Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Rahul Ranjan on 9 May, 2018
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPESH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 08/14
State Versus 1. Rahul Ranjan
S/o Sudhir Kumar Singh,
R/o Vill Anandi Patti Post Maheshpur,
District Supol PS Peepa Bazar, Bihar; and
A72 A, Old Slum Qtr. Paschim Puri,
Madi Pur, Delhi.
2. Ms. Lalita Devi
W/o late Ghyan Shyam,
R/o F163, Baljeet Nagar, Punjabi Basti,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 473/13
U/s : 376/506/120B/109 IPC & 66E of IT Act
Police Station : Punjabi Bagh
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE
AFTER COMMITTAL: 17.01.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.05.2018
JUDGMENT
1.Brief facts as emerged from the Chargesheet are that on 25.10.2013 the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file but SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 2 :- withheld to protect her identity) alongwith her sister reached at police post Madipur, PS Punjabi Bagh and made complaint to the effect that the accused Rahul Ranjan (here inafter referred as A1) has established physical relations with her forcibly under the false promise of marriage and has prepared her MMS and further threatened the prosecutrix to upload the MMS on net. On the basis of complaint, DD no.40 was recorded to this effect. The prosecutrix was medically examined at SGM Hospital. Thereafter, statement of prosecutrix was recorded wherein, she has submitted to the effect that she has studied upto 5 th Class and resides with her family. She has three sisters and four brothers. The financial condition of her family is not good and as such she is in the private job since 2004. Some body has given her visiting card for job in the Balaji Hospital and she has made phone call on the number as mentioned on the visiting card which was picked by accused Rahul Ranjan who assured her to arrange job for her in the Balaji Hospital. The accused asked the prosecutrix to meet him next day and accordingly, next day she met the accused opposite police post Madipur from where accused taken the prosecutrix to Mona Nursing Home. Thereafter the accused has got job for prosecutrix at Balaji hospital. She continued to meet the accused. The accused proposed her for marriage and she accepted the same. On 21.1.2012, accused called SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 3 :- the prosecutrix to his house to celebrate his birthday. On 25.1.2012 accused again called her at his house and has established physical relations with her without her consent. Thereafter, under the promise of marriage, the accused continued to establish physical relations with her. She caught the accused with 23 girls and at this the accused showed her one MMS and threatened her that he would upload the same on internet. The accused by threatening her on this account, has also taken money from her. She had not disclosed this fact to anybody under fear and the fact that her parents were not keeping good health. However, she disclosed this fact to her sister. On the basis of statement of prosecutrix FIR u/s 376/509 IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh.
Investigation of the case was conducted. During investigation, the accused was arrested and he was medically examined. At the instance of accused, one spy camera, two memory card containing certain MMS and card reader etc. were recovered from the house of accused Rahul Ranjan. The statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr. P.C. was got recorded, wherein, she has also named coaccused Mona @ Lalita Devi (hereinafter referred as A2) and has submitted that she has prepared her MMS. Coaccused Mona @ Lalita Devi was also arrested. On the basis of material collected, offence u/s 66E of IT Act was added to SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 4 :- the investigation. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohin for expert report. After completing the investigation, the Chargesheet u/s 376/506/120B/109 IPC and 66E of IT Act was presented in the Court of Ld. MM against accused Rahul Ranjan (A1) and accused Mona @ Lalita Devi (A2)
2. After hearing arguments on point of charge, my Ld. Predecessor court has found that, prima facie, charge under Section 376 r/w Section 420 IPC, 120B IPC, 506/384 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and 66 E IT Act r/w Section 120B IPC has been made out against accused Rahul Ranjan and prima facie, charge u/s 120B IPC, 66E of IT Act r/w Section 120B IPC and u/s 109 IPC r/w Section 376 IPC made out against accused Lalita Devi. Separate formal charge was framed against both accused persons accordingly, to which both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses.
4. PW1 is prosecutrix. She has stated to the effect that she got married to Mr.Ravi Ranjan on 03.03.2014. She was working in 'Richa ki Factory' at Maya Puri since 2008. On 15/16.02.2011, one lady gave her visiting card of one Mr. Kunal Singh and told that he was running a placement SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 5 :- agency and could get her employed somewhere. On 16.02.2011 in the evening i.e. Saturday, she made a phone call on the said mobile number and the person attended the call asked her to come to Balaji Hospital next day at about 8:00 AM to which she told the said person that since it was Sunday, she would visit him on Monday. But the said person insisted her to visit there on Sunday itself as there was one vacancy for her. She agreed to visit the said place on Sunday. On next day at about 8:00 AM, she reached at Madipur Police Post where Mr. Kunal met her. The witness has identified the accused in the court as accused Kunal @ Rahul Ranjan. She further submitted that late on she came to know that accused was also known as Rahul Ranjan. She further deposed that accused Rahul Ranjan took her to Balaji Hospital on his motorcycle and got her employed there to look after one old aged lady patient called "Amma". Her job was to serve meal and the medicines to that lady. She was to be paid Rs 250/ daily for this work. On the same day the said lady patient 'Amma' was discharged from the hospital. Accused asked her to go with Amma to her house in Paschim Puri. She reached the house of Amma where the daughterinlaw of Amma was present in the house, who called the accused in her presence and asked that next day he need not to send the prosecutrix for the work and she needed some elderly lady who could give SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 6 :- bath to Amma. She was supposed to work at the house of Amma till 8:00 PM and after 8:00 PM another attendant was supposed to come for the next shift. At about 8:00 PM, she made a call to accused, who told her to stay there till he bring another attendant. At about 8:15 PM, accused along with one aunty reached at the house of Amma. Then accused took her on his motorcycle and dropped her at Paschim Puri Metro Station. She told the accused that she was asked by the daughterinlaw of Amma not to come for work on the next day, to which accused replied that the next day she should visit him to Balaji Hospital to look after another patient. On the next day at 8:00 AM she reached at Balaji Hospital but accused was not there. She made a call to the accused. Accused came there at about 2:00 PM and told her that he could not talk to the family of the patient, so she should go back and visit the hospital next day. However, in the meantime, accused received one call and he asked her to stay in the hospital for about one hour, so he could introduce her to the patient and his family. He asked her to wait in the hospital for about half an hour, then he returned to her and told her that she should come along with him to Peera Garhi as he had to deposit some money somewhere. Gradually they became acquainted with each other as the accused was getting for her work i.e attending of a patient in the hospital and some SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 7 :- time at the residence of the patient. Then, accused started visiting her house and proposed to marry her. Accused met her and her family and they all were ready to marry her with the accused. In the year 2011, during the summer season, accused also made her mother to talk to his mother on phone. On 21.01.2012, accused made phone call to her and told her that he met with an accident and it was his birthday and he invited her to his house. She went to the house of accused in the area of old slum behind Madipur Police Post. She saw that accused bandaged on his leg as well as the crepe bandage on his arm. They celebrated the birthday of accused. She visited him on the next 34 days. On 25.01.2012, she went to the house of accused to give his food as his mother had asked her to provide food to accused. On that day accused forcibly had physical relation with her. Thereafter, she started crying and returned back to her residence. Thereafter, accused tried to contact her but she stopped receiving his call for 45 days. One day accused came to her house and he telephoned his mother from his mobile phone and asked the prosecutrix to talk to his mother. The mother of the accused assured that she would get her marry to accused. Thereafter, both of them started meeting each other and had physical relations. Thereafter, she started working as telecaller in Mahipal Pur and accused used to pick her up daily morning from Naraina Bus Stand SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 8 :- on his bike and drop to his office at Mahipal Pur and in the evening, he again took her from her office and to drop back. This continued till the month of April, 2012. In the month of May, 2012 accused stopped coming to pick her up from the bus stand and stopped receiving her phone calls. On 19/20.05.2012, she went to the house of accused. But accused was not present there, however one young girl aged about 1819 years was present there wearing half of her clothes i.e. salwar and Bra. Accused had gone to nearby shop and on seeing her, he immediately returned back. In the meanwhile, accused reached there and told that the girl was girl friend of one Mr. Phantoos, who was friend of accused. Thereafter, the girl left. The girl was having bag containing her clothes and other things. Accused told that she was staying there for last 56 days and she was his girl friend. The accused further told the prosecutrix that he would not marry her and whatever she she wanted to do, she can do. On hearing this, she slapped the accused and told that she would disclose everything to his family. Thereafter, accused started beating her, pushed her and made her lie down on the bed. Thereafter, accused showed her nude MMS in the tablet and threatened her that he would upload the same on the internet to defame her. She started crying and requested not to put the MMS on the internet and agreed to fulfill his demand telling him that she SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 9 :- would not disclose anything to his family. Thereafter accused called her to his house whenever he wished for having physical relations with her. She started visiting the house of the accused during her office hours and she also lost her job. She told the accused that she lost her job and she would not be able to visit him anymore. Accused asked her to stay in his house and gave few sleeping tablets and asked to consume one tablet daily in the morning, so that she could sleep in the day time would wake up in the night time. Every night accused come outside the house of prosecutrix to take her to his residence where accused used to have physical relations with her and would drop her back to her house at about 3:00 - 4:00 AM in the morning. Her parents were not aware of her leaving the house of accused in this manner with the accused. Whenever she could not accompany the accused to his house, he used to come to the terrace of her house to have physical relations with her. One day in the year 2013 at about 10:30 PM, accused came to her house and at that time she was alone as her mother along with her younger brother had gone to house of her maternal uncle and her younger sister had gone to buy ice cream from the nearby market. Her two other brothers were working as contractors, so they used to remain away from the house. Her father was working in Gurgaon and he used to visit their house only for 23 days in a week. When SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 10 :- accused came to her house, she was talking to someone on her mobile phone. Accused started beating her and snatched her mobile phone. In the meantime, mother of prosecutrix along with her younger brother reached there. Accused stated that whatever the photographs he was having with him, she should take them back. Next day accused again visited the locality of prosecutrix and showed her video to the boys living in her locality. Accused told the boys of her locality that he would send her video and photos on their mobile phones. Accused also shown her video to one Mr. Ravi to whom she was now married and Mr. Ravi had told her that accused was showing her video to the boys of the locality. After coming to know about this fact, she made a call to the accused next day to meet at near Govt. Press, Maya Puri, where accused reached. Prosecutrix asked the accused not to show the videos to any one and asked him to delete the same. He further told that he would not delete the MMS/videos but he gave her in his handwriting on his voter ID cards that he had prepared MMS in the bedroom without her knowledge and if same is leaked, he would be held responsible for the same. The copies of voter ID cards of the accused which was brought by the witness are Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B (objected to the mode of proof). The witness further submitted that accused made phone call to her but she did not take his phone. Accused used to follow SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 11 :- her when she used to go to her office. She was told by an unknown person that the accused had taken sleeping pills. Witness further submitted that after writing Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B, accused had cut his wrist in her presence, so that he did not make any complaint against him to the police. Witness further submitted that accused had two pen drives, one of red and black colour and another of orange colour in which he had her obscene video and photographs. Accused had shown her both the pen drives by putting them in a tablet after two months of writing Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. She again started going to the house of accused where they had physical relations. Accused assured that he would marry her and also threatened and beaten her saying that he would show her obscene video to others and due to this reason, she again starting going to his house where accused had physical relations with her. Prosecutrix further submitted that accused started threatening her and started raising demand of money from her. She used to fulfill his demand. In the month of October 2013, on the day of Karva Chauth, accused telephoned and demanded cash of Rs 23 thousand from her. She showed her inability on the ground that she did not any any money and on this accused started abusing her on phone. She disconnected the phone. Then she thought since she refused to give money, accused would beat her, so she again telephoned him but he did not take SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 12 :- her phone call. On same day, she along with her younger sister Ms. Anjali went to his residence but she noticed the accused along with coaccused Lalita Devi at the medical store near his residence. Prosecutrix and her sister were on scooty, where as both the accused persons had come to the medical store on the bike of accused. Her sister stopped scooty near the bike of accused. She telephoned the accused from near the medical store asking him to collect money but he asked that he was not present at his house and he was away some where, so he would come later to collect money. She asked the accused as to in whose company he was present. He replied that nobody was with him. At that time, accused Lalita Devi was standing near the bike of accused which was parked near the PP Madipur. Once she had seen the accused Lalita Devi in the house of accused and 23 times she had seen her in the market. Accused had told her that accused Lalita Devi was his aunt. The medical store was not visible from that place, when she was talking to the accused on phone, he was standing at some distance from the bike. While talking on phone, she rushed towards Lalita and asked her pointing out towards accused as to how he was related to Lallita. Accused Lalita replied that accused was her husband. In the meantime, accused reached there. She asked as to why he had spoiled her life when he was already married with accused Lalita Devi. Accused admitted SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 13 :- that he had married with accused Lalita Devi for last 4 years. Accused Lalita Devi started beating accused and she pushed her to one side. Some people had gathered there and police also reached. Police pacified the matter and both the accused left. However, prosecutrix remained at the spot and started crying. After some time accused came back at the spot and told that accused Lalita Devi was the girl friend of Mr. Phantoos. Thereafter, she went to the houser of accused and his sister Anjali also followed her. They reached there within 23 minutes. She saw that accused Lalita Devi was wearing peticot and maxi (night wear) and she was along with accused. Accused Lalita along with accused were going to have their meal as accused Lalita Devi was going to end her "Karva Chauth" fast which she had kept for accused. Accused Lalita Devi slapped her and after that both started fighting with each other. Thereafter, prosecutrix and her sister were locked inside the room by both the accused persons. There were two doors in that room in the opposite walls. Accused had put a lock on one door from inside while accused Lalita had bolted the other door from outside. Accused had forcibly taken away the mobile phone of prosecutrix and his sister. Accused switched off the main electricity of the room and there was no light in the room. There was some visibility in the room which was coming from outside the window and light of Karva Chauth Diya.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 14 :- There she noticed that a secret camera was installed in the room and there was few photographs and one diary lying in the room. Prosecutrix lifted those photographs along with the diary and handed over to his sister who kept the same in the pocket of her trousers which she was wearing. Same was brought by the prosecutrix in the court which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/J (objected to the mode of proof). Witness further submitted that in the photograph Ex. PW1/C accused is visible with one girl named Anshika, in the photograph Ex. PW1/D accused is visible with accused Lalita Devi, in Ex. PW1/E accused Lalita Devi is visible, in photographs Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/H one girl named Anshika is visible. The photograph Ex. PW1/J is of sister of accused. The diary is Ex. PW1/K (objected to the mode of proof). After sometime, both accused opened the door and came inside. Accused told the prosecutrix that since she had come to know about the marriage of accused with Lalita and if she told this fact to anyone, he would upload her MMS on the net which was prepared by him. Thereafter, sister of prosecutrix pushed the accused to one side and she along with her sister came out of the room and they started shouting and raised alarm as result landlady came on the spot and prosecutrix told her that she alongwith her sister were confined in the room. Then they returned back to their house. Thereafter, accused kept on SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 15 :- abusing her on phone. This incident took place on 22.10.2013. Her statement was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW1/L. She was taken to SGM hospital for her medical examination, where her gynecological examination was conducted. Her statement was recorded by Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex. PW1/M bears her signatures at point A1 to A3. Accused was arrested in her presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/N. Accused confessed his crime vide his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/N1. During investigation IO had recovered one secret camera, 34 old mobile phones, one pen drive and certain other accessories from the house of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/P. Witness correctly identified one camera in black colour spy button camera, one memory card, one pen drive card reader, one passport size photograph of prosecutrix, one passport size photograph of accused which are Ex. PX1 to PX5.Mobile phone and two Sim Card one of IDEA and another of Reliance vide Ex. PX6 to PX12. She was crossexamined at length. However, the same shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence.
5. PW2 is HC Sohan Pal MHC(M). He deposed that on 25.10.2013, SI Vipnesh had deposited the exhibits pertaining to prosecutrix alongwith sample seal of hospital with the Malkhana vide register no.19 serial no.3793. The SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 16 :- photocopy of the same was brought on record as Ex PW2/A. It is further deposed by him that on 26.10.2013 SI Vipnesh deposited the exhibits pertaining to accused Rahul Ranjan alongwith articles recovered from his personal search, in Malkhana vide entry no. 3794 in register no. 19 as Ex PW 2/B. On 27.10.2013 SI Vipnesh deposited certain exhibits in Malkhana vide entry no. 3798 in register no. 19 as Ex PW 2/C. On 01.11.2013, one sealed parcel was received by Ct.Rajesh Kumar from Malkhana and deposited the same in the office of FSL vide RC no.124/21/13 and relevant documents were brought on record as Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E. It is further deposed by him that on 08.11.2013, remaining case property was received by Ct.Shashi from Malkhana and deposited the same in the office of FSL vide RC no.125/21/13 and relevant documents were brought on record as Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. It is further deposed by him that on 14.11.2013, Ct.Shashi received the case property from Malkhana and deposited the same in the office of FSL, Rohini vide RC no.129/21/13 and relevant documents were brought on record as Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/I. On 16.04.2014 one sealed parcel alongwith report of FSL was received in Malkhana from the office of FSL, through ASI Sukhvir Singh. The report was hander over to IO/SI Vipnesh and note in this respect was made at point X SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 17 :- in Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that till the case property remained in his possession, no one had tampered with it.
6. PW3 is Ms.Aditi Garg, Ld. MM who has recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. already Ex. PW1/M. She has further brought on record the application of IO for recording the statement of prosecutrix as well as application for providing the copy of statement of prosecutrix as Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B, respectively.
7. PW3 is Ms.Sukhbiri (it seems that this witness has been inadvertently marked PW3 instead of PW4), landlady of house where accused Rahul Ranjan was residing on rent. She has deposed that she had rented out one room on rent of Rs.300/ p.m. to accused Rahul Ranjan who used to reside alone. The witness further deposed that accused used to bring a girl/ prosecutrix standing outside the court room. The accused Rahul Ranjan used to bring ladies to his room, one was a young lady and another was aged. He used to bring young lady from Punjabi Bagh and he had told her that he has been married to her. He also told her that aged lady was his Bhabhi. The young lady used to reside with accused Rahul Ranjan. The witness has identified accused Lalita Devi, present in the court, as Bhabhi of accused Rahul Ranjan. She further deposed that she does not remember SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 18 :- whether or not police had brought accused Rahul Ranjan to her with accused Lalita Devi. The enquiries were made from her by the police. During her crossexamination on behalf of accused Rahul Ranjan, she has deposed that accused Rahul Ranjan lived as tenant for around 23 months. She admitted to be correct that accused Rahul Ranjan was not brought by the police when inquiries were made by the police.
8. PW4 is Ms.Sheela Devi. She has deposed to the effect that about two years ago, she had given one room on rent to accused Rahul Ranjan. He had vacated her premises and gone to his native village. She further deposed that as she had seen one lady with accused Rahul Ranjan in the tenanted premises and she had made him vacated the premises. She cannot identify the said lady today.
9. PW5 is Dr.Bina, CMO, SGM Hospital. She has deposed that on 26.10.2013 she had medically examined the patient Rahu vide MLC No.19595 Ex. PW5/A and CR No.130509. She further deposed that she can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr.Binay Kumar as she has seen him writing and signing in the ordinary course of work and has brought on record the MLC no.19723 E 131272 of patient Rahul Kumar prepared by Dr.Binay Kumar as Ex.PW5/B. SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 19 :-
10. PW6 is Constable Rameshwar. He has deposed to the effect that on 27.10.2013, he alongwith IO and prosecutrix went to A72, Old Slum Paschim Puri, rented house of accused Rahul Ranajan and from there one spy camera, one pen drive, two sims and four/five damaged mobile phones were recovered. The said items were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/P. This witness was cross examined at length. However, the same shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence.
11. PW7 is Constable Rajesh who received one sealed parcel from MHCM and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No.124/21/13 and relevant documents were brought on record as Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B. record as
12. PW8 is Ct.Sugriv. He has deposed to the effect that he had joined the investigation alongwith SI Vipnesh and at the instance of prosecutrix accused Rahul Ranjan was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/N and personal search of accused vide conducted vide Ex.PW8/A. Accused was got medically examined from SGM Hospital and his sealed exbhibits were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B. The accused Rahul Ranjan was produced before the Ld. MM and his PC remand was given by the Court.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 20 :-
13. PW9 is the sister of prosecutrix. She has deposed to the effect that prosecutrix is her elder sister. In the year 2013, her sister did not talk to anyone and used to remain sleep almost all the time. On enquiry from prosecutrix, she was told about her engagement with accused Rahul Ranjan. The witness has correctly identified the accused Rahul Ranjan, in the court. Prosecutrix told her that accused maintained physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage on 25th January in 2012 or 2013. In the year 2013, on the day of Karva Chauth, when she alongwith prosecutrix visited the house of accused at about 10.0010.30 PM, they found the accused Rahul Ranjan alongwith other coaccused Lalita present there. Accused Lalita was on her fast of Karva Chauth. The witness has correctly identified the accused Lalita in the Court. Her sister also disclosed that that the accused Rahul Ranjan had prepared her MMS with the help of other accused Lalita Devi and by showing that MMS blackmailed her. The accused Rahul Ranjan used to demand money from the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix had a quarrel with accused Rahul Ranjan on the day of Karva Chauth when they visited their house and she had accompanied with her sister to PS where the report was lodged. She was cross examined at length. However, the same shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 21 :-
14. PW10 is Dr. Rupali Khanna, SR Obs & Gynae Department, SGM Hospital. She has deposed that she can identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr.Rachita Munjal as she has seen her writing and signing in the ordinary course of work and proved the MLC no. 334 dt. 25.10.2013 E No.130186 of prosecutrix prepared by Dr.Rachita Munjal as Ex.PW10/B.
15. PW11 is SI Kailash Chand. He deposed to the effect that he was duty officer on 26.10.2013. He has proved the copy of the FIR as Ex PW 11/A, his endorsement on rukka as Ex PW 11/B. He has also brought on record the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW 11/C.
16. PW12 is Ms.Monika Chakravarty, Sr.Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL, Rohini. She deposed to the effect that five sealed parcels pertaining to this matter were examined by her qua which she has given the detailed report as Ex PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B.
17. PW13 is WCt. Renu. She has deposed to the effect that on 28.10.2013 SI Vipnesh received one secret information that one accused namely Lalita required in this matter was roaming outside PP. The accused was apprehended and she had taken the accused to SGM Hospital for medical SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 22 :- examination. Thereafter accused was produced before the Court at Tis Hazari and was sent to JC.
18. PW14 W Inspector Vipnesh is IO of the case. She has deposed the manner in which she conducted the investigation and brought the entire documents prepared by her during the investigation. Her evidence shall be considered at the time of appreciation of evidence.
19. PW15 is HC Shashi. He deposed that on 14.11.2013, MHCM gave him five sealed parcels and two sample seals which he deposited with FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 129/21/13 and after depositing the case property, he gave the receipt of the same to MHCM. PE was closed.
20. Statement of both the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied all the incriminating evidence came on record against them and further submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further accused Rahul Ranjan submitted that he intended to examine the defence witness whereas another accused Lalita Devi submitted that she does not want to lead defence evidence. However, no defence witness was either examined by accused Rahul Ranjan and DE was closed.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 23 :-
21. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Subhash Chauhan, ld. APP for State, Mr.Sumit Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused Rahul Ranjan and Sh.Nishant Rana, Amicus Curiae for accused Lalita Devi.
22. Ld. APP for State has submitted that accused Rahul Ranjan and accused Lalita Devi are husband and wife. PW1 is prosecutrix who has fully supported the case of prosecution and deposed to the effect that she came into contact with accused as somebody has provided number of accused as she was in need of job. On 25.1.2012 the accused for the first time established physical relations with her under the promise of marriage. Thereafter, on 19 20.5.2012 when the prosecutrix visited the house of accused she found one girl 1819 years in half clothes, she enquired from the accused about her and at this accused told the girl to be his girlfriend and asked the prosecutrix that he would not marry her. At this, prosecutrix slapped accused and then accused has shown nude MMS of prosecutrix on tablet. It is further submitted that thereafter the accused under the threat of uploading the MMS on net has repeatedly raped the prosecutrix. It has been further submitted that spy camera and memory card etc. containing obscene video of prosecutrix in compromising position with accused were SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 24 :- seized. FSL report in this respect is also on record. The evidence of prosecutrix is corroborated by her sister PW9. It is further submitted that evidence of remaining prosecution witness is also corroborating the evidence of PW1. In respect to A2, Ld. APP for State submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record which shows that she has committed offences for which she was charged. On the basis of these submissions it is submitted that prosecution has proved his case against both the accused.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for A1 has submitted that accused and prosecutrix were good friends and physical relations between both of them were consensual. But with passage of some time, the prosecutrix was attracted towards somebody else and in order to get rid of the accused, she has falsely implicated the accused in this matter. On this aspect it has been further submitted that this fact is also proved from the fact that the prosecutrix has married to same other person when the accused was in JC. It is further submitted that no reliance can be made on evidence of PW1 as the same suffers from material contradictions and infirmities. On this account it has been submitted that prosecutrix in complaint Ex. PW1/2 has submitted that for the first time sexual relations were established by accused with her on 25.1.2012, whereas in SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 25 :- the MLC Ex. PW10/A she has not stated the date of first incident. Further in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has submitted that on 25.1.2012, the accused has shown his intention to have sexual relations with him, whereas in her complaint Ex. PW1/2 prosecutrix has submitted that accused has forcibly established physical relations with her. It is further pointed out that in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has submitted that accused has shown MMS to her when he has established physical relations with her but in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that accused Mona has prepared her MMS. But when she appeared in court as PW 1, she has deposed to the effect that the accused has shown MMS to her when she enquired about the girl present in his house.
It is further submitted that apart from the contradictions, the evidence of prosecutrix is even not reliable and trustworthy. It has been contended that as per prosecutrix, accused used to blackmail her and extract money from her, whereas in the crossexamination the prosecutrix has admitted that accused has given her scooty by taking loan and further that the accused has given Rs.10,000/ to her for renovation of house. This fact falsify the claim of prosecutrix that accused under threat to upload the videos of prosecutrix blackmailed her and extracted SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 26 :- money. It is further submitted that there are numerous improvements in her examination in chief on account of incident of Karwachauth etc. It has been further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of spy camera etc. at the instance of accused Rahul Ranjan. On this account the attention of court has been drawn towards evidence of PW1/ prosecutrix, PW1/ prosecutrix PW9 her sister and PW3 Sukhbiri, the owner of the house and submitted that as per evidence of all these witnesses the accused was not taken to spot when recovery was effected.
It has been further submitted that accused Rahul Ranjan has never refused to marry with prosecutrix but prosecutrix herself refused to marry accused. The attention of the court has been diverted towards crossexamination of PW1 in this respect.
It is further submitted that it does not appeal to common sense that somebody who possess the MMS would give this fact in writing, as claimed by the prosecution in view of Ex PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. On these documents it has been submitted that these documents are photocopies and without bringing on record the original documents, these documents cannot be said to be duly proved, hence, cannot be read in evidence.
It has been further submitted that as per prosecutrix SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 27 :- the accused continued establishing physical relations with her till the date of filing of FIR, but medical documents does not support the said claim of prosecutrix. On the basis of these submissions prayer has been made to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.
24. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Lalita Devi (A2) has submitted that prosecutrix has changed her version from time to time. It is submitted that in original Rukka the prosecutrix has not named A2. However, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C the prosecutrix for the first time stated that A2 has prepared her MMS. But prosecutrix has not stated the date and time when MMS was prepared and the fact when she came to know about the fact that A2 has prepared the MMS.
It is further submitted that as per prosecutrix, the accused Rahul Ranjan started blackmailing her from 20.05.2012 when accused Rahul Ranjan showed MMS to her. But no reliance can be made on evidence of PW1 because as per evidence of PW1 on 1920.5.2012, when she went to house of accused, she found one girl aged about 19 20 years over there and on enquiry the accused told her that she is girlfriend of his friend Fantoosh. Further as per evidence of PW1, when she alongwith her sister was going to the house of accused Rahul Ranjan, accused Lalita Devi SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 28 :- met them alongwith accused Rahul Ranjan. On query accused Rahul Ranjan told them that coaccused Lalita Devi is girlfriend of Mr.Fantoosh. On this account it has been contended that no reliance can be made on evidence of PW 1 because accused Lalita Devi is aged around 40 years and even does not look around 1920 years old. It is further submitted that prosecutrix never met any girl aged about 1920 old on 19/20.5.2012 at the house of accused Rahul Ranjan. On the basis of these submissions prayer has been made to acquit accused Lalita Devi by giving benefit of doubt.
25. Heard. Material perused.
26. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Rahul Ranjan that there are certain contradictions in respect to the complaint Ex.PW1/2 on the basis of which FIR was registered, details of incident told by prosecutrix to concerned Doctor when MLC Ex. PW10/A was prepared, statements of prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded in the court. Admittedly, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for A1, certain contradictions appear in statements given by the prosecutrix from time to time to the police, Ld. MM, doctor and in her evidence in the Court as PW1.
In respect to the contradictions in SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 29 :- the evidence of witnesses and its effect, in case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilitiesfactor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
Further in case Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC1237, hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that the prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here are discrepancies there but that is a short coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matters or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal case.
Further in case State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki AIR 1981 SC 1390, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 30 :- observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like.
Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.
Reverting to the present matter, it is found that prosecutrix in her evidence has, inter alia, deposed to the effect that on 25.01.2012 when the prosecutrix went to house of accused to provide food to him, he has forcibly established physical relations with her. Thereafter, the accused has shown her obscene video and by threatening the prosecutrix to upload her obscene video on internet, inter alia, demanded sexual favors. This fact may be treated as core issue. During crossexamination of PW1, the fact of physical relations between A1 and prosecutrix were not disputed. But A1 came forward with the plea that it was consensual sexual relationship. Whether it was consensual or not shall be looked into at later stage. However, at this stage, it is found that the contradictions as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused does not effect the case of the prosecution because such type of contradictions are bound to happen, how much trustworthy and reliable a witness may be.
27. It has been further argued on behalf of A1 that the SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 31 :- prosecution has failed to prove that recovery of pendrive, spy camera etc. made from the house of A1 at instance of A1. On this aspect it is found that prosecution has brought on record the recovery memo of these articles as Ex. PW1/P. The memo bears signatures of the prosecutrix, her sister PW9, Ct. Rameshwar PW6 and IO. The evidence of all these witnesses have been scrutinized carefully. PW1/ prosecutrix during her crossexamination has submitted that after accused was arrested, police took her to house of accused and accused did not accompany them. PW9, sister of prosecutrix in her crossexamination has stated that she never accompanied police to the house of accused Rahul Ranjan after lodging the FIR by her sister. As per cross examination of PW6 Ct.Rameshwar for the purpose of recovery, he alongwith IO went to house of accused, where in the presence of owner of house, recovery was effected. In view of evidence of these three witnesses it is found that evidence of all these three witnesses is not consistent and not corroborating each other which makes their presence on spot at the time of recovery of spy camera etc., as per memo Ex.PW1/P doubtful. What could be the effect of this fact in this matter, shall be looked into after appreciation of remaining evidence.
28. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is that SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 32 :- the allegations against accused that he has extorted money from the prosecutrix by blackmailing her are without any basis because the accused himself has purchased one Scooty for the prosecutrix and has given her Rs.10,000/ for renovation of her house. On this account, admittedly, prosecutrix during crossexamination has submitted that accused has given her Rs.10,000/ for renomination of her house and has also purchased Scooty in the name of prosecutrix on 11.10.2013. In respect to extorting money, the evidence of prosecutrix has been scrutinized carefully. Before proceeding ahead, here it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of crossexamination of PW1/prosecutrix, which is as under : "Accused Rahul Ranjan had again assured me for marriage and he had also threatened and beaten me saying that he would show my obscene video to other and due to this reason I again started to going to his house where we had physical relations. Thereafter, accused started threatening me and started raising demand of money from me. I used to fulfill his demand. In the month of October, 2013 on the day of Karva Chauth, accused Rahul telephoned me and demanded cash of Rs.20003000/ from me."
The said portion of evidence of prosecutrix reflects that accused Rahul Ranjan under the threat to show obscene SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 33 :- videos of prosecutrix to others has demanded money from prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was crossexamined at length but during crossexamination, Ld. Counsel for accused has failed to shake the testimony of this witness in this respect. Hence, the testimony of this witness in this respect remained uncontroverted and unshaked. Therefore, it is found that accused has extorted money from the prosecutrix intentionally by threatening her to put her obscene video on internet if she does not meet the said illegal demands. No doubt as stated by Ld. Counsel for accused, prosecutrix has stated to the effect that she has obtained Rs.10,000/ for renovation of her house and accused has purchased Scooty in the name of prosecutrix. On this account, it is found that there is difference between parting with money voluntarily and parting with money under any threat, as latter part is a crime which attracts the offence of extortion. Hence, even though it has been admitted by the prosecutrix that accused has purchased scooty for prosecutrix and paid Rs.10,000/, does not affect the case of the prosecution as the evidence of prosecutrix as stated earlier remained uncontroverted that accused has demanded money from her by threatening her to show her obscene video to other and to put the same on net. Hence, this fact does not benefit the accused at all.
29. It is further submitted that writings of accused on Ex.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 34 :- PW1/A and PW1/B cannot be read in evidence on the ground that both these documents were written on the photocopy of election Icard of accused. It is further submitted that normal person would not admit the fact that he possess MMS and would give this fact in writing. On this account it is found that prosecutrix during her evidence has brought on record two writings of accused as Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. As matter of record, both these documents were not filed alongwith the chargesheet. Now the question arises whether these documents can be read in evidence in this case. In this respect it is found that when these documents were brought on record as Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, the same were objected to by Ld. Counsel for accused on the mode of proof. Inter alia, it has been mentioned in both of these documents that accused possess the obscene video of prosecutrix which was prepared by him in his bedroom and in case video is leaked or he blackmail the prosecutrix on this score, he would be responsible. As per prosecutrix, Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B are in handwriting of accused Rahul Ranjan. During cross examination, the fact that both these documents are in handwriting of accused Rahul Ranjan has not been disputed. Further as matter of record, both these documents were brought on record by prosecutrix on 29.04.2014 and prosecutrix was cross examined on different dates till SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 35 :- 19.9.2015. It shows that accused had obtained proper opportunity to cross examine the prosecutrix in respect to both these documents. Since the accused has obtained sufficient opportunity to cross examine the prosecutrix on these documents and the fact that these documents are in the handwriting of accused, hence even though these documents were not earlier relied upon by prosecution, the Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if these documents are read in evidence.
30. It has been further contended by Ld. Counsel for accused Lalita Devi that no reliance can be made on evidence of PW1/prosecutrix as the girl met prosecutrix on 19/20.5.2012 was stated to be aged about 1920 years whereas the age of accused Lalita Devi is around 40 years. On this aspect, the court has failed to understand that for what purpose arguments have been advanced on this score. However, as matter of record the prosecutrix nowhere claimed that she has met the same girl to whom she met at house of accused Rahul Ranjan on 19/20.5.2012 later on with the accused when she and her sister were going on scooty to house of A1. Neither there is any cross examination on this score. Hence, the Court has no hitch to reach at the conclusion that as per evidence, prosecutrix met another girl aged about 1920 years on 19/20.5.2012.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 36 :-
31. One of the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused is that the prosecutrix herself has refused to marry accused and she has stated this fact in her evidence. Admittedly, the prosecutrix has stated stated so, but this fact cannot be read in isolation to that of the other facts explained by the prosecutrix. Before proceeding ahead here it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of PW1/prosecutrix, which is as under :
When accused came to my house, I was talking to some one on my mobile phone. Accused started beating me and snatched my mobile phone. In the meantime my mother alongwith my younger brother reached there. I told accused that I will not marry him.
From the close scrutiny of evidence of PW1, it reflects that the refusal on part of prosecutrix to marry accused has been fully justified because she has refused to marry accused as he has beaten her and snatched her mobile phone. Hence, no force is found in the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused in this regard.
32. Ld. counsel for accused has mainly stressed on the point that physical relations between parties were consensual. On this aspect it is found that the relationship between parties is consensual or not depends upon the facts and SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 37 :- circumstances of each case. However, in order to ascertain this fact, evidence/material on record has been scrutinized carefully.
As per PW1, she came into contact with accused Rahul Ranjan when somebody given her visiting card of accused by stating that accused runs a placement agency and can arrange job for her. The accused has arranged employment for prosecutrix on certain occasions and during this period both of them became friendly with each other. The accused started visiting house of prosecutrix and proposed to marry her. However, on 25.1.2012 when the prosecutrix went to house of accused to provide him food, the accused forcibly established physical relations with her. Thereafter accused has made prosecutrix to talk to his mother on phone and mother of accused assured the prosecutrix that she would marry her with accused. Thereafter, both of them started meeting each other but suddenly the accused stopped meeting her. In order to enquire this, on 19/20.5.2012 prosecutrix went to the house of accused and found one girl aged about 1920 years in his house and on query she was first told the said to be girlfriend of Phantoos, a friend of accused bit later on, accused told that the said girl to be his girlfriend. At this when some confrontation took place, the accused showed nude MMS of prosecutrix and thereafter under threat, he started demanding sexual favors from the SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 38 :- prosecutrix. Thereafter, accused continued to sexually exploit the prosecutrix and ultimately when the prosecutrix found A2 in the company of accused, and learnt that accused has been married to A2, the prosecutrix has filed the complaint. The prosecutrix has been crossexamined at length. Here it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of crossexamination of PW1, which is as under :
It is wrong to suggest that I had physical relations with accused Rahul Ranjan with my free consent. Had accused Rahul Ranjan not made me talk on phone to his mother after forcible physical relations with me for the first time, I would not have had physical relations with him again later on.......... it is wrong to suggest that on 25.1.2012 the accused Rahul Ranjan was not in position to do anything forcibly due to his injuries and whatever had happened between us was with my consent. ........... It is wrong to suggest that on 25.1.2012 accused Rahul Ranjan had not made physical relations with me against my wish as Rahul Ranjan was seriously injured.
Apart from putting mere suggestions, which were even denied by the prosecutrix, no further explanation was called in respect to the incident took place on 25.1.2012. Moreover, accused has not denied to have physical relations with prosecutrix on 25.1.2012. Further Ld. Counsel for accused during crossexamination of PW1 has failed to SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 39 :- bring on record any material which suggest that physical relations between prosecutrix and A1 were consensual.
33. Further as per case of prosecution, spy camera, phone etc. were seized from the house of accused Rahul Ranjan vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/P. The fact that all these items were recovered at instance of the accused has already been discarded by the Court as discussed above. Now the question arises if the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of these items at instance of accused, whether material contained in the said items viz. Mobile phone, spy camera etc. sent to FSL for expert report can be looked into. The prosecution has examined link witness i.e. PW7 Ct.Rajesh who has taken the pullendas to FSL, Rohini. The report dated 24.3.2014 of FSL of Computer unit is on record. The report, inter alia, shows that one hidden camera with memory card was examined and some hard copies of snap shots of video retrieved from memory card were also filed alongwith report. The prosecution has not examined any expert to prove the report. However, in view of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the said report can be read in evidence without examining the expert, meaning by it is perse admissible. Reliance in this regard can be made in case Visakha Agro Chemical (P) Ltd. V Fertiliser InspectorcumAssistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) (1997) 2 Crimes 648 SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 40 :- (AP), wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held that court has to accept the document issued by any of six officers who are mentioned in Section 293 as valid evidence without examining author thereof.
As per report dated 24.3.2014, video was retrieved from the memory card of spy button camera. The original spy button camera alongwith memory card and pen drive was brought on record as Ex.PW1 to Ex. PW5. As matter of fact, during crossexamination the accused has nowhere claimed that spy camera or memory card does not belong to him. As per report, the video containing in the memory card of spy camera was converted into CD. The contents of CD and snap shots reveals that video was prepared on 09.05.2012. The place where the spy camera was fixed for the purpose of recording the video, as per prosecution is house of accused Rahul Ranjan. On this aspect also it is found that accused Rahul Ranjan has nowhere contended that the video camera was not installed at his house.
Here the question arises why the accused has installed spy camera in his house to record the video of his compromising position with prosecutrix. On this score, the accused has not come forward with any plea. Therefore, the Court has no hitch to reach at conclusion that the accused has prepared this video in order to blackmail the prosecutrix or to compel her for sexual favors. The CD retrieved from SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 41 :- spy cam, memory card contains obscene video of A1 and prosecutrix in compromising position. The photographs on record also shows similar thing.
34. One of the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Rahul Ranjan is that the case of prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence. On this score, it is found that as per MLC Ex. PW10/A of prosecutrix, there was gap of one week between the last time physical relations established between parties and medical examination of the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances it was not possible to collect any medical evidence against the accused. Further in this matter, the accused has not denied to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances, even in case no medical evidence came on record against accused, it does not help the accused or effect the case of prosecution.
35. The prosecutrix has time and again submitted that accused has established physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage.
On this aspect, in case Deelip Singh v State (2005) 1 SCC 88, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to the effect that representation deliberately made by the SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 42 :- accused, which was really a mere hoax with a view to elicit the assent of the victim without having the intention or inclination to marry her at the very inception, will vitiate the consent ostensibly given by the victim.
Further in case State of UP v Naushad, Crl.Appeal no. 1949 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 5390 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under
: How is 'consent' defined? Section 90 of the IPC defines consent known to be given under 'fear or misconception' which reads as under: "90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception A consent is not such consent as it intended by any section of this code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception;
"
Thus, if consent is given by the prosecutrix under a misconception of fact, it is vitiated. In the present case, the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by giving false assurance to the prosecutrix that he would marry her. After she got pregnant, he refused to do so. From this, it is evident that he never intended to marry her and procured her consent only for the reason of having sexual relations with her, SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 43 :- which act of the accused falls squarely under the definition of rape as he had sexual intercourse with her consent which was consent obtained under a misconception of fact as defined under section 90 of the IPC. Thus, the alleged consent said to have obtained by the accused was not voluntary consent and this court is of the view that the accused indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by misconstruing to her his true intentions. It is apparent from the evidence that the accused only wanted to indulge in sexual intercourse with her and was under no intention of actually marrying the prosecutrix.
Reverting to the present matter, the evidence of the prosecutrix reveals that first accused proposed prosecutrix for marriage and in order to make the prosecutrix assured, he has made prosecutrix to talk to his mother. When the accused gained the faith of prosecutrix, he had sex with her for the first time on 25.1.2012. As per case of prosecution, the malafide intention of the accused came to the knowledge of prosecutrix on 19/20.5.2012 when she suddenly visited the house of accused and found one girl aged 1920 years in half naked condition over there and accused told the said girl to be his girlfriend. By that time because the accused Rahul Ranjan had already promised the prosecutrix to marry her and had established physical SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 44 :- relations with her, hence, the prosecutrix flared up. Then accused had shown the video clipping of prosecutrix prepared by him while they were in compromising position. As discussed, the video was prepared on 09.05.2012 and this fact has not been controverted. Therefore, the plea of prosecutrix that on 19.5.2012 the accused had shown the video to her is fully corroborated by the report of FSL that video was in existence on the said day. The entire conduct of the accused of preparing video through spy camera itself shows that he had no intention to marry with prosecutrix and had made false promise to her for marriage.
36. Further, in this matter the accused has not only falsely promised the prosecutrix to marry her but has even secretly prepared obscene video of prosecutrix for demanding sexual favors and money. This discussion leads to conclusion that physical relations were established between accused Rahul Ranjan and prosecutrix were not consensual.
37. Before parting away on this score, it is found that during evidence of PW1, the prosecution has brought on record two documents Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B claiming that both these documents were in handwriting of accused Rahul Ranjan. Ld. Counsel for accused has disputed the mode in which these documents have been brought on record. But as SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 45 :- matter of record, the accused has not denied his handwriting on both these documents. Both these documents clearly shows that accused has admitted the fact that he has prepared the video at his house.
38. In respect to the accused Lalita Devi, the prosecutrix in her complaint Ex. PW1/B, on the basis of which FIR was registered has not named accused Lalita Devi. However, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/M, the prosecutrix has named Lalita Devi. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1 and during her examination in chief, she has stated to the effect that when her MMS was prepared by accused Rahul Ranjan in his house, accused Lalita Devi was also present there at that time. Apart from deposing so, the prosecutrix has not deposed any further in her examination in chief. The prosecutrix has not deposed in specific words that if the accused accused Lalita Devi has prepared the video or in any manner has abated the accused Rahul Ranjan to commit sexual intercourse with prosecutrix or to prepare her obscene video. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1/ prosecutrix which suggest any criminal conspiracy between accused Lalita Devi and accused Rahul Ranjan to commit any offence against the prosecutrix. The other independent witness is PW9 (sister of prosecutrix), but she has also not deposed anything against accused Lalita Devi.
SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 46 :- Therefore, it is found that there is no clear, cogent, legally admissible and sound evidence against accused Lalita Devi. Under these circumstances, on the basis of evidence available on record, it would not be safe to hold accused Lalita Devi guilty for the offence for which she has been charged.
39. Accused Rahul Ranjan has also been charged u/s 120 B of IPC for entering into criminal conspiracy with accused Lalita Devi to do illegal act against the prosecutrix. But since no evidence u/s 120 B IPC came against accused Lalita Devi as held earlier, accused Rahul Ranjan is also entitled for benefit of doubt for offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC because a single accused cannot be convicted for offence u/s 120B IPC. Reliance in this regard can be made in case C.B.I. vs V.C.Shukla 1998 Cr.L.J. 1905 (SC).
40. In the light of above discussion, it is found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Lalita Devi. Hence, by giving benefit of doubt she stands acquitted for offence u/s 120B IPC, 109 r/w Section 376 IPC and for offence u/s 66 E of IT Act r/w Section 120B IPC. Her surety stands discharged. However, both accused have furnished bail bond and surety bond of Rs.25,000/ each in view of provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. and same stands SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018 -: 47 :- accepted. As discussed above, by giving benefit of doubt, accused Rahul Ranjan also stands acquitted for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC.
However, in the light of above discussion, it is found that the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Rahul Ranjan under the false promise of marriage has first time established physical relations with prosecutrix on 25.01.2012 and continued to establish the same till October, 2013, from time to time, further that accused prepared obscene video of prosecutrix on spy camera etc. and under threat to show the obscene video to others, he has demanded sexual favors from prosecutrix and demanded money from time to time. Hence, accused Rahul Ranjan is hold guilty for offence punishable u/s 376/384/420/506 IPC and u/s 66E of IT Act.
41. Let accused Rahul Ranjan be taken into custody and sent to JC.
42. Let he be heard at point of sentence on 15.05.2018.
Announced in the open Court on (BHUPESH KUMAR) this 09th day of May, 2018 Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC no. 08/14 Bhupesh Kumar
ASJ (SFTC)-01, West THC, Delhi/09.05.2018