Delhi District Court
State vs . Bansi Lal Sahran, on 2 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.13/15.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0004882015.
State Vs. Bansi Lal Sahran,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sahran,
R/o Flat No.197, Pocket 13 Phase-1,
Manglapuri,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 14.1.2015.
FIR No.401 dated 21.8.2014.
U/s. 376/328/506 IPC.
P.S. Palam Village.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 30.6.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 02.7.2015.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Bansi Lal was chargesheeted by the prosecution for the offence u/s.376/328/506 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, the accused was a business partner of the husband of the prosecutrix namely 'S' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity). Both were doing the business of tours and travel in partnership. The family of the prosecutrix had shifted to house no.RZF-4A, Gali No.44, Sadh SC No.13/15. Page 1 of 20 Nagar, Palam, New Delhi, on 11.5.2014 and after shifting was over, her husband left for his work. The accused reached there at about 11.30 a.m. And offered a cold drink to the prosecutrix, which she took after some initial reluctance. Thereafter, she became unconscious. Accused bolted the door of the room from inside and raped her. When she regained consciousness, she saw the accused leaving the room. She did not narrate the incident to her husband on that day out of shame. However, the accused started harassing her and threatening her and used to tell her to have physical relations with him. Upon being fed up with the conduct of the accused, she apprised her husband about the incident and then made a call at telephone no.100 on 21.8.2014.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that information was received in the police station on 21.8.2014 at 4.28 p.m. from the Police Control Room to the effect that the lady caller has been raped by Bansi Lal Sahran three months ago and has been continuously threatening her. The information was recorded as DD No.28A and was entrusted to SI Ramwati for suitable action. SI Asha Rani alongwith Const. Suman reached the spot and met the prosecutrix. She recorded her statement and got the FIR registered. The prosecutrix was taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination. Her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded. She handed over to the IO her torn shirt which she was wearing at the time of incident and the bedsheet, on which she was raped. The prosecutrix further handed over a memory card and certain photographs to the IO on 08.9.2014. The mobile phone of the accused was seized on 29.8.2014. The accused was also got medically examined in DDU Hospital. Statement of the SC No.13/15. Page 2 of 20 prosecutrix's husband was recorded u/s.161 Cr.PC. At that time, he was in judicial custody in FIR no.383/14, u/s.328/376 IPC and u/s.6 of POCSO Act, which had been registered on the complaint of the daughter of accused Bansi Lal. All the exhibits of the case were sent to FSL for forensic examination. However, the accused was not arrested during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed.
4. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s.328 IPC, u/s.376 IPC and u/s.506 IPC were framed against the accused on 23.3.2015. He denied the charges and hence trial was held.
5. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on 01.6.2015 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. He has stated that a false complaint has been filed against him by the prosecutrix at the instance of her husband in order to shield her husband in the rape case instituted against him on the complaint of accused's daughter and also in order to pressurise upon him (accused) and his daughter to withdraw the complaint. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record.
7. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW4. She deposed that her family was earlier residing in Gali No.42, Sadh Nagar, Palam, and they shifted to house no.RZF-4A, Gali No.44, SC No.13/15. Page 3 of 20 Sadh Nagar, on 11.5.2014. However, before they could shift, the accused sent her husband for some work. While she was shifting the goods from Gali no.42 to Gali No.44, the accused reached their new house in Gali No.44 at 11.30 a.m. with a plastic cold drink bottle in his hand which had already been opened. He offered the cold drink to her telling her that she must have got tired. She initially refused to take the cold drink but drank the same on his insistence. After some time, she became unconscious. She regained consciousness after about 30 minutes or 45 minutes and found herself lying on the bed totally nude. She saw the accused opening the bolt of the door of their room. She realized that she has been raped. Accused also told her while leaving the room that he has committed sexual intercourse with her and further told her that she cannot cause any harm to him as she has taken her nude photographs by his mobile phone. She did not disclose the incident to her husband on that day out of shame and fear. The accused used to harass her whenever he met her and used to insist her to have physical relations with him again. The accused used to threaten her that if she did not oblige him, he would kill her as well as her at all.
8. She further deposed that on being fed up with the conduct of the accused, she narrated the incident to her husband after about one and a half months. She alongwith her husband then went to the police station on 15.6.2014 where she submitted a written complaint and were told that the action would be taken against the accused. However, instead of taking action on the complaint, the police informed the accused about the same and as a counterblast to the said complaint, the accused got filed a false SC No.13/15. Page 4 of 20 rape complaint through his daughter against her husband. She stated that her husband was arrested by police in that case on 17.8.2014. She then made call at telephone no.100 on 21.8.2014 saying that she was raped by the accused on 11.5.2014. Police officials came to her husband and took her to the police station where her statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded. She was then taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination. She was also produced before a Ld. Magistrate in Dwarka Court on 23.8.2014, who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/B.
9. She further deposed that she told IO WSI Ramwati that accused has saved her obscene photographs in his mobile phone. SI Ramwati told her that accused would not give his mobile phone to her and advise her (prosecutrix) to visit accused's house to bring memory card of his mobile phone from there. Accordingly, she visited the accused's house after about 3 or 4 days of the registration of the FIR. While she was talking to the accused in his house, somebody else came to the house of the accused and the accused went outside the room to see that person. Meanwhile, she saw the mobile phone of the accused on the bed and took out its memory card. She handed over the said memory card to IO WSI Ramwati on 08.9.2014 who seized it vide memo Ex.PW4/C. She also handed over a white, maroon and black colour bedsheet to the IO, on which she had been raped by the accused. She further stated that she handed over the brown colour underwear of the accused, which he had left in the house after the incident dated 11.5.2014 to the IO on 19.9.2014, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. On the same day, she accompanied IO WSI Ramwati to the shop of photographer Gaurav Tyagi. The IO handed over the SC No.13/15. Page 5 of 20 memory card of accused's mobile to Gaurav Tyagi, who developed 8 to 10 photographs from the memory card and handed over the same to the IO, who seized those photographs vide memo Ex.PW4/F. She had also handed over her blue and white colour shirt, which she was wearing at the time of incident to the IO on 21.8.2014. She identified the photographs Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A10 to be the same which had been developed by photographer Gaurav Tyagi from the memory card of accused's mobile.
10. In the cross examination, she admitted that on the complaint of accused's daughter, FIR No.383/14, u/s.376 IPC and u/s.6 of POCSO Act was registered against her husband in P.S. Palam Village on 07.8.2014 and her husband was arrested in that case on 17.8.2014. She also admitted that accused's wife too has lodged a complaint of rape against her husband in P.S. Palam Village but she did not know whether the FIR has been registered on the said complaint. She deposed that they had started shifting goods from gali no.44 on 11.5.2014 at about 8 a.m. and finished the shifting at about 11.30 a.m. She admitted that there is only one entrance gate to the house no.RZF-4A, Gali No.44, and three rooms were on the second floor of the house. She stated that when they reached the said house alongwith their goods on 11.5.2014, the gate was opened by the landlady. She could not say whether her name was Amra Devi. She stated that whenever anybody presses the door bell on the main entrance gate of the house, the gate used to be opened by the landlady. She also admitted that the said house is situated in a residential area and there is a gali in front of the house which was a live gali. She SC No.13/15. Page 6 of 20 stated that after she regained consciousness on the date of incident, she did her usual household work.
11. She also deposed that she had not submitted any written complaint in the police station regarding threats given to her by the accused. She had not gone to meet either ACP or DCP before 21.8.2014. She did not make any call at telephone no.100 before 21.8.2014. She admitted having not mentioned in her statement to the Ld. M.M. that she regained consciousness after about 30 minutes or 45 minutes and while leaving the room, the accused told her that he has taken her nude photographs and that she had submitted a written complaint in the police station on 15.6.2014. She could not tell the date when she had visited the house of the accused to get the memory card of his mobile phone. She could only say that she had gone there after about 3 or 4 days of the registration of the FIR. She further denied all the suggestions put to her.
12. Prosecutrix's husband Mukesh appearing as PW5 has deposed that he had been doing business of tours and travel in partnership with the accused since the year 2010 - 11. He further stated that he shifted his residence from house no.RZF-11, Gali No.42 to RZF-4A, Gali No.44 in Sadh Nagar, Palam, on 11.5.2014. Accused Bansi Lal had also helped them in shifting the goods to the new house. After shifting process was over at about 9 a.m., accused asked him to go for his duty and accordingly, he left in Taxi No.DL-1YC-6752 to pick up a passenger from Pitampura. About one month thereafter, his wife told him that after he had left for duty on 11.5.2014, accused offered her a cold drink, upon SC No.13/15. Page 7 of 20 taking which, she had become unconscious and then accused had raped her and also had taken her obscene photographs. Upon hearing the same, he took his wife to P.S. Palam on 15.6.2014 and lodged a complaint against the accused. The statement of his wife was recorded in the police station but no action was taken thereafter. Police informed the accused about the said complaint and as a counterblast to the same, the accused got filed a false rape complaint against him through his daughter. He was arrested in that case on 22.8.2014 and was released on interim bail on 08.1.2015. As soon as, accused came to know about his release from the custody, he got filed another rape complaint against him on 11.1.2015 in P.S. Palam Village.
13. In the cross examination, he admitted that on the complaint of accused's daughter, FIR No.383/14, u/s.376 IPC and u/s.6 of POCSO Act was registered against him in P.S. Palam Village on 07.8.2014. He was arrested in that case on 17.8.2014. He further reiterated that he left for his duty on 11.5.2014 at aboout 9 a.m. and hence he could not tell till which time did the shifting process continued. His duty was to take passenger from Pitampura which he did and remained with the passenger throughout the day. The duty slip was in the car itself. Only half of the goods had been shifted to their new house till 9 a.m. when he left. He stated that GPRS is not fitted in Taxi No.DL-1YC-6752. He did not recollect the name of the police officer, to whom his wife had submitted the complaint on 15.6.2014. He stopped visiting the house of the accused and working with him in partnership since 15.6.2014.
SC No.13/15. Page 8 of 2014. PW1 is Smt. Amra Devi, the owner of house no.RZF-4A, Gali No.44, Sadh Nagar, Palam. She deposed that the prosecutrix alongwith her husband and son had stayed in her house as a tenant from May/June, 2014 to October/November, 2014. They had taken up a two room set on the second floor of our house on rent. In the cross examination, she deposed that there is only one gate in the house and whenever any person rings the doorbell, she opens the main gate for him. She stated that no stranger other than prosecutrix 'S' and her husband had come to their house on the day when they shifted their goods to the house.
15. Sh. Guarav Tyagi, the photographer, has been examined as PW2. He has a studio by the name M/s. Tyagi Digital Studio at WZ-3, Umdesh Bhawan, Palam Village, just opposite the police station Palam Village. He deposed that one day in the month of September, 2014, IO SI Ramwati had come to his shop and showed a memory card of a mobile phone. She asked him to develop photographs saved in the memory card. He developed the photographs saved in the memory card at the same time and handed over those to SI Ramwati. He identified the photographs Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A10 from the court file to be those photographs.
16. IO WSI Ramwati has appeared as PW6 and deposed that on receipt of DD No.28A on 21.8.2014, she alongwith lady Const. Suman reached the spot of incident i.e. RZF-4A, Gali No.44, Sadh Nagar-II, Palam Colony, and met the prosecutrix 'S', who stated that she has been raped by Bansi Lal. She recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A, prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A, sent it to the SC No.13/15. Page 9 of 20 police station through lady Const. Suman for registration of the FIR. After return of lady Const. Suman from police station alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR, they took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for medical examination. She seized the exhibits given to her by the doctor. She prepared a rough site plan of the spot of incident Ex.PW6/C at the instance of the prosecutrix. She further deposed that she produced the prosecutrix before the concerned Ld. M.M. in Dwarka Court, on 23.8.2014, who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC. After some days, the prosecutrix again came to the police station and handed over to her the memory card of a mobile phone as well as her ten nude photographs. She seized those vide a single seizure memo. She stated that the prosecutrix again came to the police station on 19.9.2014 and handed over to her the underwear of the accused which she seized vide memo Ex.PW4/E. She submitted an application to the DCP for permission to arrest the accused but the permission was not granted.
17. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP on certain points and in his cross examination by Ld. APP, she denied that she had accompanied the prosecutrix to the shop of photographer Gaurav Tyagi for developing the photographs saved in the memory card. She reiterated that the prosecutrix had herself got the photographs developed and then handed over the same to her in the police station. In the cross examination, she stated that she does not know any person by name Gaurav Tyagi. She further stated that the prosecutrix did not tell her that she had filed a complaint in the police station before 21.8.2014.
SC No.13/15. Page 10 of 2018. The case of the prosecution is that the accused administered some stupefying substance to the prosecutrix on 11.5.2014 at her new house at about 11.30 a.m. and then raped her during her unconsciousness.
19. The prosecutrix, in her initial statement to the police Ex.PW4/A which is the basis of the FIR, has stated that she lost her consciousness after consuming the cold drink offered to her by the accused and then the accused bolted the door of the room from inside and committed wrong act with her. She has further stated that when she regained consciousness, she saw the accused leaving the room. In her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/B. She has stated that she became unconscious as soon as she took the cold drink and when she regained consciousness, she saw that her Kurta has been torn. She explained that she was not wearing any Kurta and her Salwar had been pulled down upto her knees and the accused was leaving the room.
20. Appearing as a witness before this court, she has deposed that after some time of consuming the cold drink, she became unconscious. She gained consciousness after about 30 minutes or 45 minutes and found herself lying on the bed totally nude and also saw the accused opening the bolt of the door of the room. She realized that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse. She also deposed that the accused told her while leaving the room that he has committed sexual intercourse with her. Manifestly, the prosecutrix has described the incident differently in each of the aforesaid three statements. However, the common thread running through all the three statements is that SC No.13/15. Page 11 of 20 whatever the accused did to her at that time was during her unconsciousness. She stated in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/B that the accused had raped her during her consciousness. In her statement Ex.PW4/A, she has stated that the accused committed wrong act with her after she lost consciousness and in her testimony before this court, she stated that when she regained consciousness, she realized that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse. However, she has not explained either in her statement Ex.PW4/A or in her deposition before this court as to what made her to realize that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her during her unconsciousness.
21. She deposed before this court that when she regained consciousness, she found herself lying on the bed totally nude. However, in the statement Ex.PW4/B, she has stated that on regaining consciousness, she found that she was not wearing her Kurta and her Salwar had been pulled down upto knee level. In her statement Ex.PW4/A, she has not stated anything in this regard as to whether she was wearing her clothes or was totally nude or half nude when she regained consciousness. Therefore, there is no consistency in this regard also in the three statements of the prosecutrix.
22. The prosecutrix has also deposed that the accused while leaving her room told her that he has committed sexual intercourse with her. This appears to be a clear improvement upon her previous statements for the reason that she has neither mentioned the same in her statement Ex.PW4/A or statement SC No.13/15. Page 12 of 20 Ex.PW4/B. She has stated so for the first time in this court. Therefore, this part of her deposition has to be taken out of consideration.
23. It has come in the testimony of the prosecutrix herself as well in the deposition of landlady PW1 that there is only one main gate in the house which used to be opened by PW1 whenever anybody rang the doorbell. PW1 has categorically deposed in her cross examination that no stranger other than the prosecutrix and her husband had come to her house on the day when they shifted to her house. Hence the visit of the accused to the tenanted house of the prosecutrix on 11.5.2014 itself becomes doubtful.
24. There are certain more discrepancies and contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses which make the entire case of the prosecution doubtful. In her statement Ex.PW4/A the prosecutrix has mentioned that after shifting the household goods from previous rented accommodation in Gali No. 42 to the house no.RZF-4A in Gali No.44, her husband had gone out for some work and then the accused came to her room at about 11.30 a.m. She has stated in the statement Ex.PW4/B that accused Bansi Lal told her that he would get their goods shifted and upon saying this, he came to her new rented house alongwith a cold drink and by that time, her husband had already gone out. In her deposition before this court, she stated that before they could shift, the accused sent her husband for some work and while she was shifting her goods, accused came to their new house in Gali No.44 at 11.30 a.m. and offered cold drink to her. On the SC No.13/15. Page 13 of 20 other hand, her husband has deposed that he shifted his residence from house no.RZF-11, Gali No.42 to RZF-4A, Gali no.44 on 11.5.2014 and accused Bansi Lal had also helped them in shifting the goods. He has further stated that after finishing the shifting process at about 9 a.m. Bansi Lal asked him to go for his duty and he left in Taxi No.DL-1YC-6752 to pick up a passenger from Pitampura.
25. Thus there are stark inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix in this regard also. In fact, the stand of the prosecutrix has been vacillating in respect of every aspect of the case. It is very difficult to get a clear picture of what happened to her on 11.5.2014 as she does not stick to one stand. She has kept on changing her versions at every step.
26. There are contradictions in her testimony and that of her husband and her testimony does not find support from any other evidence on record.
27. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than three months in lodging the FIR. It cannot be disputed that a victim of sexual assault feels it difficult to narrate the incident to anybody including her close relatives out of shame and bashfulness and therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR in such cases is not viewed seriously, unless it appears that the delay has been deliberate and contumacious. In the present case, the prosecutrix has deposed that she narrated the incident to her husband after about 1 or 1½ months. Her husband PW5 has also deposed that she narrated the incident to him after about one month of the same. Therefore, it SC No.13/15. Page 14 of 20 can be taken that the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband in middle of June, 2014. It has been deposed by both the prosecutrix PW4 and her husband PW5 that they reached P.S. Palam on 15.6.2014 to lodge a complaint against the accused regarding rape incident and the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint in the police station. It may be noted here that neither PW4 nor PW5 has stated in their statements recorded during the course of investigation that any such complaint was submitted in the police station on 15.6.2014. This fact has come for the first time in their deposition before this court. It is for this reason that the Ld. APP filed an application u/s.311 Cr.PC on 18.5.2015 seeking permission to prove the said complaint by summoning the concerned official from P.S. Palam Village. However, she submitted before this court on 01.6.2015 that the IO has informed her that no record regarding receipt of any complaint dated 15.6.2014 from the prosecutrix could be found in the police station and accordingly withdrew the application.
28. It is thus evident that no such complaint was submitted by the prosecutrix in the police station on 15.6.2014. Had it been so, they would have apprised the investigating officer about the same during the course of investigation. Further the record of the police station would have also showed the receipt of such complaint from the prosecutrix. It further appears that no follow up was made by the prosecutrix or her husband on the said complaint after they had submitted the same in the police station, as stated by them, which also indicates that no such complaint had been filed. It is further intriguing that the prosecutrix did not make any call at telephone no.100 till 21.8.2014 i.e. for a period of SC No.13/15. Page 15 of 20 more than three months after the date of incident. Even her husband also did not make any such call after he was apprised of the incident by his wife in middle of June, 2014. The prosecutrix made call at telephone no.100 on 21.8.2014 i.e. two days after her husband was arrested in FIR No.383/14 registered on the complaint of accused's daughter. The aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix gives a clear indication that she has lodged the present complaint against the accused as a counterblast and in retaliation to the FIR No.383/14 registered against her husband on the complaint of accused's daughter.
29. The further conduct of the prosecutrix after registration of the FIR too shows that she has been fabricating the evidence against the accused. She made the call at telephone no. 100 on 21.8.2014 and the FIR was registered on the same day. However, she provided a memory card of a mobile phone containing her nude photographs which she is stated to have taken out from the mobile phone of the accused, to the IO on 08.9.2014. This was done by her to probably substantiate her contention that the accused had taken her nude photographs at the time of rape incident and was blackmailing her on the basis of those. In this regard, it would be apposite to reproduce here the following portion of her examination in chief :
"I had told IO SI Ramwati that accused has saved my obscene photographs in his mobile phone. She told me that accused would not give his mobile phone to her and asked me to visit the house of the accused and bring the memory card of his mobile phone from there. Accordingly, I visited the house of the accused after about three or four days of the SC No.13/15. Page 16 of 20 registration of the FIR. While I was talking to the accused in a room of his house, somebody else came to the house and the accused went outside the room to see that person. Meanwhile, I saw the mobile phone of the accused on the bed and I took out the memory card from the phone. I handed over the said memory card of the accused's mobile phone to IO SI Ramwati on 8.9.2014. She seized it vide memo Ex. PW4/C bearing my signatures at point A. On the same day I handed over a white, maroon and black colour bed sheet to the IO upon which I had been raped by the accused on 11.5.2014. She seized the same vide memo Ex. PW4/D bearing my signatures at point A."
30. In the cross examination, she has deposed that she had gone to the house of the accused after about 3 or 4 days of the registration of the FIR to get the memory card of his mobile phone. Prosecutrix appears to have cleverly fabricated this story in order to create false evidence against the accused. It cannot be believed that an investigating officer would tell the rape victim to collect the evidence herself. Even if it is believed that the investigating officer told the prosecutrix that she is unable to seize the memory card of the mobile phone of the accused, the prosecutrix should have approached the higher police officers instead of straightaway visiting the house of accused and embarking upon collecting evidence herself. It is also to be noted here that the relation between the family of the prosecutrix and the family of the accused had taken a very ugly turn on 19.8.2014 when the prosecutrix's husband was arrested in FIR No.383/14 registered on the complaint of accused's daughter. In addition to the same, the prosecutrix had been repeatedly saying that the accused used to threaten and insist upon her to have physical relations with him whenever he saw her and met her. It is SC No.13/15. Page 17 of 20 therefore beyond imagination that in such a situation, the prosecutrix would visit the house of the accused alone while her husband was in custody and she as well as accused would talk comfortably with each other in the house of the accused. Further, she has not stated either in FIR or in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC or in other statements that the accused had saved his obscene photographs in his mobile phone. The IO has contradicted the version of the prosecutrix in this regard by saying that the prosecutrix came to the police station after some days of the registration of the FIR and handed over to her the memory card of a mobile phone as well as ten nude photographs. The impression which can be gathered from the conduct of the prosecutrix is that she herself had got clicked her nude photographs from her mobile phone and then handed over the memory card of her own mobile phone to the investigating officer. It is for this reason that there is no mention of memory card or photographs in any of her statements recorded during the course of investigation.
31. It is also not clear as to who had got these photographs developed from the memory card. Prosecutrix has stated that she accompanied the IO to the shop of photographer Gaurav Tyagi (PW2) on 19.9.2014 where the IO handed over the memory card of Gaurav Tyagi who developed 8 to 10 photographs from the same. The IO has denied that she has accompanied the prosecutrix to the shop of the photographer Gaurav Tyagi for developing of photographs saved in the memory card. According to her version, the prosecutrix handed over the photographs to her on 19.9.2014 and she seized those vide memo Ex.PW4/F. PW2 has corroborated the version of the prosecutrix in this regard. Be that SC No.13/15. Page 18 of 20 as it may, the photographs are otherwise also not admissible in evidence as these are not accompanied by the certificate u/s.65B of the Evidence Act from either the prosecutrix or PW2.
32. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix, she handed over a underwear of the accused to the IO on 19.9.2014 which the accused had left in her house after raping her. Here again a doubt arises regarding the credibility of her version in this regard in view of the fact that she has not stated in any of her statements during the course of investigation that the accused had left his underwear in her house after raping her. Even if it is believed that the accused had left his underwear in the house of the prosecutrix on 11.5.2014 after committing rape upon her, there is no explanation from the prosecutrix as to why the same was not handed over to the IO on 21.8.2014 at the time of registration of the FIR or soon thereafter. The delay of about one month in submitting the said underwear to the IO is very material and cannot be ignored, moreso, when there is no explanation at all regarding the said delay. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the underwear in question belongs to the accused. The circumstances in which the underwear has been brought to light clearly demonstrates that this is a planted one.
33. The aforesaid discussion leads to only conclusion that the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, credible and trustworthy to prove the guilt of the accused. To the contrary, the evidence on record manifests that attempt has been made to fabricate false evidence in order to strengthen the prosecution case which otherwise, was on a very weak footing.
SC No.13/15. Page 19 of 2034. Resultantly, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted as such.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 02.7.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.13/15. Page 20 of 20