Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sachin Kumar Panchal on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 90/15.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0168432015.
State Vs. 1. Sachin Kumar Panchal
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Panchal,
R/o RZ-372, Gopal Nagar Phase-II,
Surakhpur Road,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
2. Jagdish Chander Panchal(Already Discharged
on 18.12.15)
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o RZ-372, Gopal Nagar Phase-II,
Surakhpur Road,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Promila Devi Panchal(Already Discharged
on 18.12.15)
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Panchal,
R/o RZ-372, Gopal Nagar Phase-II,
Surakhpur Road,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 17.11.2015.
FIR No. 1494 dated 03.10.2015.
U/s. 376/506 IPC.
P.S. Bindapur.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 27.1.2016.
Date of pronouncement : 30.1.2016.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Sachin Kumar Panchal alongwith his SC No.90/15. Page 1 of 21 parents Jagdish Chander Panchal and Promila Devi Panchal had been chargesheeted for the offences u/s.376/506 IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix namely 'B' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity), a resident of Gujrat, had come to Delhi on 14.6.2014 for studies. She got admission in BPED course in M.D. University, Rohtak. Accused Sachin was studying in Gaur Brahmin College, Rohtak. They started meeting each other and became friends. Later on, they became partners. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix suffered a ligament tear in her feet and was got admitted in PGI Hospital, Rohtak, by the accused. He asked her not to inform her parents about the same and then shifted her to a Dharamshala in Rohtak where they stayed for four days. Thereafter, he brought her to a Dharamshala in Najafgarh where they stayed for more than 20 days. Accused used to remain with her all the 24 hours. He used to administer injections to her forcibly saying that it is a pain killer, after which she did not know what used to happen. She came to know that the accused is a drug addict and has committed physical relations with his own sister in law (Bhabhi). Upon getting knowledge about the same, she wanted to take off the plaster of her leg and run away but the accused Sachin beat her and threatened to kill her. The accused used to consume Ganja, Sulfa, Brown Sugar etc. in the room in Dharamshala alongwith his brothers. When the family members of the accused came to know that he is staying in a Dharamshala with the prosecutrix, they took her forcibly to his home. She was kept there for two days, during which Sachin's family members humiliated her and abused her in filthy language. Her mobile phone had already been snatched by accused Sachin, SC No.90/15. Page 2 of 21 hence she could not inform her family members at Gujrat. Sachin and his family members forced her to tell her parents on phone that she has solemnized marriage with Sachin on her own will and is staying with him at his house. Thereafter, she was kept in a rented room at Dwarka More. Sachin told the landlady that he is her husband. He used to visit that room daily, forced her to consume Ganja and also used to administer injections to her, upon which she used to become unconscious. He used to beat her and abuse her if she offered any resistance. This continued for about 11 months. Upon being tired of the harassment and torture, one day, she attempted to commit suicide but was taken to hospital immediately by Sachin and her life was saved. On September 15, the accused asked her to leave the rented room or otherwise, he would kill her. Accordingly, she ran away. However, accused used to threaten her to come to him again or otherwise, he would upload her number on the internet and would also convey it to his friends. He then asked her to meet him at Rajiv Chowk on 22nd September. She had to oblige him on account of fear. He took her to a hotel in Paharganj where he gave beatings to her, administered injections to her, forced her to consume Ganja and then raped her. He then dropped her again at Rajiv Chowk. The accused then threatened her that in case she would not come to him again, he would upload her nude photographs and video on the internet.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had appeared in the police station on 03.10.2015 and submitted a written complaint to the SHO. The complaint was marked to ASI Ursula for suitable action. She called an NGO SC No.90/15. Page 3 of 21 counsellor, who counselled the prosecutrix. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted in DDU Hospital and thereafter FIR was registered. Accused was arrested from his residence at the instance of the prosecutrix. He is stated to have pointed out the room no.4 on the first floor of Yadav Dharamshala Charitable Trust, Surakhpur, Najafgarh, where he had kept the prosecutrix confined for about 20 days and had committed physical relations with her. He is also stated to have pointed out a room on the first floor of house no.A-91, Gali No.2, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, Opposite Dwarka More Metro Station, New Delhi, where he kept the prosecutrix confined for about ten months and had been committing physical relations with her during that period. The IO prepared the pointing out memo of both the spots. Medical examination of accused Sachin was got conducted in DDU Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on 05.10.2015. The IO prepared the site plan of the crime spots at the instance of the prosecutrix and also recorded the statements of witnesses. She seized the documents regarding stay of the prosecutrix in Yadav Dharamshala, Najafgarh, and also recorded the statement of its Manager, Sh. Raghunath Singh Arya. She also recorded the statement of Smt. Pinky, the owner of house no.A-91, Sewak Park, Dwarka More, Uttam Nagar. The IO alongwith the prosecutrix had visited the area of Paharganj but the prosecutrix could not point out the hotel where the accused had raped her.
4. After completion of the investigation, the IO prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same to the concerned court. Accused Jagdish Chander Panchal and Promila Devi Panchal were SC No.90/15. Page 4 of 21 not arrested during the course of investigation and their names were mentioned in Column No.12 of the Charge Sheet.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, accused Jagdish Chander and Promila Devi were discharged vide order dated 18.12.15. On the same day, Charges u/s.328 IPC, u/s. 376 IPC, u/s.506 IPC and u/s.323 IPC were framed against the accused Sachin. He denied the Charges and hence trial was held.
6. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove the Charges against the accused. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 25.1.2016 wherein he denied the entire prosecution case and claimed false implication. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire material on record.
8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW7. Her examination in chief is a lengthy one and spans over seven pages. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder:
"In the month of Jaunary, 2014, National School Games were organised in Delhi and the same took place in Chhatarsal Stadium. I also had come to Delhi for the said event alongwith the team from Gujrat as a Manager of the girls team. I met the accused Sachin, present in court today (Correctly identified), during the games. He was a player from Delhi.
When I returned to Gujrat after the games, I received a call from the accused. We talked normally with each other. Thereafter he continued to make calls SC No.90/15. Page 5 of 21 to me once in a week and we talked normally to each other. I came to Delhi again on 14.6.2014 to get admission in B.Ped. Course. I got admission for the said course in MDU, Rohtak. Accused also got admission in the nearby Gaur Brahmin College, Rohtak for B.A. We started meeting each other. The accused told me that he is a Brahmin by caste and his age is 23 years.
In the month of September, 2014, I suffered a tear in the ligament of right knee and had to be hospitalized. I was admitted in PGI Hospital, Rohtak for two days. I had informed the accused about my injury. He had come to me and got me admitted in the said hospital. After discharge from the hospital, I wanted to inform my parents about my condition but the accused did not permit me to do so saying that my parents would get worried. He brought me to Najafgarh and lodged me in a Dharamshala at Khaira Mor. He got a room booked in the Dharamshala through his brother Mandeep. I and the accused stayed together in the room in the aforesaid Dharamshala for about 20 days. The accused had told me that I would get better care in the Dharamshala and i.e. why he has brought me here.
I was not fully well when the accused had brought me to the said Dharamshala. My whole right leg had been plastered and I was not able to move freely. I was also having intense pain in my leg. On the second day, the accused administered an injection to me saying that it is a pain killer. I started trembling and do not know what happened thereafter. I opened my eyes after about two or three hours and saw the accused and his two brothers Mandeep and Aaryan present in the room. I was having great pain on the left side of my chest as somebody had hit me there with blows. I told them what has happened and they said that I had become unconscious. I saw some change in their attitude. They appeared to be ferocious like animals. The t-shirt which I was wearing was wet. I was not able to move out of the bed. The plaster on my leg had been pushed downwards. My mobile phone was with the accused and hence I could not inform anybody about my condition.
The accused's brothers Mandeep and Aaryan SC No.90/15. Page 6 of 21 used to come to the room in Dharamshala daily during the day time and used to consume Ganja etc. in my presence. Accused Sachin also used to consume Ganja alongwith them. Accused used to administer an injection to me daily at night after which I used to become unconscious. When I used to open my eyes after about three hours, I used to find myself totally nude. I used to ask accused why is he doing so to me and he used to tell me that my photographs are with him and hence I cannot move from there. He had asked me not to tell anything to the landlord of the Dharamshala. The accused had torn off the plaster of my leg on 7th or 8th day. The accused had told me in intoxicated state that he has sexual relations with his Bhabhi also and he does not leave any person who is to his liking.
One day, my brother had made a call on my mobile phone. Accused's mother asked me to answer the call on speaker phone. I answered the call. My brother was asking me where I am as they had been searching for me frantically. He also told me that they have come to know from my PG mates that I have gone alongwith a boy named Sachin and asked me who is Sachin. I was not in a position to tell him anything. When he told me that he is going to lodge a police complaint, accused's mother got scared and disconnected the phone. Thereafter, Sachin told me that I would have to obey their commands or otherwise, he would make public my nude photographs which are in his possession. The accused had clicked our joint photographs in compromising position as well as nude photographs during my unconsciousness in the room in Dharamshala.
After 20 days, accused's cousin Amit came to the room and told the accused that his father is searching him and would be reaching Dharamshala any time. Upon hearing this, accused and Amit took me out of Dharamshala through the rear door. They took me on a motorcycle upto a roundabout where we boarded a bus. We boarded down from the bus at some place and sat there for about three hours. The accused did not allow me to leave that place. Thereafter, the accused received a call from Amit and then took me to a nearby SC No.90/15. Page 7 of 21 hospital where we sat in a secluded corner. However, accused's father alongwith 10 to 12 persons reached there. He put both of us in a vehicle and brought us to his house.
Upon reaching home, accused's father scolded him in my presence. Many male persons and females were present in the house at that time. He snubbed me also. He abused me in very filthy language while sitting alone with me in the room. He told me that his son i.e. accused Sachin and his friends have paid me money for celebrating and enjoying Diwali with them in the room in the Dharamshala. I was kept in the house of the accused for two days. Thereafter, accused alongwith his parents took me to my PG accommodation in Rohtak. They remained outside and sent me in to bring my goods. The owner of the house scolded me intensely. I brought all my articles from my room and they kept me in another PG accommodation for one night. They also spent the night in Rohtak. Next day, the accused brought me to Dwarka More and put me in the first floor of house no.A-91. Two ladies were residing in that house. Accused had told me that he has solemnized love marriage with me and cannot take me to his house as there is some problem. Accused used to come to me in that house almost daily, sometimes during day time, sometimes during night and sometimes in the morning. By that time, accused had given back my mobile phone to me. I used to receive calls from my brother and my mother. I used to tell them that I am innocent and have not done any wrong thing but they were not prepared to believe me. I was unable to decide what to do and where to go. The lady i.e. the owner of that house was a good lady and she used to take care of me. The accused used to come there whenever he desired and used to have forcible physical relations with me. He used to force me to have Ganja and also used to administer injections to me sometimes. This continued for about ten months. One day, the parents of accused had also come there and threatened me not to lodge a complaint against the accused.
I had also made a call at the police helpline one day but was not able to convey my plight to them as SC No.90/15. Page 8 of 21 the accused snatched my mobile phone. I had become so fed up with my plight that one day in the month of March, 2015, I had cut the wrist of my left hand with a blade in order to commit suicide. However, the accused reached there immediately and took me to the hospital where I was given treatment and my life was saved. The landlady had also accompanied us to the hospital.
In the month of September, 2015, the accused told me one day all of a sudden to leave that place or otherwise, he will kill me. I was in search of such an occasion so that I would escape from his torturous treatment. I made a call to my friend Dimple telling her that I have nowhere to go. She asked me to come to her house in GTB Nagar. Accordingly, I took all my belongings and reached her house. The accused started making calls to me asking me to return to him. I remained in her house for about three or four days and then, by her help, I shifted to a PG accommodation near her house. However, the accused did not leave me and started making calls to me. He again started harassing me. He made a call to me on 22.9.2015 asking me to meet him at Rajiv Chowk. I met him at Rajiv Chowk and he took me to a hotel in Paharganj saying that he would destroy all my photographs which are with him. In the hotel room, he again became wild, started beating me and committed forcible sexual intercourse with me. In order to save myself from his torturous treatment, I ran into the bathroom. The bucket full of water lying in the bathroom turned to a side and the water came out of the bathroom. The accused called a sweeper to clean the room. He kept me in the hotel room till about 9 p.m. and then dropped me again at Rajiv Chowk without destroying the photographs which he had with him. He had threatened me that he would upload my obscene photographs from the internet if I disclose anything to the sweeper."
9. She further deposed that she visited the police station on 03.10.2015 and submitted written complaint Ex.PW7/A. She was taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination. She took the SC No.90/15. Page 9 of 21 IO to the Dharamshala at Najafgarh on 04.10.2015 and showed her to the room where she and the accused had stayed. The IO prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B of the room at her instance. She further proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC recorded on 05.10.2015 as Ex.PW1/C.
10. In the cross examination, she deposed that her date of birth mentioned in her birth certificate, copy of which is Ex.PW7/D and which she had handed over to the IO, is 12.12.1993. She deposed that she alongwith accused's friend Ashish @ Dhillu is seen in photographs Ex.PW6/D1 (colly) and stated voluntarily that these photographs were clicked by the accused. She stated that she is having three mobile numbers i.e. 8347808037, 8447873936 and 9873027030. She further stated that she obtained mobile no. 9873027030 from a shop in house no.A-91, Sewak Park, Gali No.2, Opposite Dwarka More Metro Station, Uttam Nagar, where she was residing. She admitted that she had applied for this mobile number through customer application form Ex.PW7/E and had submitted a copy of her Election I. Card Ex.PW7/F as proof of her identity and residence. She stated that her age is mentioned as 20 years on the said Election I. Card as on 01.1.2006. However, it was observed that her age is mentioned as either 26 or 28 years as on 01.1.2006 and certainly not 20 years on the said Election I. Card. She further deposed that she was only 13 years of age as on 01.1.2006 and her age has been mentioned incorrectly in the said Election I. Card. She knew that a child aged 13 years cannot apply and cannot get an Election I. Card.
11. In further cross examination, she, at first, denied that SC No.90/15. Page 10 of 21 she is a married lady. However, immediately admitted that she had got married to Zala Suresh Kumar Bharat Singh on 11.12.2008. She did not recollect how many complaints had been filed by her against Zala Suresh Kumar and his family members. She denied that she lodged a complaint of rape, threat etc. against him and his family members. She admitted that she got married to him after her father had filed a complaint of rape, threat etc. against him on her behalf. She admitted that a settlement had taken place between her family and Zala Suresh Kumar whereafter FIR was got quashed in the High Court. She admitted having submitted an affidavit in this regard in the High Court in Criminal Application No.2387 of 2008 and 2467 of 2008. She admitted that Ex.PW7/D3 is her birth certificate and she had submitted the same at the time of her marriage with Zala Suresh Kumar and also before the High Court. Her date of birth is mentioned in the certificate as 12.12.1985. She stated voluntarily that her father had got this false birth certificate prepared to facilitate her marriage with Zala Suresh Kumar. She further deposed that she obtained divorce from Zala Suresh Kumar in November or December, 2015, but the divorce was not granted by any court. It was done in the chamber of a lawyer at Gujrat. She stated that they had not filed any petition for divorce in any court.
12. She further stated that she cannot tell the name of the hotel at Paharganj where accused had raped her. She did not file any complaint against the accused on 22.9.2015 or on 23.9.2015 on account of his threat that he would make public her obscene photographs. She deposed that as she had got fed up with the phone calls of the accused, she decided to lodge a complaint SC No.90/15. Page 11 of 21 against him on 03.10.2015. According to her, she was residing at GTB Nagar from 22.9.2015 to 03.10.2015 but has not mentioned the address of GTB Nagar either in the complaint or anywhere during the course of investigation as she feared that the accused might come and cause any harm to her. She denied that she had got married to Ashish @ Dhillu and was having illicit relations with him. She denied that she has lodged a false complaint against the accused on account of animosity between accused and Ashish @ Dhillu. She admitted that the Manager of Dharamshala at Najafgarh used to come to meet her. She also admitted that the landlady of house no.A-91, Sewak Park, and her mother-in-law were good ladies. She used to talk to them regularly. She denied that Ashish @ Dhillu used to come and stay with her in the room in the Dharamshala and in house no.A-91, Sewak Park, and not the accused. She deposed that she did not mention anything about the accused to the Manager of Dharamshala but had narrated everything to the landlady at Dharamshala. She further denied all the suggestions put to her.
13. According to the prosecution case, the accused had kept the prosecutrix confined firstly for about 20 days in Yadav Dharamshala, Najafgarh, and then for 11 months in a room in house no.A-91, Gali No.2, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The prosecution further alleges that during this period, the accused had been administering certain injections to the prosecutrix almost daily, saying that it is the pain killer, after which she used to become unconscious.
14. The prosecutrix has not mentioned either in her SC No.90/15. Page 12 of 21 written complaint Ex.PW7/A or in her statement u/s164 Cr.PC Ex.PW7/C that the accused had been committing physical sexual intercourse with her in a room in Yadav Dharamshala or in the room at House No.A-91. She has mentioned in the statement Ex.PW7/C that on regaining consciousness, she found the plaster of her leg torn off and bruises at various places on her body. She also found herself totally nude with a blanket over her body. However, the fact remains that she has nowhere stated that she realized that she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse during her unconsciousness. She has also not stated that she found herself bleeding from private part or that she found blood or semen on her private part or on the bedsheet or on her clothes. In her deposition before this court also, she has stated, referring to the days she spent in Yadav Dharamshala, that when she used to open her eyes after about three hours of unconsciousness, she used to find herself totally nude. She used to ask the accused why is he doing so to her and he used to tell her that her photographs are with him and hence she cannot move from there.
15. The prosecutrix has admitted in her cross examination that the Manager of the Dharamshala used to come to her room and meet her. However, she did not mention anything about her plight to him. The patron of the Dharamshala appearing as PW1, has deposed that the prosecutrix was brought to the Dharamshala by 5 or 6 boys one day in the month of July, 2014 and she was having plaster on one of her legs. They told him that they had gone for a sports event where the girl sustained injuries and they did not have enough space at their residence in Gopal Nagar to accommodate her. They requested him to permit them to lodge SC No.90/15. Page 13 of 21 the girl in the Dharamshala for few days. He agreed on the condition that only one boy should visit the Dharamshala to serve food etc. to the girl and to take care of her needs. He further deposed that only one of those boys used to visit Dharamshala during the day to provide food/medicines to the girl. He also stated that he had repeatedly asked the prosecutrix during her stay in the Dharamshala, if anybody has done anything wrong to her or she is under any threat or pressure from anybody but she always replied in negative. He had even told her that if she is in any kind of problem, he is prepared to help her and she can lodge a complaint in the near police station Najafgarh, to which she told him that she is O.K. and not in any kind of problem. He further deposed that the girl left Dharamshala after about 14 or 15 days in his absence and without telling anybody as to where she was going.
16. Hence the entire version of the prosecutrix that the accused alongwith his brothers Mandeep and Aryan used to visit the room in the Dharamshala daily during day time and used to consume Ganja etc. in her presence and that the accused used to administer injections to her daily at night, after which she used to become unconscious and used to regain consciousness after about three hours etc. gets falsified by the testimony of PW1. If it is true that the accused had been administering intoxicating injections to the prosecutrix almost daily, PW1 or other persons residing in the Dharamshala would have noticed the prosecutrix in an abnormal/intoxicated state of mind but that has not happened. On the other hand, PW1 had been regularly visiting the room of the prosecutrix, talking to her and asking her if she is in any kind of SC No.90/15. Page 14 of 21 problem, for which she wants any help, but the prosecutrix used to tell him that she is fine. Therefore, the version of the prosecutrix that she was being drugged by the accused daily during her stay in the said Dharamshala, appears to be totally unbelievable.
17. The prosecutrix has deposed for the first time in her testimony before this court that the accused used to have forcible physical relations with her in house no.A-91 at Dwarka More. As already noted herein-above, she has not mentioned so either in her written complaint Ex.PW7/A or in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW7/C. Further, she has herself mentioned in the examination in chief that the landlady of that house was a very good lady and she used to take care of her. In the cross examination also, she has deposed that the landlady of the house and her mother in law were very good ladies and she used to talk to them regularly. Hence it was easy for the prosecutrix to narrate her ordeal to that landlady and her mother in law and to seek their help in this regard. However, she has not done so. She has not told anything against the accused to these two ladies, with whom she was very friendly.
18. The landlady Smt. Pinky has been examined as PW6. She has deposed that she let out a room on the first floor of her house no.A-91, Dwarka More, New Delhi, to the prosecutrix about a year ago, who stayed there for 8 to 9 months and vacated the room in August, 2015. She has further deposed that several boys used to visit the prosecutrix during the day time regularly but none of them used to stay with her for the night. She also stated that she never saw accused Sachin coming to see the prosecutrix SC No.90/15. Page 15 of 21 in their house. She was declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, she denied that she had made any statement to the police mentioning that the accused used to come and stay with the prosecutrix in her house.
19. The statement u/s.161 Cr.PC dated 05.10.2015 attributed to this witness PW6 was read over to her and she denied having made any such statement. Even if it is assumed that she had made any such statement, then also there is nothing in that statement to suggest that the accused Sachin had been drugging the prosecutrix and had been committing forcible physical relations with her. It is mentioned in that statement that the relations between the prosecutrix and the accused during first two months of their stay in that house were very cordial but thereafter there used to be quarrels between them on account of which prosecutrix used to remain depressed. It is also mentioned in that statement that this witness used to provide food etc. to the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix used to behave always like the wife of accused Sachin like applying vermilion on her forehead, wearing 'Chura' etc. and every person in the neighbourhood knew her as the wife of accused Sachin. Hence neither the statement u/s.161 Cr.PC of this witness PW6, in whose house the prosecutrix and the accused had stayed for about ten months as tenants, nor her deposition before this court supports the prosecution case.
20. It may also be noted here that according to the prosecutrix, the accused used to come to see her in the aforesaid house sometimes during day time, sometimes during night and sometimes in the morning. It is thus evident that the prosecutrix SC No.90/15. Page 16 of 21 used to remain alone in the house for most part of the day. Therefore, she was having enough opportunity to run away and to save herself from the atrocities of the accused if she wanted to. The fact that she continued to stay in that house continuously representing herself as the wife of accused Sachin nowhere indicates that she was being drugged or subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. It also needs to note here that the prosecutrix has deposed in the cross examination that she was having three mobile nos. 8347808037, 8447873936 and 9873027030. She has also deposed that the mobile no. 9873027030 was obtained by her from a shop in front of the aforesaid house no.A-91. It is an irony that despite having three mobile numbers for her use, the prosecutrix did not make call at telephone no.100 even once during this entire period of 8 to 10 months which also creates a doubt in the credibility of her version. At no point of time, she thought of going back to her native place in Gujrat or to the house of her friend namely Dimpal, who resided in GTB Nagar. She also did not make any call to her parents at any point of time to inform them about her ordeals and to request them to rescue her.
21. It appears that the prosecutrix was in love with the accused and probably she had solemnized marriage with him and then took a room on rent in the house of PW6 at Dwarka More where they used to stay as husband and wife. She used to apply vermilion on her forehead and also used to wear 'Chura' which things are done only by a married lady. She had also told PW6 that she is the wife of accused Sachin. It appears that she has concealed the factum of this marriage from the IO as well as from SC No.90/15. Page 17 of 21 the court for the reason that she knew it was not a legal and valid marriage as she is already married to one Zala Suresh Kumar and has not obtained divorce from him as yet. It further appears that after staying peacefully with the accused in the house of PW6 for a few months, incompatibility surfaced between the two and there used to quarrel between them, on account of which she ultimately left that house and went to stay with her friend Dimpla at GTB Nagar.
22. The case of the prosecution that the accused had raped the prosecutrix on 22.9.2015 in a hotel at Paharganj also does not appear to be probable or believable. According to the prosecutrix, she had gone to meet accused at Rajiv Chowk on that day wherefrom he took her to a hotel in Paharganj on the pretext of destroying her photographs which were with him and he then committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in the hotel room. Firstly, she has nowhere mentioned as to what kind of her photographs were with the accused. The accused had not pressurized or threatened her to meet him at Rajiv Chowk. Admittedly, accused was not knowing that the prosecutrix is residing with her friend Dimpal at GTB Nagar and he was also aware about the residential address of Dimpal. Therefore, if the prosecutrix was having any complaint against the accused and apprehended any danger from him, she should straightaway had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint against him. Further, she could neither tell the name of the hotel where she had been taken by the accused nor could locate it in Paharganj when she had gone there alongwith the investigating officer. Even on that day also, she neither made a call at telephone no.100 nor SC No.90/15. Page 18 of 21 filed any complaint in the police station regarding the rape incident. She has nowhere stated that the accused had threatened her not to report the incident to police. She even did not narrate the said incident to her friend Dimpal, with whom she was residing. The complaint has been filed by her on 03.10.2015. The delay of about 11 days in lodging the complaint has remained to be explained by the prosecution.
23. It also needs to note that the prosecutrix had filed a complaint of rape, threat etc. against Zala Suresh Kumar also and it is after filing of that complaint that she got married to him, pursuant to which FIR was got quashed in the High Court. She has admitted these facts in her cross examination. Therefore, the past conduct of the prosecutrix is also not clean, which too affects her credibility as a witness.
24. The defence raised on behalf of accused Sachin that the prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint against him at the instance of Ashish @ Dhillu, who resides in the neighbourhood of the accused and with whom, she was having illicit sexual relations, appears to be probable. It is for the reason that the prosecutrix has admitted that she alongwith said Ashish @ Dhillu are seen in the photographs Ex.PW6/D1 (colly). The poses in which these photographs have been clicked clearly demonstrate that the prosecutrix was having intimate relations with this boy Ashish. In one of these photographs, they are seen kissing each other intimately. It has neither come from the prosecution side nor from the side of the defence as to when these photographs have been clicked but is is certainly appears that these may have been SC No.90/15. Page 19 of 21 clicked during the stay of the prosecutrix in Delhi between June, 2014 and September, 2015. It is therefore evident that the prosecutrix, on one hand, was having intimate relations with Ashish @ Dhillu and at the same time was staying with accused Sachin also as his wife. If the version of the prosecutrix that she was being regularly drugged and sexually assaulted by the accused, she would have disclosed the same to her intimate friend Ashish @ Dhillu and sought his help but she has not done so.
25. The aforesaid discussion on the evidence led by the prosecution clearly leads to only one conclusion that the accused cannot be held guilty. The version of the prosecutrix, on the face of it, appears to be neither trustworthy nor inspiring any confidence. Her testimony is replete with embellishments and prevarications. She has even mentioned her date of birth as well as place of residence incorrectly in her complaint as well as in the deposition before this court. She also appears to have concealed her marital status from the accused, from the IO as well as from this court. She is not a reliable witness. Her version does not find support from any other witness on record. In fact, PW1, PW3 & the IO also do not support her version and have deposed contrary to what she has stated.
26. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 30.1.2016. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
SC No.90/15. Page 20 of 21
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.90/15. Page 21 of 21