosecutrix to Ms. Bhamani was not in my presence. This case has been lodged by the prosecutrix at the instance of Ms. Bhamani in order to extort money to the tune of Rs. 15 Lacs from the accused as the prosecutrix had not been able to earn since she had come from her village and the amount was to be shared with her Chacha.....The prosecutrix was agreeable for extortion from the accused.....During her stay in the house of accused and even thereafter till date Prosecutrix had Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                               -:: Page 57 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 58 ::-

never made any complaint against the accused. She used to talk to me from the landline phone in the house of the accused and I also used to visit her about once in a month. It is correct that accused has been falsely implicated in this case."

139. It becomes clear from the evidence of PWs 1 and 10, that the prosecutrix can stoop to the level of lodging a false rape case against the accused in collusion with others for extortion. She can tell lies. She can share her room with a man. She can attribute paternity of her child on an innocent man. All these facts make the prosecution version unbelievable and unreliable.

INVESTIGATION

140. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The FIR has been proved by the duty officer. The MLCs of the accused and the prosecutrix have been proved by the doctors. The FSL report has been proved by PWs 2 and 6. There is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has not been conducted properly, fairly and impartially.

141. The investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case has been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the IO. There is nothing on the record to show that their testimonies are false or not reliable.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                  -:: Page 58 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 59 ::-

142. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation. Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important as prosecutrix 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.

143. 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.

144. Therefore, the investigation is not being taken into consideration although it is material but not very relevant as the evidence of the prosecutrix itself is not reliable CONCLUSION

145. Since the prosecutrix as PW1 is neither reliable nor believable as there are overwhelming contradictions in her different statements, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                 -:: Page 59 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 60 ::-

146. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy regarding the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish rape, threat and beating by the accused. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.

147. 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 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.

148. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the identity of the accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani stands established. He was known to the prosecutrix even prior to the incident. It also stands established that the prosecutrix was not a minor.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                -:: Page 60 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 61 ::-

149. It is also clear that there is an inordinate unexplained and unjustified delay in making the complaint of rape and in lodging the FIR. It also stands established that the accused had not raped the prosecutrix. There is no medical or forensic or circumstantial evidence to show that such an offence has ever been committed. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place.

150. Therefore, there is no force is the contention of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecutrix was raped, threatened and beaten by the accused.

151. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused Mr.Parmod Kamlani.

152. Accordingly, Mr.Parmod Kamlani, the accused, is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under sections 376, 506 and 323 of the IPC.

COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-AOF THE CR.P.C.

153. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                             -:: Page 61 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 62 ::-



SOME           OBSERVATIONS                    REGARDING      THE   PLACEMENT
AGENCIES AND RAPE CASES

154. It would not be out of place to mention here again as in many such other similar cases that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the evidence of the prosecutrix is unreliable and not worthy of credence, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.

155. It would be also pertinent to observe here that a recent trend is surfacing where either a domestic worker is being underpaid or where she has been detained by the employer for an unusually long period or where her work is unsatisfactory or where she herself has committed an offence like theft in the house of the employer that such a domestic worker has unfortunately resorted to invoke the laws relating to sexual abuse for achieving their goal, may be due to ill advice, as is clear in the present case.

156. Incidents of gross misuse and abuse of the laws relating to rape and sexual abuse and exploitation of uneducated, ignorant and uninformed domestic workers by unscrupulous persons and placement agencies etc. for their personal gains or vendetta, is a matter of serious concern.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 62 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 63 ::-

157. A spurt of cases are being registered on the false allegations made by domestic workers, migrant as well as local, regarding rape and physical abuse by the employers. They are young girls from backward tribal areas who are exploited by those running Placement Agencies. These so called owners of the Placement Agencies and local musclemen use these domestic workers as pawns to settle their personal scores with the professional rivals. This trend requires to be nipped in the bud itself and the precious time of the government agencies i.e. the police, the prosecution, the judiciary etc. should not be wasted.

158. Under these circumstances, the task of both the Investigating Agency and the Court becomes onerous so as to ensure that on one hand the existing penal provisions are not abused so as to implicate innocent persons whereas on the other hand, to ensure that no guilty is left scot free.

159. This case appears to be a living example of a domestic worker, a maid from placement agency, raising false allegations of rape only to achieve her selfish ends of extorting money.

160. This case is just one of the many cases in this Court where either the prosecutrix who is a maid from a placement agency has turned hostile or her evidence is not reliable due to which an innocent man has to undergo the rigours of investigation and trial before he is declared innocent holding that the allegations against him are false.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                              -:: Page 63 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 64 ::-

161. The conscience of this Court tells that this is a crime which is required to be addressed differently especially regarding the role of the Placement Agencies and their maids in doing extortion of innocent employers.

162. On 05.06.2013 while acquitting a senior citizen of 82 years in a similar case (Sessions Case Number : 80 of 2011; Unique Case ID Number :

02401R0551302011; FIR No. 166/11, Police Station Moti Nagar, under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code titled as State versus Krishan Lal Chawla) and another such employer in another similar case (Sessions Case Number : 14 of 2013; Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0239642011; FIR No. 159/09 , Police Station Tilak Nagar, Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code titles as State versus Narender Singh @ Monty) this Court had made some observations which are being reiterated again in this judgment.

163. There are no laws, policies or rules to regulate the Placement Agencies which supply maids and servants for working in houses. Considering the crying need of the day, it is required that some regulatory law or policy is made by the Government and Police so that there can be check on the Placement Agencies and it is made compulsory that the police verification of the maids and servants who are to be employed in the private houses is done before they take up employment. In my considered view, it is time that we as a Civil Society stand up not to only protect, shelter and rehabilitate a victim of rape but also to protect and shelter an accused against whom false allegations of rape have been levelled.

Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                            -:: Page 64 
of 65 ::-
                                                  -:: 65 ::-

164. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the respective Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Labour and Home of the Government of India as well as Government of NCT of Delhi (through proper channel) Chairpersons, National Commission for Women, Delhi Commission for Women, Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police (West) for information purposes.

165. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.

166. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.

167. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 07th day of September, 2013. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court) -01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

************************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 36 of 2013.

Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0544982012.

FIR No.207/2012, Police Station Hari Nagar, Under sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

State versus Parmod Kamlani                                                          -:: Page 65 
of 65 ::-