Delhi District Court
State vs . Sultan @ Satte on 31 May, 2012
SC No. 26/11
FIR No.10/11
PS: BHD Nagar
State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 26/11
FIR No. : 10/11
Police Station : BHD Nagar
Under Section : 376/506 IPC
Received on assignment : 29.04.2011
Reserved for orders on : 25.05.2012
Judgment announced on : 31.05.2012
State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
S/o Sh. Gowardhan,
R/o H.No.RZ 28A Block
Main Gopal Nagar
Near Dhanwantri Hospital
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
J U D G E M E N T
1. The accused Sultan @ Satte is sent for trial for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC.
2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that prosecutrix being a housewife stayed at home and accused Sultan S/o Sh. Govardhan, R/o H.No.28B, Plot No.5, A Block, Main Gopal Nagar near SC No.26/11 Page 1 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte Dhanvantri Hospital is her paternal uncle. It is further stated that on 06.01.2011, prosecutrix received a call from mobile No.9818185998 on her mobile No.9992832598 made by her uncle/accused who had stated that the birthday of his daughter Himanshi is on 07.01.2011 and accused/uncle of the prosecutrix invited the prosecutrix to celebrate the birthday of his daughter. Prosecutrix reached at about 2:00 pm at the house of the accused alongwith her daughter Ashu. The prosecutrix enquired from the accused as to why her elder sister and paternal aunt had not been invited on the said birthday. Then accused stated that the prosecutrix was called on the false pretext, otherwise, husband of the prosecutrix might not sent her. When prosecutrix asked the accused to go back to her maternal home then accused stated that he was not feeling well and requested the prosecutrix to help him in his household work. The prosecutrix alongwith her daughter and two daughters of the accused went to sleep on the first floor of the house and had not bolted the door from inside as the children used to urinate time and again during the time. In the night, accused came in the room of the prosecutrix and started raping the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix woke up and stated to the accused that she was just like his daughter then accused stated that it was permissible now a days. The accused was adamant to commit the rape and the prosecutrix had bitten the hand of the accused and accused started committing rape upon the prosecutrix. The accused had shown knife to the prosecutrix and threatened her that, in case, she raised an alarm then he would kill her as well as her husband.
SC No.26/11 Page 2 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte Accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix from 08.01.201 1 to 12.01.2011 and kept the prosecutrix confined in the room and also snatched the mobile phone of the prosecutrix.
3. It is further stated that on 13.01.2011 when husband of the prosecutrix came to take the prosecutrix to her maternal home then accused took the prosecutrix on the one side and threatened that, in case, she disclosed this incident to her husband or her in laws then prosecutrix as well as her husband would be killed. The prosecutrix went to her maternal home on 14.01.2012 but the accused kept on calling the prosecutrix as well as her husband to come back to his house to help in daily house hold work then the prosecutrix is stated to have disclosed incident of rape to her husband Naresh. Thereafter husband of the prosecutrix had taken the prosecutrix to the police station. Thereafter prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC No.173/11 and as per the statement of the prosecutrix, offence under section 376/506/342 IPC was made out. Rukka was sent and constable went to PS and got registered the FIR. Investigation was commenced and during investigation site plan was prepared and statement of the witnesses were recorded. Accused was got medically examined and doctor handed over three sealed parcels which were seized. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.PC and exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini and chargesheet was filed.
SC No.26/11 Page 3 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
4. After supplying copies to the accused as per law, case was committed to the court of sessions.
5. After due deliberation, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish its case as per law. Prosecution has tendered 15 witnesses in all in support of its case namely:
PW1 HC Ajit Singh
PW2 Dr. B.B.Sinha
PW3 Const. Mamraj
PW4 W/Const. Neetu
PW5 Sh. Sumit Dass, Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
PW6 Const. Naresh Kumar
PW7 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel
Ltd., D184, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase1, New Delhi.
PW8 HC Sanjeev Kumar
PW9 PW9 Prosecutrix
PW10 Sh. Surinder Kumar, Assistant Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd.
PW11 Sh. Naresh, Husband of the prosecutrix PW12 Sh. Anil Kumar SC No.26/11 Page 4 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte PW13 WASI Sudesh PW14 Dr. Shruti Joshi Dabral, Gyane (Specialist), RTRM Hospital, Delhi.
PW15 Dr. Sitanta Das, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, New Delhi.
7. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he controverted the entire evidence as false and fabricated and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. He lead defence evidence. Therefore final arguments were advanced.
8. Before proceedings further, I would like to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the case.
9. PW1 HC Ajit Singh was duty officer on 17.01.2011 and registered the FIR Ex. PW1/A and after registration of FIR made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/B.
10. PW2 Dr. B.B.Sinha had medically examined the accused vide MLC Ex. PW2/A.
11. PW3 Const. Mamraj who had taken the accused for his medical examination to RTRM hospital and after medical examination of the accused, doctor handed over four sealed parcels alongwith the sample seals to him which he handed over the IO and SC No.26/11 Page 5 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 W/Const. Neetu who had taken the prosecutrix to RTRM hospital for examination and haded over twelve sealed parcels alongwith the sample seal which he handed over to the IO and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A.
13. PW5 Sh. Sumit Dass, Metropolitan Magistrate who had conducted the proceedings under section 164 Cr.PC vide Ex. PW5/A. Certificate regarding correctness of proceedings is Ex. PW5/B. Application of the IO for recording statement under section 164 Cr.PC Ex. PW5/C and copy of the same supplied to the IO Ex. PW5/D.
14. PW6 Const. Naresh Kumar who had deposited 16 sealed parcels at FSL Rohini as per the instruction of the MHC(M) and after coming back, he had handed over the acknowledgment to the MHC(M).
15. PW7 Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer had brought the call details of the mobile No.9818185998 vide Ex. PW7/A and brought the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW7/B.
16. PW8 HC Sanjeet Kumar was working as a MHCM. He had deposed that he had received sixteen sealed parcels with the seal of RTRM hospital alongwith two sample seals and got deposited in SC No.26/11 Page 6 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte malkhana vide entryNo.89 in register no.19 vide Ex. PW8/A. Exhibits alongwith sample seals were sent to FSL Rohini through Const. Naresh vide RC No.11/21/11 vide Ex. PW8/B. Acknowledgment issued by the FSL is Ex.PW8/C.
17. PW9 prosecutrix had deposed that she had come to the house of accused on 07.01.2011 on account of birthday of daughter of the accused and on that day, she inquired from the accused as to why her elder sister Parmila and Bua had not invited. Then accused disclosed that he had called the prosecutrix on the pretext of birthday of his daughter and further requested her to help him out in his household work. The prosecutrix had further stated that she went to sleep on first floor as well as her daughter and two daughters of the accused. The accused came there and raped her and also raped her during her stay in the house on the night of 07.01.2011, 08.01.2011, 10.01.2011 and 11.01.2011. She had further disclosed that accused had also called her on 14.01.2011 to came his house and prosecutrix further deposed that on 16.01.2011 she made a complaint Ex. PW9/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/B and his personal search was taken vide search memo Ex.PW9/C. Thereafter statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the Ld. Magistrate which is already Ex. PW5/A.
18. PW10 Sh. Surinder Kumar had brought the call details of mobile No.9992832506 vide Ex. PW10/A. The copy of customer SC No.26/11 Page 7 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte Application Form and copy of ration card are collectively Ex. PW10/B. Certificate under section 65 B Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW10/C.
19. PW11 Naresh, husband of the prosecutrix had deposed that on the request of accused, he sent his wife /prosecutrix at the house of accused on 07.01.2011. He further deposed that accused called him on 14.01.2011 as well as on 15.01.2011. On 15.01.2011, prosecutrix told to her husband that accused had raped her when she had gone to the house of accused.
20. PW12 Sh. Anil Kumar, subscriber of the mobile phone No.9992832506 had stated that he had given his mobile connection to prosecutrix.
21. PW13 WASI Sudesh had stated that on 16.01.2011, she had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and thereafter prosecutrix was sent to hospital for her medical examination and sealed parcels were seized by her and alongwith the prosecutrix she went to the site/place of occurrence and inspected the site and recorded her statement. Thereafter she got the FIR registered and accused was arrested and he was medically examined. IO prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A and got registered the FIR. Site plan was prepared vide Ex. PW13/B. Disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex. PW13/C and FSL report is Ex. PW13/D. SC No.26/11 Page 8 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
22. PW14 Dr. Shruti Joshi Dabral who had examined the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW14/A.
23. PW15 Dr. Sitanta Das who had examined the accused vide MLC already Ex. PW2/A and his report is Ex. PW15/A.
24. Thereafter statement of the accused recorded and he submitted that he would lead DE and two defence witnesses had been examined.
25. DW1, father of the prosecutrix had appeared as a witness and submitted that accused had advanced a loan of rupees five lakh to the husband of the prosecutrix. The husband of the prosecutrix had failed to pay the said loan amount to the accused and prosecutrix came in the house of the accused on 06.01.2011 and after three days this witness had again came and accused asked Naresh as well as prosecutrix to return the loan amount which was advanced them as a loan. This witness further deposed that prosecutrix had never stated anything to him or his wife at any point of time when they visited at the home of the accused during the period 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011.
26. DW2, sister of the prosecutrix had stated that on 06.01.2011 she received a call from the prosecutrix that prosecutrix was going to see the accused as he is not feeling well. She further SC No.26/11 Page 9 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte deposed that she told the prosecutrix that she will come on 08.01.2011 to the house of the accused and on 08.01.2011 she went to the house of the accused and went back to her maternal house in the evening. She further deposed that on 08.01.2011, she was with the prosecutrix through out the day and on 11.01.2011, DW2 alongwith prosecutrix had gone to the market for purchasing clothes for prosecutrix as well as her children. This witness has further submitted that the prosecutrix had never stated anything regarding rape alleged to have been committed by the accused during the period, DW2 stayed at the house of the accused in between the time 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011.
27. I have heard Shri Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. Kuldeep Singh Sehrawat, Ld. Counsel for the accused and with their assistance have gone through the record.
28. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. All the prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix have supported the case of the prosecution and further more the medical evidence has also fortified the version of the prosecution case. Therefore the accused is liable to convicted for the offence for which he has been charged.
SC No.26/11 Page 10 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
29. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused contended that accused has been falsely implicated in this case as the husband of the prosecutrix had borrowed an amount of rupees five lacs, in cash from the accused, in the year 2010, for purchasing a vehicle Tata 407 and when accused asked Naresh to return his amount, then he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further contended that there are not only material contradictions but vital discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including that of the prosecutrix which, in turn, has not called a dent in the prosecution story but has also improbalised the story of the prosecution. In this regard he has relied upon Satbir Singh Vs. State 2004(3) JCC 1643, Charan Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana CA No.399 SB of 1985 decided on 1988, Shyam and another Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 2169, Bhola Ram Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar (2003) I FemiJuris CC 449 (Jhar) and Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Harayana AIR 2011 SC 2877.
30. It has been further contended that prosecutrix had got so many opportunities to raise alarm or made an attempt to escape from the custody of the accused as the parents and sister of the prosecutrix were also coming to the house of the accused. Thereafter the testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable and does not inspire confidence and accused is liable to be acquitted. In SC No.26/11 Page 11 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte this regard he had relied upon: Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2011 CRI.L.J.4996, Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of Haryana 2012(1) C.C.Cases (HC) 124, Shashi Chaudhary Vs Ram Kumar & Anr. 2011(1) JCC 520 and Pradeep @ Sonu Vs. State (Govr. of NCT of Delhi) 2011 92) JCC 1031.
31. Now coming to the evidence led by the prosecution. PW9, prosecutrix during cross admitted that she had told her sister Parmila that she had been invited by the accused for the birthday of his daughter Himanshi. Prosecutrix had further admitted that before leaving her matrimonial home, she had told her husband that she would be returned by the evening. She further admitted that on 07.01.2011 till 13.01.2011 she had not received any call on her mobile phone and she had further voluntarily stated that she had not made any call from her mobile phone as it did not have any balance. She had further admitted that she had talked to her husband on 08.01.2012 from her mobile as her husband had called her at that time. Prosecutrix had further admitted that during the period 07.01.2011 to 13.01.2011 her cousin Pappu and Karan Singh came to the house of accused to meet him and she had further admitted that she had asked the accused whether she should prepare tea for them or not. The prosecutrix had further admitted that accused had gone from his house once or twice during the said period. Prosecutrix had SC No.26/11 Page 12 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte further admitted that she talked once to her husband from the phone of the accused after 34 days of her going to the house of the accused. Prosecutrix had further admitted that she used to take milk from the milkman. During cross she had stated that she was raped by the accused on 07.01.2011, 08.01.2011, 10.01.2011 and 11.01.2011 but the specific dates had not been told by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 161 Cr.PC (Ex. PW9/A).
32. The prosecutrix had denied the suggestion that accused had ever helped her or her husband financially. She had furtehr admitted that her husband had asked money from the accused on interest but accused had not advanced any money. The prosecutrix had further admitted that during her stay at the house of the accused, her husband alongwith his friends came there either on 09.01.2011 or 10.01.2011 and she had further admitted that she had talked to her husband on that day. And she further denied the suggestion that a loan of rupees five lac was availed by her husband or herself from the accused. But when recalled, she had admitted in her further cross examination that her husband had purchased a Tata 407 tempo and accused had financially assisted her husband through the prosecutrix. Dispute between the accused and husband of the prosecutrix took out when the accused demanded back his money. She had further admitted that she used to bolt the door from inside and accused SC No.26/11 Page 13 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte used to sleep on the ground floor. She had further admitted that since 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011, she had not made any complaint against the accused.
33. PW4, husband of the prosecutrix had submitted that she had brought back the prosecutrix in his house on 13.01.2011 and on 14.01.2011, accused again called on his mobile and on 15.01.2011, accused again made a call to this witness and thereafter prosecutrix disclosed that accused had raped her. During cross, this witness had admitted that he had no telephonic conversation with his wife after 07.01.2011 till the date prosecutrix remained in the house of the accused. He further admitted that he had not visited the house of the accused between 07.01.2011 to 13.01.2011. He had further admitted that behaviour of the wife/prosecutrix was normal w.e.f 13.01.2011 to 15.01.2011. This witness had further denied that he had availed any loan of rupees five lacs from the accused. This witness had further admitted in cross examination that he had disclosed to the IO that accused had called the prosecutrix again on 15.01.201, and prosecutrix informed him about the rape being committed upon her by the accused, but this fact has not been recorded in statement Ex. PW11/DA.
SC No.26/11 Page 14 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
34. The prosecutrix in her testimony admitted that after coming to the house of the accused on 06.01.2011 till 13.01.2011, she had conversation with her husband on 07.01.2011 as her husband had made a call on the mobile of the prosecutrix and prosecutrix had admitted the fact of having made a call from the mobile of the accused to her husband but PW11 had denied having any telephonically conversation with PW9. Further more, the prosecutrix had admitted that her husband had visited the house of the accused between the period 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011 either on 09.01.2011 and 10.01.2011 but PW11 denied any such visit paid by him to the house of accused. Prosecutrix had further stated in her deposition that accused had assisted her husband in respect of purchasing of tempo whereas her husband stated that he had never taken any loan from the accused. Therefore the version of the husband of the prosecutrix is contrary to the version of the prosecutrix in as much as PW11 had denied to have any conversation with the prosecutrix/wife w.e.f 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011 or paying any visit to the house of the accused during her stay or the money transaction having entered into between the accused and PW11 Naresh. The testimony of PW9 is totally in contradiction to the deposition of PW11 who is the husband of the prosecutrix.
SC No.26/11 Page 15 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
35. During the deposition of prosecutrix, she had deposed that she had never met with her parents and sister Parmila between the period 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011, whereas DW1 and DW2, sister and father of the prosecutrix had deposed that during the stay of the prosecutrix in the house of the accused w.e.f 06.01.2011 to 13.01.2011, DW1, father of the prosecutrix alongwith his wife was present in the house of the accused and PW11 Naresh (husband of the prosecutrix) was also present and DW1 had asked PW11 to return the money of the accused which was taken by PW11. DW1 further deposed that prosecutrix had never said anything to her regarding the incident. DW2, sister of the prosecutrix had also deposed that on 08.01.2011, she had gone to the house of the accused and she was with the prosecutrix through out the day and she again came to the house of the accused on 10.01.2011 and stayed there in the night and on 11.01.2011 she had gone to the market alongwith prosecutrix and accused for purchasing clothes for the prosecutrix as well as her children. DW2 further deposed that prosecutrix had not disclosed anything about the rape committed by the accused upon her. This witness had further admitted that all the expenses were borne by the accused for purchasing clothes of the prosecutrix as well as her children. The deposition of this witness also falsifies the story of the prosecution that prosecutrix had never met her parents and sister.
SC No.26/11 Page 16 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte
36. DW1 and DW2 who are parents and sister of the prosecutrix had deposed that they had visited the house of the accused during the said period and prosecutrix had never alleged or disclosed anything to these witnesses regarding the incident of rape committed upon the prosecutrix by the accused. DW1 had deposed that prosecutrix had availed a loan of rupees five lacs and husband of the prosecutrix was reluctant to return the said amount to the accused. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that DWs are interested witnesses.
37. The prosecutrix had got number of opportunities during the said period to inform the said incident to her husband or father or sister, otherwise DW2 deposed that prosecutrix had gone to the market on 11.01.2011 in the company of her and accused for purchasing clothes of her kids. And despite getting so many opportunities, prosecutrix had not raised any alarm or made any attempt to inform her husband or parents. There is no explanation why prosecutrix had not made any hue and cry when the alleged offence took place nor there any explanation on her part to lodge the complaint to the police immediately or for that matter within a reasonable time of the incident. Prosecutrix is a married lady having child and cannot be acquitted with a shy and resistance young lady who would have a societal inhibition SC No.26/11 Page 17 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte preventing her from informing the police at earliest. It is also inexplicable that when the prosecutrix claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused then why she went with the accused to the market on 11.01.2011 in the company of her sister as well as children of the accused. Testimony of prosecutrix as such is found to be doubtful as PW11 had given a contrary version which is contrary to the version of the prosecutrix. PW11 has also denied any loan advanced to him whereas the said loan transaction had not been admitted by PW9. The said loan transaction had been admitted by PW9.
38. There is no dispute about the ratio of the case law relied upon the counsel for the accused. The prosecutrix evidence is full of material contradictions so far as commission of alleged rape committed by the accused on the prosecutrix. Apart from this there are so many vital discrepancies in the prosecution story. If the prosecution has failed to explain and the last blow struck to the prosecution story is by DW1 and DW2 none else then the father and real sister of the prosecutrix and the cumulative effect of such circumstances makes the prosecution story highly improbable.
39. It is also a settled law that defence witnesses are at par so far reliability of their deposition is concerned with prosecution SC No.26/11 Page 18 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte witnesses. In this regard, I found support from Dudhnath Pandey Vs. State of UP AIR 1981 SC 911 wherein it has been observed that :
defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite, often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
It has also been observed in Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57 as under:
It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected SC No.26/11 Page 19 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a "rape", if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, wrists, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parents has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to SC No.26/11 Page 20 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.
40. No doubt it is settled law that absence of injuries on the person of a rape victim is no ground to disbelieve her. Every female reacts differently when sexually assaulted, some just freeze, some get hysterical, some fight it, out some submit weakly. The court is not to infer anything adverse from any or absence of these factors. But the story of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence. Her uncorroborated sole testimony is enough, provided it is trust worthy.
41. Therefore, it is true that to hold the accused guilty for offence, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient for providing the same inspire confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But in the case in hand, there is sufficient lacunae which has already been projected herein above, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty of said offence. Indeed, there are several significant variations in the testimony of the prosecutrix SC No.26/11 Page 21 of 22 SC No. 26/11 FIR No.10/11 PS: BHD Nagar State Vs. Sultan @ Satte including the contradictions and discrepancies as discussed herein above. The defence witnesses had further belied the prosecution story as they had deposed that there was a loan transaction between PW11, husband of the prosecutrix and the accused and DW1 and DW2 had been in very categorical terms have stated that the prosecutrix had met them in the house of the accused during the above said period.
42. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused that he has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Therefore, the accused is hereby acquitted of charge under 376 IPC by giving the benefit of doubt.
43. Accused Sultan @ Satte is, however, directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C undertaking to appear if called, before Appellate Court as mandated therein. Personal bond and surety bond are to be filed and be accepted for a period of six months as provided under Section 437A Cr.P.C.
44. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya) On the 31st Day of May 2012 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts/New Delhi SC No.26/11 Page 22 of 22