Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 12 July, 2012

     IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI  ASJ­VI(OUTER), 
                   ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SC NO.271/10
FIR NO. 895/05
U/S 365/366/342/376(2) IPC
PS  Sultan Puri
Unique Case ID No. : 02404R0444452006

                State 

                Vs. 

     1. Ritu @ Gudia w/o Ram Niwas

        r/o H.No.935, Village Rithala, Delhi.

     2. Kishan Pal (discharged vide order dated 08.01.2007)

     3. Ram Niwas (Proclaimed Offender)

     4. Balvinder (Proclaimed Offender)

     5. Munna (Proclaimed Offender)



Date when committed to the court of Sessions :28.09.2006
Date when case reserved for judgment        : 06.07.2012
Judgment pronounced on                        :12.07.2012

JUDGMENT:

1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.06.2005, the father of the prosecutrix (name withheld for secrecy reasons) came to PP Budh Vihar, PS Sultan Puri and got recorded the missing SC No.271/10 Page 1/38 report of his daughter, the prosecutrix (name withheld for secrecy reasons) to the effect that prosecutrix, his eldest daughter, out of three daughters and aged about 21 years, who went at about 8 a.m on 03.06.2005 by a cycle rickshaw to Metro Station Rithala for her DISC Computer Centre, 4, Vaishali Main Road, Pitam Pura for learning the computer as usual but she did not reach there, regarding which he lodged an earlier report vide DD No.9 on 10.06.2005 at about 8.30 a.m and on 07.06.2005, his said daughter, at about 4.30 p.m., gave a phone call at his residence which was attended by his younger daughter, to whom the prosecutrix told that she has already let down herself and was having restriction on going here and there and she did not know the place where she was present at that time and said phone was called from the mobile phone of the prosecutrix bearing No.9899348608 and now he had a suspicion that somebody had induced his daughter and had kidnapped her and on the said statement of the complainant father, a case FIR u/s 365 IPC was got registered and all the steps were taken to trace her out by way of media or by otherwise methods.

2. On 27.03.2006, a secret information was received whereupon one Kishan Pal @ Babloo was arrested from whose possession prosecutrix was got recovered and her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded and u/s 164 Cr.PC were got recorded before the concerned Magistrate and thereafter she was got medically examined along SC No.271/10 Page 2/38 with said Kishan Pal @ Babloo, the exhibits taken by the doctor were seized and were sent to FSL and as per statement of the prosecutrix, accused Ritu @ Gudia was arrested and accused Ram Niwas, Munna and Balwinder remained absconding and were declared P.O. On 16.05.2007 and a supplementary charge sheet having declared them as PO was also filed to that effect and the charge sheet against accused Kishan Pal @ Babloo and accused Ritu @ Gudia was already filed.

3. As per her statement before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC, she got recorded that on 03.06.2005 in the morning, she was going for her DISC Computer Centre by metro and alighted at Pitam Pura Metro Station from where she was going on foot to the said computer centre and when she reached near Vishal Mega Mart showroom, from behind some one called her by name and she turned towards her right hand and saw one black colour car stationary in which by the side of the driver seat Ram Niwas was sitting who had called her and told her that he wanted to talk to her regarding Babloo and Ms. Tanu, to which she answered that he should talk to her father and in the meantime, the rear door of the said car opened and somebody forcibly dragged her inside the car and sat down over her, gagged her mouth and car was driven and later on, she came to know that person who dragged her inside the car was Balwinder and there was third person by the name of Munna and after a SC No.271/10 Page 3/38 considerable time, the car was stopped and it transpired that she was in Chandigarh. The said car entered a house and when she raised alarm, she was badly beaten and from the staircase, they dragged her on the upper floor and in a room said Munna gave her beatings and later on Ram Niwas and Balwinder also came inside and forcibly took out her clothes and as her pyjama could not be opened, they cut the same with scissors and Balwinder caught hold of her by shoulder and got her laid down and Munna caught hold of her legs and thereafter Ram Niwas committed rape upon her and after that the said two persons also forcibly raped her and they did not give her anything to eat for 2/3 days and gave her sleeping medicines and that after some days said Ram Niwas left for some unknown place and remaining two namely Balwinder and Munna continued to rape her.

4. In her further said statement, she got recorded that after some days wife of said Ram Niwas namely Ms. Gudia came there who had brought some clothes for her and was asking her to marry the said Munna and when she refused for the same, said Balwinder gave her beatings very badly and forcibly got exchanged the garlands between the prosecutrix and the said Munna and said Ms. Gudia told her that said Munna was her (prosecutrix) husband and as Munna wanted to go outside and prior to her leaving two Bihari persons also came at the said house and started residing at the lower floor of the SC No.271/10 Page 4/38 same and Balwinder was residing on the upper floor and thereafter, on one day, said Munna, Balwinder and one Bihari person forcibly took her to talk at her residence and made her sit in a car and threatened her to keep mum and they took her to one STD shop and asked her to talk to her father without disclosing their names and that she had told her father that she was got forcibly married and when she tried to say some other things, the said persons disconnected the phone and dragged her and after reaching the said house, they consumed liquor and when she tried to escape from the said house in the night, said Bihari caught hold of her and thereafter said persons gave her beatings for the whole night and locked her in the room and after some days, one white colour car of the make Tata Sumo was brought by them and they took her to Haridwar and in the way, they had administered medicines to her and at Haridwar in the night, Ram Niwas had also reached there and thereafter said three persons again forcibly raped her and on the following day, she saw one STD shop below and somehow she escaped and came down but she could not connect the phone to her house and she was having one piece of newspaper having her photo on which phone number of PS Sultan Puri was written and she gave a ring to PS Sultan Puri, Delhi and one constable advised her to raise alarm as the police of Delhi could not reach at such a distance and asked her to run away from there and the phone got disconnected and that in the meantime, SC No.271/10 Page 5/38 Ram Niwas, Balwinder and Munna reached there and dragged her to a car by beating her and they took her back to Chandigarh where they started giving her injections and the said injections were being given by Balwinder and she has become pregnant and one day, when they were beating, they kicked her stomach due to which bleeding continued for 1 or 1½ month and thereafter Ram Niwas did not turn up and one Bihari also left and she was being given electric shock on some occasions and thereafter again she was put in a car and brought her to Delhi near ISBT and when other persons went out of the car, having an occasion, she made a phone call from the mobile phone which was lying in the car to her house and talked to her sister and told her that she would not be alive by that day but all the talks could not take place and thereafter she gave a phone call to Babloo @ Kishan Pal and told him that she was somewhere near Metro Station having green roof and after sometime said Babloo came there searching her and at that time, one Bihari was present there and there was a quarrel between them and thereafter said Babloo took her out of the said car and she was in a bad condition as she was pregnant second time and she could not even pass urine and thereafter Babloo asked her to go to house but she refused and told him that she would die and on her forcing, said Babloo took her to one of his relatives house which was situated in a village near Meerut, UP and subsequently he took her to a hotel at Meerut and SC No.271/10 Page 6/38 brought medicine for her abortion and bleeding started and thereafter got her ultra sound done and helped her. He also told her to call her parents there but she refused and said Babloo never did any forcible act with her and she lived with him out of her own free will and thereafter said Babloo was arrested by the police and police also reached up to her.

5. While hearing arguments on charge, my Ld. Predecessor vide his separate order dated 08.01.2007 discharged the said accused Kishan Pal @ Babloo.

6. On the basis of the said evidence and the charge sheet my Ld. Predecessor, vide his order dated 09.01.2007, framed charge against the accused u/s 120B r/w section 342/365/366/376 & section 109 r/w 342/365/366/376 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced as many as 18 witnesses, relevant of which have been discussed below.

8. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she pleaded her innocence and denied the incriminating evidence against her as false and did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.

9. I have heard Ld. APP for the state, Sh. Harish Khanna, SC No.271/10 Page 7/38 Advocate for the accused and perused the record.

10. The star witness of the case is the prosecutrix herself who is responsible for deciding the fate of this case and other witnesses are more or less having corroborative value in nature and as such, it is necessary to discuss the deposition of the prosecutrix herself first.

11. The prosecutrix has appeared as PW5, who in her introduction did not get her address registered before the court for some personal reasons. (Her address, even if given, would have been kept as secret for non disclosing of her identity as commanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and said fact of not disclosing her address on the day of deposition for the alleged personal reasons shall be appreciated in this judgment.)

12. In her examination in chief dated 25.11.2009, she deposed that on 03.06.2005, she started from her house to go to Disk Computer Center, Pitam Pura, at about 8.00 a.m. by rickshaw where she was studying and that she got down from the rickshaw at Metro Station Pitam Pura, Delhi, from where she had been going on foot to the said institute and when she reached at Vishal Mega Mart near the shop of Sardar ki Hatti, she heard a voice from behind on which, she turned and saw one black coloured car where one person namely Ram Niwas was sitting by the seat of the driver and that he wanted to talk to her regarding Babloo and his wife Tanu and on which she SC No.271/10 Page 8/38 replied that he should talk to her parents in this regard. She further deposed that she had also seen that one more person was sitting on the back seat and that one more person standing near the car, however, by that time she did not know that the said person was also with them and that all of a sudden the back door of the said car opened and the person who was standing near the car, forcibly pushed her inside the car on the back and the persons on the back seat of the car made her sit on the space between the front seat and rear seat which is being used as a foot rest forcibly and the two persons who were on the rear seat forcibly pressed her downward by their hands and feet so that she may not see outside and raise alarm and that the car started moving on and that the names of the persons who were on the rear seat she came to know later on as Balvinder and Munna to whom she can identify if shown to her. She further deposed that after some hours of journey, the car stopped inside a house which was in a field which later on she came to know that it was near Chandigarh and that she was made to alight from the car and when they were taking her upstairs, she tried to save herself and resisted and consequent to her resistance, they all gave her beatings and dragged her by holding her hair and that she raised alarm and tried her best to escape but was unable to do so and that they all took her in a room situated at the first floor and misbehaved with her and that they pull down all her wearing apparels and the knot of her SC No.271/10 Page 9/38 pajami was not opening as such they cut the same with a scissor and all the three raped her one by one and that they used to give her medicine on the pretext of stopping bleeding from her private part but the said medicine having a sedative effects (drowsiness) on her body and that after some days, Ram Niwas left that place and accused Balvinder and Munna used to rape her. She further deposed that after some days, accused present in the court namely Ritu @ Gudia wife of Ram Niwas (correctly identified) came there at that house and that she had brought some clothes for her and asked her to marry with Munna and on her (the prosecutrix) refusal, Munna, Balvinder and accused Ritu @ Gudia gave beatings to her and forced her to put garland to Munna and Munna also put a garland in her neck and accused Ritu @ Gudia told that now she was married with Munna and she would have to live with Munna as husband and wife and that two persons who were appearing to be residents of Bihar were also there in the said house. She further deposed that one day, Munna and Balvinder took her to an STD shop in a car and on their asking, she called her father telephonically and told her father not to worry about her and she had got married and that these words were uttered by her as per the directions of Balvinder and Munna and just after concluding these words, the telephone was disconnected by Balvinder so that she may not tell anything else to her father and that thereafter they again took her to the said house. SC No.271/10 Page 10/38

13. In her further examination in chief dated 26.11.2009, she deposed that on that night she tried to escape but both the Behari persons (Chowkidaars) apprehended her and gave beatings to her and that after one or two days Munna and Balvinder took her to Haridwar in a white car and on the way administered some drugs to her having sleeping effect and that they had already booked a room there at Haridwar and Ram Niwas was already present there and they all raped her on that night one by one forcibly and that there in that room, she saw a newspaper in which her photograph along with the telephone number of PS Sultan Puri was published and that there was an STD shop on the entrance of the said hotel and that when they all were busy in gossips and eating something, she came out and reached at the STD shop and dialed at the telephone number of PS Sultan Puri and the phone was picked by some constable and that she had narrated him the entire incident and regarding her kidnapping, he advised her that as they could not reach to that place immediately, she should raise noise and should make effort to gather the people and that during her said conversation, those three persons came and caught hold of her and they again took her to the said room in the hotel where they had a mutual conversation to send her back. She further deposed that accused Balvinder injected her with some injection and made her sit in a car and Balvinder and Munna brought her back to Chandigarh as after the conversation Ram SC No.271/10 Page 11/38 Niwas had left them at Haridwar in the hotel and that Balvinder and Munna made her stay for few days at Chandigarh and they had been mutually conversing and also in consultation with Ram Niwas probably they decided to bring the prosecutrix back to Delhi and accordingly they had brought her back to Delhi in a car at ISBT and that while at Chandigarh, she was already pregnant and she also tried to escape and that at Chandigarh Balvinder had hit her with leg in her stomach as a result of which she started bleeding and that Balvinder and Munna used to beat her occasionally and sometimes when she refused to sleep with them, they used to give her current/electric shock also and that Munna and Balvinder had gossips/planning over telephone probably to kill her (objected to by the Ld. Defence Counsel being her personal impression). She further deposed that when Balvinder and Munna had brought her from Chandigarh to ISBT, none else was present in the car and from their conversation, she felt that they were planning to kill her and that Balvinder and Munna stopped their car near the fly over near metro station ISBT and that they came down of the car and left her inside the car after locking and they were talking something and that Balvinder and Munna prior to their starting from Chandigarh had given her an injection due to which she was in a sleepy condition and that Balvinder and Munna remained outside the car for a considerable time and that when she saw them they were standing at SC No.271/10 Page 12/38 some distance from the car and it seemed that they were waiting for somebody, however, a mobile phone belonging to either Balvinder and Munna was left lying in the dash board of the car and that she made a call at her residence from the said mobile but a lot of noise/disturbance was there and she tried a lot to speak out and that she had talked to her elder sister by that mobile who asked her to see around and to tell the location where she was at that time and that she communicated to her sister that possibly she was in Delhi as the passing vehicles has the number starting from DL..... however, the communication got disconnected in between before she could complete and that she again tried to make a call at her residence but as the call was not connected so she could not succeed. She further deposed that during search diary of mobile, she found a call number in the name of Babloo and she made a call to Babloo by pressing it and that he enquired her as to who she was on which she revealed that she was in a car and she had been trying to contact at her residence and that during her conversation with him she had also seen a bus on which Nandnagri was written and she had also seen the green shed of the metro station from which she felt that she was somewhere near ISBT and that she was talking in a low voice and that person told her that he would do something and would come and she told him that she was still in the car and that she had also told him that she was in a white coloured car near fly over and that SC No.271/10 Page 13/38 Balvinder and Munna remained outside for quite a long time and that after sometime, Babloo reached there and from the car she could see that Babloo, Balvinder and Munna were talking and some quarrel was going on between them which continued for a long time by which time also she was somewhat in sleepy condition. She further deposed that Babloo opened the back door of the car where she was sitting and took her out and that Balvinder, Munna and Babloo were still quarreling who were exchanging abuses also and that Munna was also calling somebody on phone saying that Babloo was taking her and that she was not able to stand properly as she was sick and that thereafter Balvinder left and Munna drove the car very speedily and Babloo dragged her on one side so that she did not get hurt by the car and that Babloo tried to talk to her but she was not able to communicate due to her sick condition and that Babloo had been knowing her father earlier as he had been working with Ram Niwas and that he told her that her father had got registered a case in the police station regarding her kidnapping and her family members were upset due to bad name due to her kidnapping and that he also told her that his wife had filed case against him in the court and asked her (the prosecutrix) either to go to his house as her family members got disreputed due to her or to return to her house and that from there, Babloo took her to house of one of his relatives and that since it got late, they remained in the house of that relative only and SC No.271/10 Page 14/38 next day, Babloo took her in a hotel at Meerut which was near the house of his relative and asked that she had to be medically treated as she was not well and that during the course of her medical treatment her hair were also cut and that he also told her that he would also arrange for a house on rent and that Babloo took a room on rent at Shivpuri Meerut by misguiding the landlady that he would come with his wife as otherwise the landlady did not agree to lend the room on rent (objected to being hearsay). She further deposed that Babloo took her to that room where he had revealed her as his wife and her name as Anjali and he also asked her to tell her name as Anjali only and that whenever she tried to call her parents, Babloo asked her that it was not the right time to call them or that the court date of his case was not near or would make some other excuse so convincing that sometime she would herself defer calling her parents and that her medical treatment continued for some time and on one day, she went to buy her medicine and came back to the said room, she found that certain police officials had already come and that it was 27.04.2006 on that day. (At this stage Ld. APP asked the witness if she remembered the month correctly to which the witness paused for sometime and thereafter stated that it could be the month of March). The prosecutrix further deposed that Babloo was along with the police officials as he was arrested from Shahdara Delhi by the police officials and that the police officials asked her about her SC No.271/10 Page 15/38 name and she told them her real name and that thereafter the police officials brought her from Meerut to Delhi and they were discussing to take her to hospital and that they brought her to SGM hospital Delhi where she was medically examined and that Babloo was also brought in the same vehicle in which she was brought to Delhi and he was also sent for medical examination and that she had also shown the police officials the place from where she was kidnapped and a site plan was prepared at her instance.

14. She further deposed that her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded by the Magistrate and the same is Ex.PW5/A signed by her on its last page at point A (Same is running from page No.2 to page No.7). She further deposed that thereafter she was permitted to go to her residence along with her parents and that after one or two days of her reaching home, one day Ram Niwas and his wife accused Ritu @ Gudia came at their house and that time Ram Niwas was having a katta (firearm) in his hand and its holster was hanging around his vest and he started abusing and forcibly pressing the door in order to open the door and uttered that "Abhi tu sabak nahi seekhi hai, abhi tujhe sabak sikhate hai" and that accused Ritu @ Gudia started pelting stones which were lying on the road inside their house through the open space over the main gate and that some other persons were also there with Ram Niwas and Gudia out of which one was Bantu s/o Ramesh resident of Budh Vihar and that Ram SC No.271/10 Page 16/38 Niwas as well as accused Ritu @ Gudia both were saying that either they (the prosecutrix and her family members) should compromise the matter with them (the accused) otherwise her sisters would also face the same fate as that of the prosecutrix and also threatened to kill her parents. She further deposed that on that day, she dialed number 100 from her land line number and the PCR van as well as the local police arrived there and police searched for Ram Niwas and accused Ritu @ Gudia, she (the prosecutrix) identified accused Gudia from a distance when she was at the roof of her mother's house which was nearby and that thereafter they all reached at the police post and there accused Gudia was arrested on 01.04.2006, that is the same day on which she (the accused) along with her husband Ram Niwas attacked their house vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B signed by the prosecutrix at point A and her (the accused) personal search was conducted.

15. In her further examination in chief dated 27.01.2010, the prosecutrix deposed that she could identify her clothes which were taken by the doctors while conducting her medical examination, if shown to her and parcels bearing No.2 and 3, both sealed with the seal of NK, FSL, Delhi, were produced and opened and parcel no.2 was found containing one gent's underwear which was kept as it is in the said parcel and parcel no.3 was found containing one black salwar and one orange/light brown coloured panty which was shown SC No.271/10 Page 17/38 to the witness and the witness identified that the salwar and panty belonged to her which was taken into possession by the doctors at the time of her medical examination and the panty is Ex.P1 and black salwar is Ex.P2. The prosecutrix further deposed that when Babloo had taken her along with him from ISBT, he had seen Balwinder, Munna and other Bihari persons in whose custody at that time she was and that Babloo was also knowing them and as such able to identify them as earlier he used to work with Ram Niwas.

16. In her further examination in chief dated 29.03.2011, she deposed that the personal search of accused Ritu present in the court, was conducted in her presence vide memo Ex.PW5/C and that her statement was recorded by the police and that she has been falsely implicated in case FIR no.502/06 presently of PS Vijay Vihar after the above mentioned FIR and that since she is a government employee, the accused present in the court along with one Tanu and Ram Niwas filed false complaints against her in her office and now she is fed up to give replies of those complaints (objected to).

17. She was cross examined for the first time on 29.03.2011, wherein she has admitted that a case FIR no.502/06, u/s 365/368/376/34 IPC was registered against her and her family members wherein she was on bail. She admitted that the said FIR was registered on the complaint of above said Tanu, wife of said SC No.271/10 Page 18/38 Kishan Pal @ Babloo (the accused who was discharged vide order dated 08.01.2007). The prosecutrix also admitted that she is the same Tanu who is the wife of Kishan Pal @ Babloo. She answered that she had informed her department with regard to said FIR registered against her. She admitted that she obtained her job on compassionate ground after the death of her father who was a government servant and that she was working at District Courts, Delhi (posting withheld for secrecy reasons). She admitted to have known said Kishan Pal @ Babloo since the year 2005 and that she remained with said Kishan Pal at Meerut for about 1 or 1½ month. She further admitted that she used to call said Kishan Pal as Babloo as her brother. She further admitted that she used to treat him as her brother. She answered that she had stated to the police in her statement that at Meerut she was residing with said Kishan Pal @ Babloo as husband and wife. She answered that said Tanu was not residing with Kishan Pal at Meerut during the time she was residing there. She admitted that she was being called at Meerut by the name of Anjali. She answered that the landlady of the said premises at Meerut was known by the name of Raj Kumari. She replied that said Kishan Pal @ Babloo was dealing in supply of cable connection and as such, he used to come to her house at Delhi. She did not know as to what employment or business, the said Kishan Pal was doing at Meerut but he used to go outside and that when he used to SC No.271/10 Page 19/38 go outside, she used to reside alone in the said premises at Meerut. She admitted that she used to go to market for purchasing medicines with the said Raj Kumari at Meerut. She admitted that she was recovered from Meerut when Delhi Police along with her father and said Kishan Pal @ Babloo had gone there. She admitted that she was recovered at the instance of said accused Kishan Pal. She further replied that during the said period of her stay at Meerut, she did not inform her parents regarding her whereabouts.

18. In her further cross examination dated 16.05.2011, she replied that she did not inform the police or any authority during her stay at Meerut that she was abducted by the persons named by her above. She further answered that as she had no talks with the said landlady of the house at Meerut, there was no occasion for her to disclose that she was not the wife of Babloo @ Kishan Pal and she volunteered that she had visited once with the said landlady outside the house for purchasing medicines and that she did not disclose about her abduction and the fact of herself not being the wife of said Babloo @ Kishan Pal to the landlady as there was no chance available for the same. She further answered that her father might have felt for getting the fact recorded before the police in his statement in DD No.57B dated 26.03.2006, PS Shahdara regarding her abduction by Kishan Pal @ Babloo on 03.06.2005. She admitted that she had stated as witness in case FIR no.516/07, PS Prashant Vihar, which SC No.271/10 Page 20/38 was regarding the murder trial of her father, that her father got recorded the said DD with regard to her abduction by Kishan Pal @ Babloo. She denied the suggestion that she was seen on 25.03.2006 by her father along with Kishan Pal @ Babloo in a three wheeler scooter, who was driving the same and said Babloo fled away with her from the said point at Loni Boarder, Shahdara. She answered that her father might have told the police about his having seen her along with the said Babloo in the said three wheeler scooter at the said point at Loni Boarder, Shahdara. She did not know if at present the divorce had taken place between said Kishan Pal @ Babloo and his wife Ms. Tanu. She admitted that she had stated before the police in her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that Kishan Pal @ Babloo met her and informed that due to her (the prosecutrix) residing with said Babloo, his wife Ms. Tanu had filed a case against him. A question was put to the prosecutrix as to whether she knew that Ms. Tanu in case FIR no.934/05, PS Sultan Puri, u/s 307/328 IPC levelled allegations against Babloo, her husband, that he was residing separately from her since 25.05.2005 with the prosecutrix and had deserted her (his wife) and it was observed by this court that a considerable time has lapsed since the question was asked by the Ld. Defence Counsel and thereafter the said question was recorded and the prosecutrix remained silent for a considerable time and this court could guess that she was calculating something in her mind SC No.271/10 Page 21/38 prior to becoming ready to answer the question and that was why, the witness had said in counter attack to the question that the said case was registered later on and this observation was recorded as a demeanor of the witness and she answered that she did not know about the said allegation or contents of the said case. She further replied that said Ms. Tanu might have been admitted to BSA hospital on 09.06.2005, as she was given poison by the said Babloo. She answered that her father might have lodged the missing report regarding her on 10.06.2005. She denied the suggestions that she was having illicit relations with said Kishan Pal @ Babloo and ruined the marital life of said Ms. Tanu, the wife of Babloo. She further answered that she was knowing the accused Ritu as her husband was providing service facility of cable TV in her area which was known by the name of M/s Laxmi Cables. She admitted that said Kishan Pal @ Babloo was also dealing in providing cable TV services with Ram Niwas, the husband of the accused, in the said cable TV service known by the name of M/s Laxmi Cables. She did not know if the relations between the said Babloo and Ram Niwas were cordial or not. She replied that she knew that said Ms. Tanu, wife of Babloo, is the sister of said Ram Niwas. She did not know if Ram Niwas used to make understand Babloo as to why he was ruining the matrimonial life of his sister due to his residing with the prosecutrix.

SC No.271/10 Page 22/38

19. In the said cross examination on the said day, she had admitted that she had not seen Munna and Balwinder, who allegedly were co­abductors prior to the said alleged incident or abduction nor she had seen them after she became free from their clutches nor she could tell their parentage and addresses and she denied the suggestion that said Munna and Balwinder were fictitious persons and in order to make the case stronger regarding her abduction, she had named the said two imaginative persons. She further denied the suggestion that at the time of her abduction from near metro station Pitam Pura, there was a huge rush of people and she volunteered that as it was morning time and shops were closed at that time. She admitted that metro rail service used to start at 6 a.m. She further admitted that there are two roads which lead from metro station Pitam Pura towards Kohat Enclave, out of which one road is about 10/12 feet for parking and another is the major main road. She answered that she used to go to her institute on foot from the side of Pitam Pura metro station towards Kohat Enclave and in the foot way, no traffic signal comes and as such, she had no idea regarding the distance between the traffic signals which may be on the main road. She admitted that a cross road comes which is to be crossed in the same direction to reach her institute. She had no idea of second traffic signal which comes in that way after the said cross road. She admitted that after the said traffic signal there comes another cross SC No.271/10 Page 23/38 road and a road is coming to the said cross road at the main road from the adjoining locality. She could not say if the distance between the said two cross roads was about 500 meters because her institute comes prior to the said second cross road. She admitted that on the said second cross road, the metro station of Kohat Enclave is situated. She admitted that under the metro station Pitam Pura, there was a bus stand. She could not tell the car number wherein she was being abducted. She could not tell the registration number of any of the cars wherein she travelled from Delhi to Chandigarh, Chandigarh to Haridwar, Haridwar to Chandigarh and Chandigarh to Delhi. She replied that they started from Delhi in the morning and reached Chandigarh in the evening. She could not tell the house number where she was kept at Chandigarh. She could not tell the name of the hotel at Haridwar. She admitted that she was never taken by the police either to Chandigarh or at Haridwar where she was kept. She admitted that the distance between Chandigarh and Haridwar was about 5/6 hours journey in a car. She admitted that she stayed at Chandigarh for about 6/7 months and at Haridwar for about two days. She had answered that she make telephone call from the STD booth. She further admitted that her mobile number was 9899348608. She replied that she did not call her father from the said mobile from Chandigarh. She answered that she had called at her residence land line which was picked up by her sister, from SC No.271/10 Page 24/38 her said mobile phone from ISBT Delhi, when she was brought back to Delhi from Chandigarh after about seven months from the date of her abduction. She admitted that her father got recorded in his statement to the police on 10.06.2005 that within seven days of her abduction, she had called him from her said mobile phone number.

20. In her further cross examination dated 29.07.2011, she replied that the hotel in which she had stayed with said Kishan Pal was near to the bus stand of Meerut. She admitted that she had stated in her statement before the police that prior to her abortion she was medically examined by a doctor. She answered that neither she told nor doctor asked her as to who was the person from whom she had conceived. She replied that she had stated to the doctor at the time of preparation of her MLC with regard to the name of the person who abducted her and assaulted her and she was confronted with the MLC Ex.PW1/A where name of the person who abducted her is not recorded in the alleged history given by the witness herself. She replied that her statement was recorded on 27.03.2006 by Delhi Police. She admitted that she had remained with her parents for one or two days prior to her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC. She replied that she was still unmarried. She could not say as to where said Kishan Pal @ Babloo used to reside during the period she remained at Haridwar and Chandigarh. She denied the suggestion that she remained with Kishan Pal throughout from the day one till SC No.271/10 Page 25/38 she was got recovered from Meerut. She answered that Ram Niwas had come to her lastly at Chandigarh and thereafter at her residence after her recovery to give her threats.

21. A further confrontation of his deposition with her examination in chief dated 25.11.2009 was brought on record by court observation as in the first sentence of her examination in chief dated 25.11.2009, it was recorded "on 03.06.2005, I started from my house to go to DISC Computer Centre Pitam Pura at 8 a.m. by rickshaw where I was studying. I got down from rickshaw at metro station Pitam Pura and from there I had been going on foot to the institute", whereas in her statement before the police dated 28.03.2006 the said fact is recorded as "on 03.06.2005, I boarded metro train from Rithala and got down at Pitam Pura metro station and was going on foot from the said metro station to the computer centre DISC, Vaishali, Pitam Pura".

22. In her further cross examination, she admitted to have stated to the police that at Chandigarh, when she was being taken to the house and while taking her from the upstairs, when she resisted, she was beaten and the said portion was confronted with her statement Ex.PW5/DA where it was recorded that when she was being taken upstairs, she raised alarm and she was beaten. She admitted to have stated to the police in her statement that at that time accused Ritu @ SC No.271/10 Page 26/38 Gudia also gave beatings to her and again it was confronted with the said statement Ex.PW5/DA where it was not found so recorded. She again admitted to have stated in her statement to the police that accused Ritu @ Gudia had also forced her to put the garland round the neck of accused Munna (since PO) and again this portion was confronted with her said previous statement where name of accused Ritu @ Gudia was not recorded for the said act.

23. Her admitted deposition in her examination in chief that in consultation with Ram Niwas probably Munna and Balwinder decided to bring her back to Delhi and accordingly they had brought her back to Delhi in a car at ISBT, the fact that she became pregnant at Chandigarh, that Bihari persons also accompanied them to Delhi in the said car, the fact that she felt that Balwinder and Munna were planning to kill her, the fact that she was given an injection by Balwinder and Munna while bringing her back from Chandigarh to Delhi due to which she slept, the fact that Balwinder and Munna were standing at a distance from the car and it seemed that they were waiting for somebody and the fact that on mobile phone her sister asked her to see around and tell the location where she (the prosecutrix) was at that time and that she communicated to her sister that possibly she was in Delhi as the passing vehicles had the number starting from DL, all the said facts were not found recorded in her previous statement Ex.PW5/DA. Reversely, she had not SC No.271/10 Page 27/38 stated to the police that during her conversation with Kishan Pal @ Babloo she had seen a bus on which Nand Nagri was written and she had also seen the green shed of the metro from which she felt that she was somewhere near ISBT. Again the facts that when quarrel was going on between Balwinder, Munna on one side and Kishan Pal on the other side, she was in a sleepy condition, the fact that when quarrel was going on between said persons, said Munna was calling somebody on phone saying that Babloo was taking her, all these facts were also not found recorded in her previous statement Ex.PW5/DA. She denied to have made statement to the police that Balwinder had left and Munna drove the car very speedily and Babloo dragged her on one side so that she did not get hurt by the car and the said fact that Balwinder left and Munna drove the car was not found mentioned in her said previous statement. She answered that she had not stated in her supplementary statement before the police Ex.PW5/DB that Ram Niwas was having country made pistol in his hand when he came to her house. She further claimed to have stated to the police that Ram Niwas threatened her to teach her a lesson but the said fact was not found recorded in her supplementary statement Ex.PW5/DB.

24. PW4 Smt. Raj Kumari is the landlady of the premises where the prosecutrix allegedly remained at Meerut, UP, who deposed that she was the owner of house at Shiv Ram Puram, District Meerut, UP SC No.271/10 Page 28/38 and that in the year 2005, there were two tenants at her house and that one person by the name of Kishan Pal @ Babloo and his wife were tenant at her house and they were residing peacefully and that whenever Kishan Pal went to his native village, his wife used to reside at tenanted premises alone.

25. PW18 SI Rajender Singh was the IO who admitted in his cross examination on behalf of the accused that he had not visited ISBT Delhi or Chandigarh or Haridwar in connection with this case with the prosecutrix, as she was not willing to take him to the said places as per her version. He could not admit or deny the suggestion that she was not willing to take him to the said places because no such things happened with her at the said places, as revealed by her to him. He admitted that the prosecutrix revealed the name of Balwinder and Munna but their description, parentage or residential addresses were never disclosed to him by her. He could not admit or deny the suggestion if the said Balwinder and Munna were fictitious persons and for that reason, no particulars regarding their whereabouts or identity were disclosed by the prosecutrix.

26. I have deliberately reproduced the said deposition of the prosecutrix PW5 in order to know that as to whether the substantive offences u/s 342/365/366/376 IPC are at all made out or not so as to attract the abetment thereof and the conspiracy to commit the said SC No.271/10 Page 29/38 offences by the present accused.

27. Admittedly the prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years on the day of incident. A bare reading of the said deposition of the prosecutrix go to establish that her examination in chief substantially has been confronted with her previous statements and she has deposed the new facts before the court for the first time. The manner in which she was allegedly abducted on 03.06.2005 and from the place, as deposed by her in the first sentence of his examination in chief, was in total variance from her previous statement recorded by the police on 28.03.2006 where the factum of her going in a rickshaw after alighting at Pitam Pura Metro Station was found altogether missing. Admittedly she has remained at Chandigarh, Haridwar for seven months and her said mobile was with her throughout the said period of seven months and she has the opportunity at Chandigarh, Haridwar and at Meerut to disclose about the alleged mishappening with her but she did not prefer to disclose to anyone about her rape or regarding the fact that Kishan Pal @ Babloo was not her husband, for the reasons best known to her. Admittedly she remained at Meerut with said Kishan Pal for two months as husband and wife and after nine months of her alleged abduction police reached Meerut along with said Kishan Pal but during this period of nine months she again did not disclose any such abduction or rape with her to anyone including the landlady SC No.271/10 Page 30/38 PW4, with whom she was admittedly roaming in the market. In DD No.57B, Ex.PW9/B, the father of the prosecutrix got recorded that the prosecutrix was abducted by said Kishan Pal @ Babloo regarding which this present FIR was already registered and he got arrested the said Kishan Pal vide said DD, but the prosecutrix in her said deposition denied all the said facts stated by her father being the feelings of her father. Moreover, in his complaint dated 10.06.2005, Ex.PW11/A, the father of the prosecutrix got recorded that on 07.06.2005, at about 4.30 p.m, a phone call was received at his house which was attended by his younger daughter wherein the prosecutrix informed said younger daughter that prosecutrix did not know the place at which she was at the relevant time and gave the mobile number from which the said call was received by younger daughter as 9899348608 but in her deposition, the prosecutrix denied having made the said phone from her said mobile phone and deposed that she telephoned from STD Booth. Even after her recovery as such, she did not take the IO PW18 either to Chandigarh or to Haridwar for the purposes of investigation where she was allegedly raped by said alleged accused Ram Niwas, Balwinder and Munna. In her examination in chief dated 26.11.2009, she specifically stated that except Balwinder and Munna, no one else was in the car when she was being brought back to Delhi but in her further examination in chief dated 27.01.2010, she introduced SC No.271/10 Page 31/38 certain Biharies also present in the car at that time. In her examination in chief dated 26.11.2009, when she was brought back to Delhi she deposed that Balwinder and Munna stopped the car near the flyover of metro station ISBT and came out of the car after leaving her inside the car and at that time, a mobile phone belonging to either of them was left lying in the dash board of the car and she made a call at her residence from the said mobile and she had talked to her elder sister from that mobile, but in her cross examination dated 16.05.2011, she admitted that she had called at her residence land line which was picked up by her sister from her own mobile number 9899348608 from ISBT Delhi when she was brought back to Delhi from Chandigarh after seven months from the date of her abduction.

28. The prosecutrix has otherwise no regard for the truth and she can go to the extent of even playing with the sanctity of the human relations when she was blowing hot and cold in the same breath by answering in her cross examination dated 29.03.2011 that she used to treat Kishan Pal @ Babloo as her brother but in the next answer she admitted to have stated to the police that at Meerut she along with said Kishan Pal was residing as husband and wife. She is calculative and over clever in answering the questions where she thought that she may be in doldrums and in order to support her false story. Right from the beginning till end she narrated a story, SC No.271/10 Page 32/38 the facts of which could not be reconciled at all. The Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out that although he could not fetch evidence to that effect but allegation of the present accused towards the prosecutrix is that she is still residing with said Kishan Pal @ Babloo and it is because of this reason that when the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box, she did not disclose her address for alleged "personal reasons". I find a considerable force in the said submission because it is a circumstantial evidence generated against her in not giving her address before the court for the reasons best known to her.

29. The irresistible conclusion is that no such abduction, her illegal confinement or forcing her to marry or to illicit intercourse or her rape, took place as alleged by her in her said deposition. Thus, she and the prosecution have miserably failed to prove the said substantive offences u/s 342/365/366/376 IPC committed upon her and if the substantive offences are washed away, the conspiracy or the abetment of the same also have no legs to stand.

30. Even otherwise, coming to the specific role of the present accused Ritu @ Gudia assigned to her in her deposition and in this regard her examination in chief is reproduced below at the cost of repetition.

"After some days, accused present in the court namely Ritu @ Gudia SC No.271/10 Page 33/38 wife of Ram Niwas (correctly identified) came there at that house. She had brought some clothes for me and asked me to marry with Munna and on my refusal, Munna, Balvinder and accused Ritu @ Gudia gave beatings to me and forced me to put garland to Munna and Munna also put a garland in my neck and accused Ritu @ Gudia told that now you are married with Munna and you will have to live with Munna as husband and wife".

31. The said examination in chief was confronted with her previous statement in her cross examination dated 29.07.2011 wherein when the said facts were put to her, the same were not found recorded in her previous statement Ex.PW5/DA where there was no mention of accused Ritu @ Gudia giving beatings to her or accused forcing her to put the garland around the neck of accused Munna. Thus, the said allegations against the present accused have been levelled for the first time before the court and amounts to afterthought and an inference can be drawn here safely that it was rather the prosecutrix who cooked up a conspiracy in her mind to implicate the accused falsely in the case as per her convenience. This is sufficient for a clear acquittal of accused Ritu @ Gudia.

32. Let me now turn to the defence version, as put forth on behalf of the accused. The first defence is that one Tanu was the sister of accused Ram Niwas, who is PO, and said Ram Niwas is the husband SC No.271/10 Page 34/38 of the present accused. The husband of the present accused namely Ram Niwas had strong objection against the prosecutrix living with one Kishan Pal @ Babloo in illicit relationship and thereby ruining the marital life of his sister namely Ms. Tanu. The accused is not required to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt and he may just put forth a probability of his defence. The prosecutrix, in her cross examination dated 29.03.2011, has specifically admitted that she herself was an accused u/s 365/368/376/34 IPC vide FIR no.502/06 which was admittedly recorded at the statement of said Ms. Tanu who was the complainant of the said case. She has admitted that she knew said Kishan Pal since the year 2005 and remained with him at Meerut for about 1 or 1½ month. The prosecutrix has further admitted that at that time Ms. Tanu was not residing with them at Meerut. She further admitted that she was being called by the name of Anjali at Meerut. She admitted that said Kishan Pal informed her that due to her stay with him, his wife Ms. Tanu has filed a case against him and the prosecutrix also got recorded her statement to that effect to the police. To the question that in FIR no.934/05 said Ms. Tanu levelled allegations against her husband namely Kishan Pal @ Babloo that he was residing separately from her since 25.05.2005 with the prosecutrix and had deserted her wife, the prosecutrix remained silent for a considerable time calculating in her mind as to how to answer the said question SC No.271/10 Page 35/38 and thereafter showing ignorance regarding the said allegation of Ms. Tanu. This is a circumstance going against the prosecutrix and she further admitted that said Ms. Tanu might have been admitted to BSA hospital on 09.06.2005 as she was given poison by the said Babloo @ Kishan Pal. Thus, the said evidence on the record makes the said defence of the accused highly probable giving reason to the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused in the present case so as to get rid of said Ms. Tanu and whosoever related to her.

33. Second is the defence of the accused that there was a business rivalry between said Kishan Pal @ Babloo and husband of the accused namely Ram Niwas. With regard to this defence, the deposition of the prosecutrix has been pointed out wherein prosecutrix admitted that she was knowing the accused Ritu @ Gudia as her husband was providing service facility of cable TV in her area which was known by the name of M/s Laxmi Cables. She further admitted that said Babloo @ Kishan Pal was also dealing in providing cable TV services with Ram Niwas, the husband of the accused in the said M/s Laxmi Cables. Thus, possibility of the said business rivalry resulting into enmity cannot be ruled out from the said circumstances.

34. I am conscious of the doctrine of judicial restraint which commands me not to pass such comments which may not be part of SC No.271/10 Page 36/38 the "lis" and at the same time, I am also conscious of the law that nobody has got a right to commit a rape upon a woman even of easy virtue but the theory of rape against the present prosecutrix has been already discarded by me, as discussed above, but despite all restraints at my command, my judicial conscience pricks me that I would be failing in my duty if I do not point out that present prosecutrix, admittedly working in District Courts has no fear or by virtue of her said job her fear has gone out of her mind towards the law and she can play with the law and legal procedures as a master juggler and she can go to any extent by levelling allegations against anyone as I have already held that she has no regard even for the human relations, as discussed above, and in this sense, such kind of alleged victims of rape are potentially dangerous to the society in the sense that from tomorrow onwards the general public as well as the courts will start disbelieving the version given by even the real victims of rape and in the second sense, as she has become fearless, she can level allegations against her colleagues with whom she is working or against any other person of the society with whom she will be having a clash of interest. I have no hesitation in drawing an inference that she is a cold blooded thinker whereby she can implicate any person, having inadvertence towards the consequences and at the same time, she has no repentance over her said false allegations. These comments have been passed with a hope that the SC No.271/10 Page 37/38 said prosecutrix would reform herself in future and it is in this background that I am thinking it inexpedient in the circumstances not to lodge a report against her for the criminal offences she has committed before this court during her said deposition u/s 340 Cr.PC and not reporting the matter to her department for her departmental action because prevention is always better than cure and for further humanitarian reason that she got her job on compassionate ground after her father was murdered.

35. In view of my said discussion, the accused Ritu @ Gudia is hereby acquitted of the charges u/s 120B r/w section 342/365/366/376 & section 109 r/w 342/365/366/376 IPC. The evidence recorded shall be read u/s 299 Cr.PC against the accused who are PO. The PB and SB of accused Ritu @ Gudia are hereby discharged. The file be consigned to the Record Room. (Announced in the open court on 12.07.2012) (RAKESH TEWARI) ASJ­06(OUTER) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No.271/10 Page 38/38