Delhi District Court
And Directions Of Supreme Court In ... vs . Puttraj 2004 (1) on 9 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SPECIAL FTC - 2 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 230/2017
Assigned to Sessions. 22.03.2017
Arguments heard on 03.04.2018
Date of Judgment 07.04.2018
FIR No. 535/2015
State V 1.Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari s/o.
Mohd. Akbar, R/o. Village Gagary
Jamalpur PS Jamalpur, Distt.
Khagaria, Bihar. (In JC)
2.Karan s/o Sunder @ Rakesh, R/o.
H. No.444, Bhola Ka Makan II nd
Pusta, Shastri Park, Delhi. (Since
discharged vide order dated
29.05.2017)
Police Station Old Delhi Railway Station
Under Section 354/376/324 IPC
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present case Station House Officer of Police Station Old Delhi Railway
Station had filed a challan vide FIR No.535/2016 dated 17.11.2016 u/s.
354/376/511/379/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Mohd.
Shahwaz @ Bihari and Karan in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. After
compliance of the requirement of section 207 Cr. P.C. the case was sent to this
court being the designated Special Fast Track Court for trial of the offences of
sexual assault against the women through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions
Judge (HQ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Keeping in view of section 228 (A) IPC
and directions of Supreme court in "State of Karnataka Vs. Puttraj 2004 (1)
SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 1/16
SCC 475" and "Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2006, CRLJ. 2913", the name
of prosecutrix is not being disclosed in the judgment.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The criminal law set into motion on the statement of the prosecutrix, Ex.PW1/A wherein she has stated that on 16.11.2016, she boarded the Jan Sadharan Express Train in ladies coach from Sugoli Station and coming to Delhi as there was a marriage of daughter of her sister at Najafgarh, Delhi.
3. She further stated that on 17.11.2016 when train reached at Shahdara Railway Station and four ladies deboarded the train and she was to deboarded at Old Delhi Railway Station then three boys aged about 22, 24 years boarded the train and at about 3:00 a.m. two of the aforesaid three boys took her bag containing 4 saree, two ladies suits, clothes of one pant and one shirt, one stitched pant and one shirt and some cosmetic items and alighted from the train when it was about to reach Loha Wala Pul. She further deposed that while she was sitting in distress as her bag had been taken away by the said boys, the remaining one boy aged about 2022 years started manhandling with her and started chhedchhad with her. It is further stated in the statement by the prosecutrix that he forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth and also bitten her on her back, neck, thigh and chest. It is further stated in the statement by the prosecutrix that she held his penis in her mouth and bit it and also raised alarm. After hearing her alarm when train was about to reach railway station, one official from RPF entered the coach of the train. He caught hold the accused and took her and accused to police station, where her statement was recorded by the police. In the aforesaid statement, she sought legal action against the accused. On the basis of aforesaid statement Ex.PW1/A, FIR No.535/2015 SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 2/16 dated 17.11.2016 u/s. 354/376/511/379/34 IPC was registered and accused persons were charge sheeted.
CHARGE:
4. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 29.05.2017 accused Karan was discharged and framed charges against accused Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari for the offence punishable u/s. 354/376/324 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
5. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 09 witnesses namely PW1 ASI Sukhpal Singh, PW2 W/ASI Prafula, PW3 Dr. Surendra Kumar, PW4 Dr. Vaibhav Chaudhary, PW5 Prosecutrix 'AD', PW6 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, PW7 ASI Bhanwar Lal, PW8 Ms. Amrita Tonk, Ld. MM and PW9 Dr. Ashok Sagar.
6. PW1 ASI Sukhpal Singh has proved rukka of the present case vide Ex.PW1/A, computerized copy of the FIR vide Ex.PW1/B, endorsement upon the rukka vide Ex.PW1/C and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act qua the present FIR vide Ex.PW1/D.
7. PW2 W/ASI Prafula is the first I.O. She deposed that on 17.11.2016, DD No.14A was assigned to her for necessary action. Thereafter, she along with W/Ct. Reena, Ct. Rajneesh, Ct. Shashi Dev and Ct. Kuldeep took the accused, present in the court (correctly identified) who had sustained injuries and prosecutrix to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for their medical examination. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. She recorded her statement SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 3/16 already Ex.PW1/A at the said hospital. Accused was also got medically examined. She deposed that on the basis of the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix he prepared rukka, made endorsement at B to B on the said statement and gave it to Ct. Kuldeep for getting the FIR registered. She further deposed that accused was in the custody of Ct. Rajneesh and Ct. Shashi Dev.
8. PW2 further deposed that after registration of the present case on the instructions of Sr. Police Officials case was assigned for investigation to ASI Bhanwar Lal. He had handed over all the documents alongwith case file and he also handed over the custody of accused to ASI Bhanwar Lal.
9. PW3 Dr. Surendra Kumar has conducted formal medical examination of prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. On her medical examination brushes with abrasion in the circular area over back of neck, back of left shoulder and left thigh were observed. He further deposed that the said injuries may be caused by teeth biting.
10. PW4 Dr. Vaibhav Chaudhary has conducted formal medical examination of accused vide MLC Ex.PW4/A and thereafter, he referred him to the department of Surgery for his potency test.
11. PW5 Prosecutrix 'AD' is a material witness being victim and complainant. She deposed that she is illiterate and is a housewife and belong to Bihar. She deposed that there was a marriage of daughter of her sister in Delhi on 16th day of a month about a year ago. Her sister was residing at Najafgarh, Delhi.SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 4/16
12. She further deposed that a day before the said marriage she left her village to Delhi by train. She further deposed that she boarded the train in ladies coach at Sugoli Railway Station in Bihar and she reached Old Delhi Railway Station at about 03:00 p.m. She further deposed that probably the name of the train was Jan Sadharan Express and that she was in ladies coach and that besides her 57 other ladies were also sitting in the coach and that the said ladies deboarded the train at a station before the Loha Pul and she became alone in the coach.
13. She further deposed that thereafter, 3 boys boarded the train and that when train was about to reach Purana Loha Pul and she was getting ready to arrange her luggage to deboard the train, two of the aforesaid three boys took her bag containing 4 saree, two ladies suits, clothes of one pant and one shirt, one stitched pant and one shirt and some cosmetic items and alighted from the train when it was about to reach Loha Wala Pul. She further deposed that while she was sitting in distress as her bag had been taken away by the said boys, the remaining one boy sat besides her "aur chhedchhad karne laga". This witness has correctly identified the accused to be the same boy as stated above.
14. PW5 further deposed that when accused started Chhedkhani with her, she told him that "tumhari umar ka mera beta hai, tum kya kar rahe ho", but accused did not desist from doing the said act, rather he torn her blouse and forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth and also bitten her on her back, neck, thigh and chest.
15. She further deposed that she held his penis in her mouth and bit it and also raised alarm. After hearing her alarm when train was about to reach railway station, one official from RPF entered the coach of the train. He caught hold the SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 5/16 accused and took her and accused to police station, where her statement was recorded by the police and she appended her thumb impression thereon. This witness has proved the same vide Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that her said articles in the aforesaid bag were of Rs.20000 - Rs.30000/.
16. This witness has proved her MLC vide Ex.PW3/A. This witness has proved arrest memo of accused vide Ex.PW5/A. She deposed that she had kept her railway ticket in her stolen bag. This witness has proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW5/B.
17. She further deposed that during the course of incident accused had pinned her down on the floor of the coach and she sustained injuries and even today she is getting treatment for the same.
18. On being cross examined by Ms. Dolly Nair, ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, she deposed that she got married about 20 years ago and she was blessed with three children but two out of them have passed away. She deposed that she had not given marriage invitation of daughter of her sister to the police. Train ticket examiner had checked her ticket during her journey. She further deposed that she did not raise alarm when three boys entered the coach. When the boys entered in the coach, train was moving slowly. This witness had denied to the suggestion that when train was moving slowly and about to reach railway station some coolies had entered inside the coach or that she was not able to identify the accused at that time or that when train stopped at railway station she had pointed out the accused as culprit in this case or that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that she is deposing falsely to extort money from him.SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 6/16
19. PW6 Ct. Sanjay Kumar has deposed that on 17.11.2016 he was deputed at the stretch/area from JB West (Jamna Bazar) to DSA End (Delhi Shahdara End) and his duty hours were from 07.45 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. He further deposed that one Ct. Vinod Kumar was also on duty with him and while they were patrolling the said area and a train was passing very slowly near Kalkatiya Gate Railways Line coming from Shahdara Side, he heard screaming of a lady coming from Mahila Coach of the train. PW6 further deposed that as soon as he heard second screaming of the lady and the train was moving slowly, he entered the coach. Prosecutrix was found present. He deposed that "uss samay dekha nahi jaa raha tha aur accused bahut ghinoni harkat kar raha tha, aur prosecutrix apne aap ko bachane ki koshish kar rahi thi". He caught hold the accused and made the prosecutrix to settle down and put on her clothes properly. He also offered a bottle of water, which he was carrying with him. He further deposed that on reaching Old Delhi Railway Station they took both the prosecutrix and accused at GRP Police Station and handed them over to its Incharge. RPF police officials also reached the platform at the railway station and finally matter was taken up by PS Old Delhi Railway Station.
20. On being cross examined by Ms. Dolly Nair, ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, this witness admitted that he had not stated in my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the facts that "uss samay dekha nahi jaa raha tha aur accused bahut ghinoni harkat kar raha tha, aur prosecutrix apne aap ko bachane ki koshish kar rahi thi", nor he stated the name of his colleague who was with him at that time. This witness admitted that he did not state in his said statement that they handed over accused and prosecutrix to GRP Police. This witness had denied to the suggestion that he did not hear any screaming of a lady or that he had not apprehended the accused or that he did not take accused along with the SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 7/16 prosecutrix to GRP Police Station.
21. PW7 ASI Bhanwar Lal is the investigating officer. He has deposed on the lines of investigation. He deposed that W/ASI Prafulla had handed over her the MLC of the prosecutrix and Ct. Sachdev and Ct. Rajnish handed over the accused to him after getting his medical examination conducted. They had also handed over him the MLC of the accused. He interrogated the accused (correctly identified) and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A in the presence of Ct. Sachdev and Ct. Rajnish. Prosecutrix had also identified the accused and appended her thumb impression on the arrest memo. He further deposed that he also conducted personal search of the accused vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW7/C. This witness had also arrested coaccused Karan (since discharge from this case).
22. During the course of investigation, on 13.02.2017 he had got the potency test of the accused Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari conducted vide MLC already Ex.PW4/A.
23. During the course of investigation, he had also got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C., already Ex.PW5/B. He had also recorded the statements of the witnesses who joined investigation with him, prepared charge sheet and submitted it in the court.
24. On being cross examined by Ms. Dolly Nair, ld. Amicus Curiae for accused Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari, this witness deposed that W/ASI Prafulla had handed over him case file of the present case on the directions of the SHO. This SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 8/16 witness had denied to suggestion that W/ASI Prafulla had recorded the statement of prosecutrix.
25. He deposed that he had not prepared site plan as incident had happened in a running train. He admitted that at the time of arrest of accused no public person was present. This witness had denied to the suggestion that he had recorded all the statements and prepared documents at police station or that he is deposing falsely being IO of the case.
26. PW8 Ms. Amrita Tonk, Ld. MM, has recorded statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW5/B.
27. PW9 Dr. Ashok Sagar has proved potency test of accused vide MLC Ex.PW4/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
28. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused claimed that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused has not preferred to lead evidence in his defence. Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments.
ARGUMENTS:
29. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution on all material points and the testimony of prosecutrix is consistent and coherent on all material aspects of the case and she had given the graphic narration of the incident, happened with her.SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 9/16
30. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that it is a absolute settled proposition of law that even the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused but here in this case, there are overwhelming corroborative evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused.
31. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that since prosecutrix had given consistent version of the incident and that sequence of event as narrated by her has also happened in a quick and the fact that proceeding after the incident conducted in a quick succession right from registration of FIR, medical examination of prosecutrix and arrest of accused.
32. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that alleged history given by prosecutrix to the doctor who had conducted her medical examination. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that accused persons have not been able to bring an iota of evidence as to why he has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the aforesaid grounds, ld. Addl. PP for the State has prayed for conviction of the accused for the offence he has been charged and subjected to trial.
33. On the other hand, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused argued and submitted that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the the present case.
On these grounds, ld. Amicus Curaie for accused prayed that accused may be acquitted.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
34. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the statement of complainant Ex.PW1/A, present FIR was registered against the accused.SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 10/16
35. It is revealed that prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW3/A by PW3 Dr. Surendra Kumar who opined that injuries on the person of prosecutrix were caused by teeth biting.
36. It is further revealed that statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.PW5/B by PW8 Ms. Amrita Tonk, Ld. M.M., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
37. It is further revealed that accused was arrested on the identification of PW5 prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. PW5 prosecutrix also identified accused in the court.
38. It is further revealed that on 17.11.2016 PW2 W/ASI Prafula on the basis of information received vide DD no.14A along with W/Ct. Reena, Ct. Rajneesh, Ct. Shashi Dev and Ct. Kuldeep took accused and PW5 prosecutrix to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for his medical examination, where prosecutrix was also medically examined and she gave her statement Ex.PW1/A to W/ASI Prafula.
39. It is further revealed that PW2 W/ASI Prafula prepared rukka, Ex.PW1/A and gave the same to Ct. Kuldeep, who produced the rukka to Duty Officer. PW1 ASI Sukhpal Singh, who registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/B; he made his endorsement, Ex.PW1/C on the rukka and also gave certificate, Ex.PW1/D under section 65 B of the Evidence Act regarding correct contents of FIR.
40. It is further revealed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A, his personal search conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW7/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW7/C. SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 11/16
41. It is further revealed that accused was examined vide MLC, Ex.PW4/A and he was were referred for potency test and PW9 Dr. Ashok Sagar examined him and found in his opinion vide his endorsement at point 'C to C' on the MLC that he was were capable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances.
42. Before reaching at any conclusion, let the relevant sections i.e. 354/376/324 IPC be reproduced, which are as under : Section 354 IPC: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, (Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.) Section 324 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 376 IPC:
Punishment for rape - (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by subsection (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
Whoever,
(a) being a police officer commits rape within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 12/16 on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution' or being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) Commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) Commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.
Explanation 1 - Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this subsection.
Explanation 2 "Women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.
Explanation 3 "Hospital" means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for a reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.] FINDINGS:
43. Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record, it is revealed that two accused persons were chargesheeted by the prosecution in the present case and one accused namely Karan was not identified by the complainant, therefore, he was discharged. Accused Shahwaz @ Bihari was identified by the prosecutrix, therefore, he was charged u/s. 324/376/354 IPC.
44. From the bare perusal of testimony of prosecutrix, it was revealed that prosecutrix was travelling in ladies coach of Delhi bound train from her village SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 13/16 at Bihar and it also reveals that accused intentionally entered in ladies compartment with intention to theft and chhedkhani. As per testimony of prosecutrix, she was in ladies coach and that besides her 57 other ladies were also sitting in the coach and that the said ladies deboarded the train at a station before the Loha Pul and she became alone in the coach.
45. She further deposed that thereafter, 3 boys boarded the train and that when train was about to reach Purana Loha Pul and she was getting ready to arrange her luggage to deboard the train, two of the aforesaid three boys took her bag containing 4 saree, two ladies suits, clothes of one pant and one shirt, one stitched pant and one shirt and some cosmetic items and alighted from the train when it was about to reach Loha Wala Pul. She further deposed that while she was sitting in distress as her bag had been taken away by the said boys, the accused sat besides her, "aur chhedchhad karne laga". Prosecutrix further deposed in her testimony that when accused started Chhedkhani with her, she told him that "tumhari umar ka mera beta hai, tum kya kar rahe ho", but accused did not desist from doing the said act, rather he torn her blouse and forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth and also bitten her on her back, neck, thigh and chest. She further deposed that she held his penis in her mouth and bit it and also raised alarm. Accused had also beaten the prosecutrix and committed unnatural sex and raped with the prosecutrix. MLC of prosecutrix also support the case of prosecution.
46. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has levelled same allegations against the accused.
47. Since accused had bitten on the body of prosecutrix for which he has not stated anything in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated.SC No.230/2017
State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 14/16
48. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused has claimed that he is innocent and implicated in the case but he could give reply why he has been implicated in this case which shows that he intentionally entered in the ladies compartment of the train and committed rape with prosecutrix by inserting his penis in her mouth.
49. In Shyam Narian Vs. The State of NCT Delhi : (2013) 7 SCC 77, the Hon'ble Supeme Court has elaborately dealt the issue as discussed in Madan Gopal Kaakar Vs. Naval Dubey and Anr.: (1992) 3 SCC 204, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bodem Sundra Rao : AIR 1996 SC 530 and State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa : (2000) 4 SCC 75 and has held that :
"It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed."
50. and in Jugendra Singh Vs. State of UP : (2012) 6 SCC 297, Hon'ble Apex Court has held :
"Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per law."
51. In Lillu @ Rajesh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana : (2013) 14 SCC 643, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :
SC No.230/2017State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 15/16 "11. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh : AIR 2004 SC 1290, this Court dealt with the issue and held that rape is violative of victim's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, the courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanizing act, is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her selfesteem and dignity as well. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries, but leaves behind a scar on the most cherished position of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity. Rape is not only an offence against the person of a woman, rather a crime against the entire society. It is a crime against basic human rights and also violates the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
52. After considering the fact and circumstances of the case the evidence brought on record by prosecution as discussed above, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari beyond reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 324/376/354 IPC. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari is held guilty for the offence punishable 324/376/354 IPC .
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.04.2018.
(RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ/SFTC2(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.230/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Shahwaz @ Bihari 16/16