Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 14 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0069272011 SC NO. 12/11 Date of Institution : 18.03.2008 FIR No. 412/10 Date of Argument : 10.09.2012 PS Kalyanpuri Date of Order : 14.09.2012 U/S 376/420/509 IPC State Versus Accused Rajender Singh Rautela S/o Late Sh. Anand Singh Rautela R/o H.No. 1/137, Khichripur, Delhi. JUDGMENT
The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 29.12.2010, Ms. Chavi Mittal D/o Sh. Praveen Mittal R/o H.No. 8A/27, 31 DDA Janta Flats, Trilokpuri, Delhi arrived at P.S. Kalyanpuri alongwith parents and uncle Pradeep Mittal and made statement before ASI Om Prakash to the effect that she is aged about 20 years. She had been residing with her parents at the above mentioned address and she had studied upto 10th class. A person named Rajender Singh Rautela is resident of H.No. 8A/423, DDA Janta Flats, Trilokpuri and carried on business of property dealing in the name of Hari Om in the Janta Flats itself. He has his another house at 1/137, Khichripur. He has two wives, one of them resides at DDA Flat and another resides at Khichripur. Previously, SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 1 of 20 Rautela was doing his business in the partnership of another property dealer named Rawat, who used to have his office adjoining to her house. Rautela used to tell that he was one of the disciple of Asharam and he used to sit on a chair outside his office. One day he looked at thumbs of her feet and told that one of her thumb was small and forecasted that her parents would die after one year of her marriage and she would also become widow. He advised her to make prayers regularly and to light Deepak under peepal tree. Out of fear she started making prayers and lighting Deepak. On this pretext he started visiting her and after gaining confidence he told that he would treat her entire family but told that he may require some money. He took Rs. 10,000/- which were kept in almirah. Her parents used to leave house for the shop in the morning. His brother used to go to school and she used to live alone in the house and Rautela used to come in their absence. Under the pretext of prasad, he used to give her halwa and sometimes he used to give cardamum clove (long). In this way he controlled her after giving that prasad. After eating the prasad she used to become unconscious and during that period he had been committing rape with her for the last 1-1/2 years. He also terrorized her that in case she would tell this fact to anybody else her entire family would be destroyed. Due to that terror she did not tell these facts to anybody else. Her father had kept Rs.2,20,000/- in almirah for making arrangement of barsi of her grandfather. In the meantime, Rautela came to her house and told her that he SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 2 of 20 required 2 or 2-1/2 lakh Rupees and he would return the same. She handed over that amount to him. She never disclosed this fact to her parents. He had been blackmailing her. On 25.12.2010 he came on a scooter and after pushing the horn he was making gestures toward her. Her uncle Sh. Pradeep Mittal saw him and caught hold of him and asked for making gestures. Thereafter, abuses were exchanged between them and thereafter Rautela escaped from there. When her uncle asked then she initially remained silent but on scolding by her uncle she told entire story to taking Rs. 2,30,000/- and raping her after giving prasad. On her statement Investigating Officer got the FIR No. 412/10 u/s 376/420/509 IPC and Section 7 Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, 1954 recorded on 29.12.2010. Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan. Ms. Chavi Mittal was taken to LBS Hospital where her MLC was prepared but she did not consent for her internal medical examination. On 31.12.2010 accused Rautela was arrested and his arrest memo was prepared. His personal search was conducted and personal search memo was prepared. He was interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was recorded. He also pointed out the place of occurrence and the pointing out memo was prepared. Accused also got recovered ultrasound urine report which was seized by the police vide seizure memo. Besides, he also got recovered a letter in some pieces which was also seized. Accused Rautela was got medically examined in LBS Hospital. His MLC was prepared and samples of pubic hair, blood and SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 3 of 20 semen were taken which were handed over to police with sample seal which were seized by the police. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused for his trial for the offences punishable u/s 376/420/509 IPC and Section 7 Drugs & Magic Remedies Act, 1954.
2. Ld. Magistrate after supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents committed this case to the court of sessions and the case was assigned to this court.
3. As my Ld. Predecessor was of the view vide her oder dated 04.4.2011 that a prima facie case for framing charge for offences U/s 376/420 IPC was made out so the charge against the accused for the said offences was framed and read over to him in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined Ms. Chhavi Mittal prosecutrix as PW1; HC Dharmender as PW2; Sh. Pradeep Mittal uncle of prosecutrix as PW3; Dr. J.C. Gupta as PW4; Ct. Mahender as PW5; Dr. Neera Singh as PW6; Smt. Rekha as PW7; Neeru Sharma as PW8; Ct. Vipin as PW9; Lady Ct. Sarita as PW10; ASI Om Prakash as PW11 and W/ASI Saubhagyawati as PW12.
5. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 4 of 20 the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. All the material and incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused admitted that he was medically examined vide MLC EX.PX in LBS Hospital and doctor gave some exhibits which were taken into possession vide seizure memo EX.PW12/A. He also admitted that witnesses correctly identified him. He either denied rest of the evidence or expressed his ignorance. He pleaded that he was having a property dispute with Pradeep Mittal. A property was purchased by him subsequently which was previously agreed to be purchased by Pradeep Mittal but that transaction cannot be materialized. Pradeep Mittal once came to his house and told not to purchase that property as he had purchased the same on cheap rate. When he purchased that property, Pradeep Mittal threatened him either to hand over him all the amount of profit i.e. Rs. 2.5 lakhs failing which he will falsely implicate him in a case. On 27.12.2010 he was called by Pradeep Mittal and one Sanjay, Pradhan of Association of DDA Flat in the presence of two more persons. Pradeep Mittal repeated his threat. He refused to obey his instructions. All of them gave beatings to him and tried to get his signatures on the writing that he had done something wrong with Chavi Mittal, niece of Pradeep Mittal. Somehow he succeeded in escaping from their clutches and went to P.S. Kalyanpuri and gave his written complaint in the evening. All of them again came at his residence and pelted stones at his house and abused him. He informed the police by dialing number 100. As police did not come to help him so SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 5 of 20 he left his flat and went to his house at Khichripur. Pradeep Mittal also used to threaten him when he used to come from J.C. that he had to remain in jail for ten years.
6. In support of his defence, accused examined Vikas Singh Rautela as DW1 and SI Harun Khan for P.S. Kalyanpuri, Delhi as DW-2
7. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and perused file.
8. It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Defence Counsel that there is delay in reporting the matter to the police and lodging of FIR. The delay has not been explained and this creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
9. In support of his arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel relied on a case Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501, wherein it was held by Apex Court that:
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report 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 the actual culprits and the part SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 6 of 20 played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version. Exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
10. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Goverdhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006 Cri.L.J. 4118, wherein Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that:
"So it was not impossible for the prosecutrix to lodge the report even in the evening of the same day when her husband came back from his work. No explanation has been giving by the prosecution for not lodging the FIR on the same day evening and during the whole of the next day and up to the evening of the third day because the report was lodged on third day at 6.05 p.m. in the evening and, therefore, on account of this unexplained delay in lodging report also it appears that the incident was not happened as it has been stated in the FIR."
11. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Babu Lal and another v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cri.L.J.2282, wherein Rajasthan High Court observed that:
"28. No doubt delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cannot normally damage version of the prosecutrix, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, but where 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."SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 7 of 20
12. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Mahmood Ilahi v. State of U.P., 1990 Cri.L.J. 850, wherein Allahabd High Court observed that:
"Whatever the position may be the fact remains that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that the said delay had not been explained in this case. The First Information Report, therefore loses its corroborative value."
13. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that accused was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of uncle of the prosecutrix who was doing the property dealing work. Although she alleged and deposed that she was sexually assaulted by accused many times yet when she was produced before the doctor for preparation of her MLC she declined to give her consent for her internal medical examination. This strengthens the plea of the accused that she was never raped by the accused.
14. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and this has further created doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution case, besides, the prosecutrix did not give any specific date and time when she was raped. Her testimony has not been corroborated by any other prosecution witness.
15. It has also been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that there was one side love affairs of prosecutrix SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 8 of 20 with the accused. Handwriting and letter of the prosecutrix have proved this fact on record. When accused handed over these letters to her parents he was falsely implicated because he was having business dealings in respect of property and due to that reason there was enmity between uncle of the prosecutrix and accused. Uncle of the prosecutrix abused and threatened him to put the accused behind the bar.
16. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that prosecution has proved its case by reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The conviction of the accused can be based even on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
17. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor further relied on a case Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, 2011 [2] JCC 1031. The Delhi High Court observed that:
"28. This is no more res Integra that conviction for offence under Section 376 of IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a victim as was held in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384; and in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550.
However, the testimony of the victim in such cases is very vital and should be without inconsistencies and should not be improbable, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement and the Court finds it difficult to act on the sole testimony of victim of sexual assault to convict an accused." [Emphasis supplied] SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 9 of 20
18. On perusal of material on record and analyzing the evidence as well as considering the rival contentions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused, I come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reason suspicion and shadow of doubt. The reasons which support my decision are firstly, that there is long unexplained delay in reporting the matter by the prosecutrix or her family members. There is no date of commission of offence of rape by accused first time. It was alleged as well as stated by PW1 that accused committed rape on her after making her to eat halwa prasad about two years ago. In her examination in chief and cross examination she failed to mention any date on which the accused made physical relations with her against her will first or last time. She did not disclose date of commission of offences either of her parents or to any relative or family members prior to making report on 29.12.2010. The delay has not been explained properly. This long and unexplained delay of about two years in reporting the case to the police creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
19. Secondly, PW1 prosecutrix also deposed that accused had also taken Rs.10,000/- on one occasion and Rs.2,20,000/- on another occasion and he did not return the money despite of assurances of accused to return the same. Prosecutrix again failed to tell either to her parents or SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 10 of 20 anybody else regarding taking of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- from her. No date of either of the first or second occurrence has been given by the prosecutrix. No report about these incidents were lodged or reported to the police. No explanation has been given for this omission.
20. My attention goes to a case Jagdish v. State, (Delhi), 1987(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 613 : 1987(1) AICLR 465, wherein the Delhi High Court observed:
"8. This inference is further fortified from the delay of 46 hours and 45 minutes in the lodging of the First Information Report after the alleged occurrence. Regarding the importance of the lodging of the First Information Report at the earliest, the Supreme Court authority reported as Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 S.C.C. (Crl.) 543, is highly instructive ***.
9. In that case there was delay of more than 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R. though the police station was only at a distance of two miles and it was held that this circumstance would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the case and it was not safe to base conviction upon to."
The principles of law laid down in cases Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (supra), Goverdhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra), Babu Lal and another v. State of Rajasthan, (supra), Mahmood Ilahi v. State of U.P., (supra), and further Jagdish v. State, (Delhi) (supra), support this decision. This creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
21. Thirdly, the prosecutrix also alleged that on SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 11 of 20 25.12.2010 when the accused came in front of her house, it was evening time and accused made obscene gestures and blew horn of his scooter. In cross examination she admitted that no report in that regard was lodged to the police. It would be pertinent to mention here that statement of prosecutrix PW1 Chhavi Mittal was recorded on 29.12.2010 on the basis of which present FIR was lodged. Moreover, in the statement dated 29.12.2010 Ex.PW1/A the complainant is silent about obscene gestures. Only gestures (ishara) has been mentioned. Non reporting of this matter promptly further creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
22. Fourthly, the conduct of the prosecutrix on the alleged date of commission of offence was not in accordance with the natural human conduct, e.g., in examination in chief prosecutrix deposed that after eating of halwa prasad she started feeling unwell. The incident of alleged rape was happened in between 9 am to 2:30 p.m. She became semi conscious after eating the halwa prasad but in cross examination she stated that her brother Shubham was student of 9th class and when he returned to her house, she served lunch to her brother. This conduct does not seem to be natural. This has further created doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
23. Fifthly, although prosecutrix in her statement made before the police Ex.PW1/A and in the statement before this SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 12 of 20 court as PW1, she deposed that accused made physical relations with her many times yet when she was produced before the doctor in LBS hospital for conduct of her medical examination, she refused to give her consent for her internal medical examination. MLC Ex.PW1/4 was proved by PW6 Dr. Neera Singh. She, inter alia, deposed that Ms. Chhavi Mittal refused for her gynae examination. The medical examination of prosecutrix could have supported the testimony of Chhavi Mittal that infact there was physical relations with her but for the reasons best known to prosecutrix, who was aged about 20 years at the time of her medical examination, she refused for her internal medical examination. This amounts to withholding of material evidence.
24. Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act provides that:
114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations The Court may presume-- ***
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; ***"
25. As per provisions of Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, adverse inference may be drawn against the SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 13 of 20 prosecutrix and in favour of the accused that medical examination, had it been conducted, it was unfavourable to her. This has further created doubt about the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecutrix.
26. Sixthly, my attention goes to a case Pradeep Saini & Anr. v. State, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 232, wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"51. Depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as court witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the scrutiny thereof has to be without any predilection or bias. No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a court witness. It is judicial scrutiny which is warranted in respect of the depositions of all witnesses for which different yardsticks cannot be prescribed. As observed by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 911:-
".....Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution; and courts ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses......"
27. DW2 SI Harun Khan of PS Kalyan Puri has proved complaint dated 27.12.2010 which was entered in the PS vide diary No.R-244 dated 27.12.2010. He deposed that this was assigned to him by the SHO on the same day. Copy of the report has been proved as Ex.DW2/A. As per contents of Ex.DW2/A, I find that accused requested SHO PS Kalyan Puri to lodge a complaint against Mittal family who resided in premises No. 8A/27, 31 DDA Janta Flats, Trilokpuri, Delhi to the fact that he used to do the work of property dealing and that Mittal family threatened him to kill him and also SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 14 of 20 demanding Rs.2,20,000/- failing which they will falsely implicate him in a rape case of daughter of elder brother of Mr. Mittal. This further provides benefit to the accused as the report of accused Rajender Singh Rautela is dated 27.12.2010 and present FIR was lodged on 29.12.2010 on the statement of complainant dated 29.12.2010.
28. Seventhly, my attention goes to a case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (SC), 1983 A.I.R. (S.C.) 753, wherein the Apex Court observed:
"The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical. It is conceivable in the Western Society that a female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons such as :-
(1) The female may be a 'gold digger' and may well have an economic motive to extract money by holding out the gun of prosecution or public exposure.
(2) She may be suffering from psychological neurosis and may seek an escape from the neurotic prison by phantasizing or imagining a situation where she is desired, wanted, and chased by males.
(3) She may want to wreak vengeance on the male for real or imaginary wrongs. She may have a grudge against a particular male, or males in general, and may have the design to square the account.
(4) She may have been induced to do so in consideration of economic rewards, by a person interested in placing the accused in a compromising or embarrassing position, on account of personal or political vendetta.
(5) She may do so to gain notoriety or publicity or to appease her own ego or to satisfy her feeling of self-SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 15 of 20
importance in the context of her inferiority complex.
(6) She may do so on account of jealousy.
(7) She may do so to win sympathy of others.
(8) She may do so upon being repulsed.
10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statements or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural Society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites."
29. Turning to the present case, I find that present case falls in the exception category as accused has alleged that he has been made a victim of business rivalry of property dealing by uncle of prosecutrix Sh. Pradeep Mittal, PW-3. The evidence on record support the plea of accused in that regard. Even prosecutrix in her statement admitted that accused was working as a property dealer in the partnership of her neighbour Mr. Rawat. The principles of law laid down in case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (SC), (supra), guide me to hold that testimony of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy and reliable.
30. Eighthly, in her cross examination PW1, inter alia, deposed that she used to have conversation with the accused SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 16 of 20 on the mobile phone which was given by the accused. She could not tell as to after how many occurrence of physical contact by accused with her, he handed mobile phone to her. She further admitted that sometime on finding of missed call of the accused she used to call him back on the same number in the absence of her parents. She went to Nanota to attend a marriage and she also made telephone call from that mobile to the accused from Nanota and she could not say if the conversation was continued for about 15 minutes. She also made calls to the accused out of her house. She did not disclose about her conversation with the accused either to her parents or any other person. She did not bolt main gate from inside after eating halwa or she did not bolt even after making physical relations by the accused. This further created doubt about the truthfulness of the testimonies of the PW1.
31. Ninethly, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 24, 25, 26 & 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which run as under:
"24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.-A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 17 of 20
25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.-No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.-No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police- officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
32. The prosecution proved disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW1/D. Pointing out memo by accused was proved as Ex.PW1/12. Seizure memo was proved as Ex.PW9/A. All these bear signatures of prosecutrix Chhavi Mittal and her uncle Pradeep Mittal. In cross examination PW1 admitted that she did not go to the house of accused after his arrest. This has further created doubt about the recovery of these documents consequent upon the disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D. Place of occurrence was already known to the complainant, her uncle and the police so neither disclosure memo nor pointing out memo will provide any benefit to the prosecution to prove its case as same are hit by provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
33. My attention goes to a case reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 18 of 20 it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
The principles of law laid down in above case are applicable on the facts of present case and therefore, it is held that accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt as in the present case two views, one, leads to his innocence and another leads to his involvement in the crime are possible.
34. Lastly, it is one of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence that let hundreds of criminal may go unpunished but one innocent person should not be punished. It would be just fair and appropriate, if accused is given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond any suspicion or reasonable shadow of doubt.
CONCLUSIONS
35. Consequent upon the above discussion, reasons and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Rajender Singh Rautela beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt that either he committed rape on prosecutrix or he cheated her and obtained alleged money from her or he made obscene SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 19 of 20 gestures to her. The principles of law laid down in case Pardeep @ Sonu v. State, (supra), will not provide any benefit to prosecution as statement of prosecutrix is inconsistent, unreliable and improbable. Therefore, accused is entitled for getting benefit of doubt. Accordingly, by giving him benefit of doubt, accused is acquitted for the offence of rape punishable under section u/s 376 IPC and offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property punishable u/s 420 IPC.
36. However, the accused is directed to furnish personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount as per provisions of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months for ensuring his presence before the Appellate Court.
37. After furnishing of bail/surety bonds, file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court Dated:14.09.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 12/11 State Vs. Rajender Singh Rautela Page 20 of 20