Delhi District Court
State vs . Inder Preet Singh on 31 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 1218/10
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0112382010
State Vs. Inder Preet Singh
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o House No. 1787/133,
Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar,
Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 86/2009
Police Station: Keshav Puram
Under Section: 498-A/376/312/506/509/323/34 IPC
Date of committal to session court: 17.5.2010
Date on which orders were reserved: 21.4.2011
Date of Judgment: 19.5.2011
JUDGMENT:
As per allegations on 27.3.2008 the accused Inderpreet Singh being the husband of complainant 'T' (name of the complainant/ prosecutrix is withheld as this is a case under Section 376 IPC) subjected her to cruelty as as to coerce her to meet his unlawful demands of dowry. It is also alleged that before his marriage with the prosecutrix from the year 1996 the accused had been continuously committing rape upon her without her will or consent while she was under the age of 15 years. Further, as per the allegations the accused Inderpreet Singh voluntarily caused the prosecutrix with child to miscarry which was not caused in St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 1 good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the prosecutrix 'T'. It is also alleged that after the marriage accused Inderpreet Singh criminally intimated her and intended to insult her modesty uttered such words intending that such woulds would be heard by her or intrude upon her privacy. Further, on many occasions after his marriage, the accused voluntarily caused hurt on the person of prosecutrix.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
The case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.2008 the complainant/ prosecutrix had gone to the Women Cell and made her complaint wherein she informed the police that prior to the marriage she was having relations with the accused Inderpreet Singh for the last 12 years and the family members of the accused were aware of the same but were against their relationship. According to her, since she became pregnant hence, she got married with the accused on 10.3.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Zamuna Bazar which marriage was got registered on 27.3.2008 from the SDM Kanjhawla. She further informed the police that after having come to know of their marriage, the family members of the accused started abusing her and when she told them about her pregnancy from the accused Inderpreet Singh, they forced her to abort the child. In April 2008, the the accused Inderpreet Singh took a room at C-4/28D, Lawrence Road, Delhi on rent where they started residing but on 30.5.2008 the father of the accused called him to Punjab and tried to got remarry the accused and in July 2008 the accused returned to Delhi along with his father. The complainant stated in her statement to the police that her condition deteriorated and on 9.7.2008 her miscarriage occurred. Further, according to the complainant, on 15.7.2008 the father St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 2 of the accused was admitted in the hospital where his open heart surgery was done and she was held responsible for the same for which her husband i.e. the accused caused her beatings and also abused her.
On the basis of the said complaint made by the complainant/ prosecutrix to the Women Cell the present case was registered against the accused. The accused Inderpreet Singh was arrested on 22.3.2010 and after completion of investigations the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
This court has settled the charges under Section 498-A, 376, 312, 506, 509 and 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused Inderpreet Singh who has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
In order to discharge the onus upon it the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses as under:
Prosecutrix/ complainant/ public witnesses:
PW4 Pandit Dhanjay Diwedi has deposed that he is a resident of Arya Samaj Mandir, 2164, Jamna Bazar, Delhi and on 10.03.2008 a marriage was solemnized between Inderpreet Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, H.No. 1787, Tri Nagar, Delhi having date of birth as 15.07.1974 and the prosecutrix 'T' D/o Jang Bahadur Singh, R/o H .No,A-
79, Gali No. 133, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi with date of birth 01/04/1981 at Arya Samaj Mandir, 2164, Jamna Bazar, Delhi. According to him, the said marriage was got solemnized by him and after the marriage he issued the marriage certificate which is Ex.PW4/A. On St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 3 specific court question the witness has deposed that one Amit Kumar conducted the kanya daan ceremony of the girl and he is not aware the relationship of Amit Kumar with the girl and he has given his name to the court because he found the name of Amit Kumar mentioned in the certificate.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that whenever any couple comes to him for getting the marriage solemnized he ask them about the relationship and states that even in the present case he had asked them to give their relationship on affidavit. According to him, in the present case also he had asked the couple to give their relationship and they told him they were not related. He has deposed that he is not aware if the accused before this court is the son of the real Tau of the prosecutrix and both the accused and prosecutrix are first cousins though he admits that as per the Hindu customary law Sapindas which includes first cousins fall within the prohibited relationship and such a marriage is void and cannot take place. The witness has also admitted that as per the Shastras he could not conduct this marriage and states that he was not told about their relationship. He is also unable to tell the age of witness Amit but states that he was an elder. He has also admitted that both the boy and the girl belong to Sikh religion and Amit who conducted the Kanya Daan was not a Sikh. According to him, the first right of Kanya Daan as per the Shastras is that of the parents and thereafter of any other person who is considered to be in a position as that of the parents of the girl. The witness has testified that he had asked the relationship of Amit with the prosecutrix and he was told that he was a friend and as per the Shastras a friend of the girl cannot perform the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 4 Kanya Daan as the first right is of her parents. He has also admitted that in case of persons conforming to Sikh religion the marriage has to be conducted by a person as per the dictates of Guru Granth Sahib. According to him, he did not get the marriage conducted as per Sikh rites since he is not even aware of the same and had in fact got the marriage conducted as per the Hindu Rites and ceremonies. The witness has admitted that the procedure prescribed as per the Guru Granth Sahib provides for only four lama pheres whereas according to the Hindus Sapthpadi is an essential ceremony. He has also admitted that as per the Shastras the Sapthpadi of a pregnant women is impermissible. The witness has further deposed that he is getting the marriages conducted for the last 10-12 years and has got conducted numerous marriages. He has admitted that he is a frequent court visitor as a witness in-connection with these marriage. According to him, their organization is registered from Parparganj and the power to issue a marriage certificate is of the Mandir Sanstha. He is unable to tell as to who is the authority who had duly authorized him to issue a certificate of marriage and states that he was told by their Pradhan that since he is getting the marriages conducted, that he should also issue the certificates. He has denied the suggestion that there is no such authorization in writing as the Pradhan and the committee cannot authorize him and it is for this reason that he has not been able to produce any such authorization and records. The witness has also denied that he is habitual in getting such marriages conducted which are prohibited and not approved by law and also in issuing the certificate of the same only for monitory considerations. He has also denied that he has issued a certificate without any authority of law.
St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 5PW5 Smt. Manjeet Kaur is the mother of the prosecutrix who has deposed that she is a housewife and has three daughters. According to the witness, her Jeth Sardar Mahender Singh resides in the same gali and the accused Inderpreet Singh (correctly identified by the witness in the court) is the son of her Jeth Sardar Mahender Singh. She has testified that the accused used to come to her house to teach her daughter as she was giving her board examination. In May 2008 her daughter suddenly left the house and after two to three days when she did not return she became slightly worried but she came to hear from the neighbours that she had left with Inderpreet Singh and was living with him and feeling ashamed she could not face the society and hence, she did not come out of her house for many days. According to her, later she came to know that her daughter had got married with the accused Inderpreet Singh which marriage has no legal sanctity as Inderpreet Singh was son of her real Jeth. The witness has also deposed that she came to know later that her daughter was residing at Lawrence Road with Inderpreet Singh but she (her daughter/ prosecutrix) returned to her about eight to nine months later and told her that she was being beaten by her husband.
Leading questions were put to the witness since she was not not giving full details, during which the witness has denied the suggestion that her daughter had told her that her husband (i.e. the accused) had left/ abandoned her.
In her cross-examination the witness has admitted that her father in law namely Yoga Singh was also residing in the same house and that Jarnail Singh, Karnail Singh who are also her Jeths (brothers of her St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 6 husband) were also living in this house along with their wives and family at the time of her marriage. According to her, they were all living together as a joint family and she is not residing in this house since 1996 nor she had told this to the investigating officer. She has testified that she never made any complaint to the police regarding beating of her daughter by the accused. The witness has further deposed that she came to know that her daughter and accused had married about one and a half years ago. She has also testified that her daughter never told her that she was having any love affairs with the accused and had got married to him for the said reason nor she told her any reason why she got married to the accused. PW4 has admitted that the accused never beaten her daughter in her presence and she has deposed only on the basis of what her daughter had told her.
PW7 is the prosecutrix 'T' who has deposed that her date of birth is 1.4.1981 and she is residing since her birth with her family comprising of parents, younger brother and sister. According to her, when she was three years of age, she used to reside with her Bua at Jaipur and at the age of 8 years she came back to Delhi and started residing with her parents in the aforesaid premises. She has deposed that she was admitted in Mother's Academy School but she was weak in study since from the beginning and in the 9th class she was admitted in Bhai Biba Singh Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Moti Nagar. The witness has further deposed that Inderpreet Singh who is the son of her real Tayaji Sardar Mahinder Singh used to reside in the neighbourhood and she used to take tuition from him in 9th class and he also used to teach her all subjects. She has testified that she was very weak in maths and hence, St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 7 the accused used to teach her Mathematics more than other subjects. PW7 has also deposed that when she was in class 10th, the accused taught her for six months but thereafter he left teaching her and she failed in class 10th. According to her, the behaviour of the accused towards her during this period was very irritating to her due to which reason she told her family that she would not take any tuition from the accused but she did not disclose to her family about the objectionable behaviour of the accused he used to do with her and when she failed in class 10th her family members including her grandfather again insisted that she should take tuition from the accused because he was from the same family but she could not disclose to anyone as to why she was hesitant. The witness has further deposed that initially when the accused started taking her tuitions in class 10th, for few days he was teaching properly but thereafter he started repeating his behaviour and used to hug her very often and kissed her on some occasion which was very irritating to her. The witness has testified that on one occasion she also hit him with her bag on which the accused went away and did not come back to teach her but thereafter his brother Kamaljot Singh came to her and asked her as to what was the issue for their differences and why they had quarreled with each other but she could not disclose to him everything what the accused used to do but she told him discretely that the behaviour of the accused towards her was not proper. The prosecutrix has also deposed that Kamaljot Singh undertook that the behaviour of the accused would be proper towards her and she should study from him but she still refused and on the insistence of her parents and grandfather she started taking tuition from the accused. She has testified that on one occasion the accused called her on telephone and told her that he would not be coming St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 8 today to teach her as he is unwell and called her to his house for completing the lessons in Trigonometry. According to PW7, when she went to the house of the accused very reluctantly, where he offered her a cup of tea on the pretext that he was making tea for her also. However, after having the tea she suffered a severe headache after which she started feeling very uneasy and in that state the accused made physical relations with her under a threat. He also told her that he was in love with her and that he made physical relations with her only because he never wanted to leave her on which she told her cousin sister (Masi's daughter) of what the accused Inderjeet Singh done with her who explained to her since at that time she was not even 15 years of age and does not know the consequences of the act of the accused. According to the prosecutrix, after this incident she started feeling very unwell and had vomiting sensations on which the accused came to see her and gave her three tablets in a wrapper and told her to consume the same. Prosecutrix has deposed that she was apprehensive that she was pregnant and the accused told her that in case if she took the tablets and kept her mouth shut, nobody would come to know of anything. Thereafter the accused continued to make regular physical relations with her claiming that he is her husband. According to the prosecutrix her Masi's daughter/ cousin sister had explained to her that even if the accused gets married to her, it will not be a valid marriage in the eyes of law. The accused, however, continued to tell her that he would marry her and that their marriage was possible and that even in the Muslims such marriage was valid. She has also deposed that for about three years the accused continued to make physical relations with her. Thereafter she (prosecutrix) disclosed this fact to the mother of the accused who is her Taiji on which his mother St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 9 got irritated and started spreading rumors about her in the neighbourhood. The witness has further stated that when her parents came to know about the same she was beaten at her residence and when the accused came to know that her parents gave beatings to her, he told her that he had already explained to her that nobody else would side with her except him and that under these circumstances nobody else would marry her except him and thereafter continued to make relations with her. According to the witness, the accused made physical relations with her for almost twelve years and after Kamaljot Singh the brother of the accused got married, she insisted that the accused should also marry her because of his long standing relations with her but he refused but when he continued to make physical relations with her she on account of which she again became pregnant and she insisted on marriage and also threatened the accused to inform the police. She has further deposed that on this the accused contacted a lawyer and took her to Arya Samaj Mandir at Yamuna Bazar and married her on 10.3.2008 and on 27.3.2008 the accused took her to the office of SDM, Kanjhawla where they got their marriage registered. The witness has also stated that at Kanjhawla she told the accused that there was a column of pregnancy and they should tick mark it but there was some other person with the accused who advised that she should not insist upon tick-marking the said column as it would create a problem for the accused. She has testified that she was got married with the accused, she was also issued a certificate by the Pandit which is Ex.PW4/A and thereafter a marriage registration certificate was issued by SDM Kanjhawla which is Ex.PW7/A. She has further deposed that after getting married she stayed with the accused at St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 10 his residence at 1787/133, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi in the neighbourhood during which period there was nobody at his residence as they had shifted to Punjab for staying there and thereafter they shifted to C-4/28D, Lawrence Road. According to her, during this period the father of the accused also wrote a letter to the accused stating that he was aware of their marriage and was not coming in between the same and can live his wife with her at his premises. She has testified that on 9.7.2008 while she was pregnant she was called by the family of the accused at their residence i.e. 1787/133, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi where she was given severe beatings and by the time she came back to her residence at Lawrence Road her child got aborted. According to the prosecutrix, the accused had refused to come back with her at their house at Lawrence Road and also told her that his parents had informed him about the abortion but he refused to return and in fact came back only at late night and took her to a doctor but by that time it was too late. Thereafter the behaviour of the accused changed and she had to file a complaint with the CAW Cell on 28.7.2008 which complaint is Ex.PW7/B on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. According to PW7, before CAW Cell the accused has admitted all the allegations but later during investigations she came to know that the accused who had taken her to various hospitals has shown her address as that of my father's address in the hospital record and also showing himself as her brother. She has proved that after the registration of the case the accused was apprehended on her pointing out in her presence vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW7/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/D. The witness has further deposed that she handed over her St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 11 certificate of 10th class to the investigating officer showing her date of birth as 1.4.1981 which certificate is Ex.PW7/E and the same was taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW7/F. In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that first time the accused made physical relations with her when she was in class 10th and prior to that he only used to misbehave with her. She has admitted that she was residing in a joint family and her grandfather, three tayajis, three taijis and two cousin brothers and their wives along with her parents were residing in the same house. She has denied the suggestion that in the room where she was being given tuition by the accused, her family members used to often came and pass through the room or that at the time when the accused used to give tuition to her since he was also closely related to her, there was no inhibition in the family members who used to frequently come and go in the said room. She has explained that the accused used to close the door of the room stating that there was a disturbance. According to her, she did not inform any lady member of the family including her Bhabhis, three taiji, her mother or her grandfather about the objectionable behaviour of the accused. She has denied that there was no such objectionable behaviour of the accused and it is for this reason that she never informed any other family member. She has testified that she did not object to any of the behaviour of the accused because at that time she was a small child and the accused used to touch her and her face cuddling as a brother. She has also deposed that she did not visit any doctor or Nursing Home to find out if she had become pregnant when the accused made physical relations with her for the first time and states that it is the accused who got some medicines to St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 12 me which she took. She has denied that the aspect of her having become pregnant was only her apprehension and states that the accused had brought some strips from the doctor by way of which it was checked which fact she did not mention to the IO when she gave her statement. She has denied that the accused or his family members had no concern with the miscarriage which had happened. According to her, she did not get herself examined from any hospital after her miscarriage nor did she take any treatment from any hospital since the accused never took her to any doctor claiming that in case if she would go there would be a police case. The witness has further deposed that after she attained the age of majority and was doing her graduation, she did not raise this issue regarding the behaviour of the accused with any of her friends nor she objected to the behaviour of the accused. According to the prosecutrix, she had done her graduation from Correspondence and it is the accused himself who used to take her for examinations. She has admitted that she voluntarily with her own consent used to go with the accused and that the accused has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which she had given her written statement which is Ex.PW7/DX1. According to her, she has not stated in her written statement filed before the matrimonial court which is Ex.PW7/DX1 that the accused did not want to be a father and got her abortion done. The witness has been confronted with the paragraph 4 of the written statement Ex.PW7/DX1 wherein this fact has been mentioned after which the witness has deposed that she had never said any kind of thing that accused had got her abortion done and she was not shown the contents of the written statement when she was asked to sign the same.
St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 13PW7 has admitted that the accused was running a Coaching Center at Tilak Nagar and that she used to give home tuition. According to her, she has not mentioned in her written statement that a complaint was lodged by a student of Coaching Center against the accused for teasing and molestation at police station Tilak Nagar. She has deposed that this aspect had been highlighted by the accused and his family members. The witness has been confronted with paragraph no.2 and 4 of her written statement Ex.PW7/DX1 where this aspect has been mentioned. She has denied that all the students at Coaching Center had an impression that she and the accused were brother and sister. According to PW7, she has not mentioned in her written statement Ex.PW7/DX1 that she had agreed to go to the police station and projected herself as the wife of the accused and explained to the police that a false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the said student or that she was threatened by the accused to do so or else he would defame her in the society. She has been confronted with paragraph no.4 of the written statement Ex.PW7/DX1 wherein the aforesaid facts find a mention. The witness has also denied she had objected to the marriage but the accused made her agree on it stating that everything would be alright and states that the marriage took place because she had become pregnant from the accused. She has also denied that she along with the student of Coaching Center who had lodged a complaint against the accused at police station Tilak Nagar have trapped the accused and it was under these circumstances she has been showing herself as his wife thereafter despite the fact that the accused is her brother her relationship and states that the accused had made physical relations with her for the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 14 last many years and had got married to her and the accused is her husband. PW7 has also denied that there was no conservation of the marriage and the accused never made any physical relations with her and she has lodged a false complaint or that there was no question of her pregnancy at any point of time and it is for this reason that there is no medical record. She has further denied that she had concocted the story of her abortion only to implicate the accused and to extort money from him or that she did not made any complaint to any family members or to the police even after she attained the age of majority because no such relations either existed between her and the accused and states that she had stated the entire fact to the mother of the accused but she had not stated this fact to the investigating officer. The witness has also deposed that she did not make any PCR call nor she informed the police regarding the physical beatings given by her in-laws.
The witness has been confronted with her statement made to CAW Cell wherein certain portions of her examination in chief were not mentioned. She has denied that the complaint lodged by her in CAW Cell which is Ex.PW7/B is incorrect and the allegations have been made on legal advise and no such incident as narrated in the complaint had ever happened. She has also denied that the entire story has been concocted against the accused only to gain Rs.15 lacs from the accused.
PW13 Sh. Tej Pal Singh has deposed that he is a resident of C4/28C, Keshavpuram, Lawrence Road, Delhi of which premises he is the owner and resides on the third floor. According to him, he had rented out the top floor i.e. 28-D of the premises to Inderpreet Singh, the present accused (correctly identified by the witness in the court) who St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 15 used to reside in the premises with his wife i.e. the prosecutrix. He has testified that the accused had shifted in his house in the month of May, 2008 and after about one week they both entered into a rent agreement. According to him, the accused resided in his house for more than one year and the investigating officer had shown him the copy of the rent agreement which he had identified which is Ex.P1. He has identified the signature of his wife Bhupender Kaur and the signature of accused Inderpreet Singh at point B. This court has observed that the witness has correctly identified the accused Inderpreet as his tenant who had signed the rent deed and even other wise the factum of Inderpreet Singh and the prosecutrix having resided in the aforesaid premises as tenants is not disputed.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that his wife knew the father of Inderpreet Singh who was a teacher in a local school and his wife is also a teacher and the father of Inderpreet Singh was a teacher in the adjoining school. He has admitted that he did not personally know either Inderpreet Singh or the prosecutrix prior to rented out the premises. He is unable to tell if there were some major differences between Inderpreet Singh and the prosecutrix during one year period they resided in his premises and states that he used to go in the morning and come back in the evening, but some times the prosecutrix used to complaint that Inderpreet Singh did not take care of her and did not give her any money and it was for this reason that the rent agreement also could not be renewed. He has testified that in her presence there was no incident of physical violence committed by the accused upon the prosecutrix but his wife however told him that on one occasion St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 16 prosecutrix had come crying to her and told her that Inderpreet had done mar-pitai with her, on which he told his wife that they should get their house vacated from them as they were not even paying the rent.
Medical witnesses/ evidence:
PW11 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, CMO from BJRM Hospital has deposed on behalf of Dr. Maharuder Kumbhar, JR and on behalf of Dr. Vikas, SR, Surgery. He has testified that on 15.03.2009 a patient prosecutrix 'T' was medically examined by Dr. Maharuder Kumbhar, JR who prepared a medical examination report which is Ex.PW11/A according to which the patient had abrasion on her neck and chest and was complaining of pain in right side of face which were fresh injuries. He has also testified that on 23.03.2010 a patient namely Inderpreet Singh was medically examined by Dr. Vikas, SR, Surgery vide MLC No. 7424 which is Ex.PW11/B. It is evident from the said ME that the nature of the injuries were opined to be simple.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the case and he has deposed only on the basis of official record. He has denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had no fresh injuries and states that as per the observations of Dr. Maharudra at point X there were no other fresh injuries showing that the injuries mentioned by him were fresh.
PW15 Dr. R. S. Mishra has deposed that on 23.03.2010 he was working as CMO and Dr. Vikas was working as SR (Surgery) in BJRM Hospital and on that day Dr. Vikas examined the patient Inderpreet Singh S/o Mahender Singh aged about 35 years, brought by St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 17 the police vide MLC Ex.PW11/B. He has testified that as per opinion of Dr. Vikas SR (Surgery) there was nothing to suggest that the aforesaid patient was not capable of sexual intercourse. The said witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
Police/ official witnesses:
PW1 HC RamPhool has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 proved DD No.16PP dated 15.3.2009 regarding in- laws beating at house No. 1787/133, Shanti Nagar Tri Nagar near School, copy of which DD is Ex.PW1/A. In his cross-examination he has admitted that Shanti Nagar is a part of Tri Nagar and that there is no government school in the area known as Shanti Nagar Government School.
PW2 Ilam Singh has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 has proved the tehrir/ complaint copy of which is Ex.PW2/A and copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/B. In his cross- examination the witness has deposed that he did not make endorsement on the tehrir/ complaint which fact he has not mentioned in his affidavit.
PW3 Lalit Kumar UDC in the office of Addl. District Magistrate, Kanjhawla has deposed that pursuant to the notice under Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure dated 25.3.2010 regarding verification of marriage certificate in respect of Inderpreet Singh and prosecutrix 'T', their office has issued the verification report Ex.PW3/A bearing the signatures of Sh. Neeraj Bhati, the then ADM/ Registrar of Marriages copy of which marriage certificate is Mark X-1. In his cross- examination the witness has admitted that the original record is not St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 18 presently traceable in their office.
PW6 Mrs Savinder Kaur Senior Home Science teacher from Bhai Biba Singh Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Moti Nagar, Delhi has brought the record pertaining to the admission details of the prosecutrix 'T' D/o Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh, R/o House No. 24/133, Tri Nagar, Delhi. According to her, as per the record the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.04.1981 who was admitted in their school on 29.07.1997 vide admission No.1515, copy of the admission register is Ex.PW6/A. According to the witness, the prosecutrix did not pass her CBSE in the year 1997 but she passed her CBSE in 1998 and School leaving certificate was issued on 21.09.1998 showing that she had failed in class 10th .
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that she cannot tell about the correctness of the statement made by the father regarding date of birth at the time of admission of the child and she presumed it as correct. According to the witness she has deposed on the basis of official record.
PW8 SI Jag Roshni has deposed that on 28.07.2008 she was posted as ASI at CAW Cell, Pitampura, North West District and on that day a complaint dated 28.07.2004 had come in the Women Cell which is Ex.PW7/B. According to her, on 31.07.2008 the said complaint was marked to her and she called both the parties in the women cell. She has deposed that during the counseling the accused/ husband stopped appearing the women cell and on the written request of complainant/ prosecutrix the present FIR was got registered which is Ex.PW2/A. She has deposed that the further investigations of this case was handed over St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 19 to some other officer.
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that when the accused stopped appearing she issued notice/ request letter to the accused party which is Ex.PW8/A. She has admitted that she did not obtain the permission from the concerned DCP for getting the case registered in this case and states that Women Cell had approved the case to be registered U/S 498A IPC.
PW9 HC Peera Ram has deposed that on 15.3.2009 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram, PP Shanti Nagar and on that that day he received DD No. 16PP dated 15.03.2009 pursuant to which he along with Ct. Bacchu Singh reached at House No. 1787/133, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi where the prosecutrix 'T' met them and had given a complaint regarding beating. According to the witness, they called a lady Constable from the Police Station and took the prosecutrix to BJRM Hospital and got her medical examination conducted. He has proved having made endorsement/ rukka which is Ex.PW9/A and got the NCR U/S 155 Cr. P.C which is Ex.PW2/A. He has testified that the said NCR was handed over to complainant/ prosecutrix 'T'.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he did not see the quarrel himself and when he reached the spot he only saw a large crowd which had gathered to attend the death ceremony of a relative of both the parties and the complainant who was sitting in the back side room along with her relatives, told him that she was beaten. He is unable to tell if no quarrel had actually taken place. He has denied the suggestion that he registered a wrong case and states that the case registration was directed only on the basis of complaint given to him by St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 20 the complainant in writing.
PW10 Ct. Sikander has deposed that on 22.03.2010 he was posted at Police Post Shanti Nagar, Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day he along with ASI Mohd. Sawaley reached House no. 1787, gali No. 133, Tri Nagar where the accused Inderpreet Singh met them at about 9:30 PM who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW7/C and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW7/D. According to the witness, one SONY Ericsson mobile phone, one black colored purse containing Rs 279/-, one I-card, one ATM of SBI and one DL was recovered from the personal search of accused which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/D. He has correctly identified the accused in the court.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he does not remember whether any family member of the accused were available in the house at the time of arrest of accused. According to him, public persons from the nearby houses were also present at that time but he does not remember whether the investigating officer made any request to those persons to join the investigations. He has deposed that the investigating officer did not take any action against those public persons who had refused to join the investigations.
PW12 SI Kuldeep Singh Malik, has deposed that on 06.04.2009 he was posted at Police Post Shanti Nagar, PS Keshavpuram and on that day a complaint of the prosecutrix had been received in the police station pursuant to her earlier complaint which is Ex.PW7/B. According to him, on the basis of that complaint the present case has been registered vide FIR which is Ex.PW2/A and thereafter the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 21 investigations were marked to him after which he received the case file from the MHC(R) and perused the same. He has deposed that he made efforts to trace the accused but the accused could not be traced till then and further investigations of this case was handed over to some other investigating officer and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). This witness has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
PW14 ASI Mohammad Swalay, is the investigating officer who has deposed that on 05.01.2010 he was posted at Police Station Keshavpuram and on that day the investigations of this case was handed over to him. According to him, he received the case file from MHC(M) and perused the same and got verified the certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj Mandir on 12.01.2010 and recorded the statement of Sh. Dhanjajay Dwivedi the priest of the said Mandir. He has proved having recorded the statement of Sh. Tej Pal, the owner of the house where the accused and the complainant resided and on 18.01.2010 he recorded the statement of HC Peera Ram and WASI Jag Roshni. According to the investigating officer he took the permission from the then DCP for arrest of the accused Inderpreet Singh on 03.02.2010. He has deposed that the complainant had also given her birth certificate showing her age as 01.04.1981 which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F copy of which certificate is Ex.PW7/E. He has proved having recorded the statement of the prosecutrix 'T' under Section 161 Cr. P.C. in view of which Sections 376/ 312/ 506/ 509 IPC were added. The witness has further deposed that on 22.03.2010 he received a secret information that the accused Inderpreet is standing at gali No. 133, Tri Nagar, Delhi. According to the witness, the complainant/ prosecutrix was with him and St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 22 when they reached at the place pointed out by the secret informer, the complainant identified her husband Inderpreet Singh while standing in the said street who was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW7/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/D. The witness has further deposed that one mobile phone of SONY Ericsson, Rs 279/-, one SBI ATM card, one I Card, one DL and one black colored purse were recovered from his jamatalashi which were also seized vide memo Ex.PW7/D. He has proved that on 23.03.2010 the accused was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW11/B and he moved an application before ADM/ registrar of marriage who issued verification report vide Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW3/A. According to the investigating officer, on 19.04.2010 he recorded the statement of Smt. Manjeet Kaur, mother of the prosecutrix and on 25.04.2010 he added Section 323 IPC after which he prepared the charge sheet after necessary investigations and filed the same in the court. He has correctly identified the accused in the court.
In his cross-examination the witness has admitted that the case was initially registered under Section 498A IPC recommended by CAW Cell and that the case under Section 376 was not recommended by CAW Cell but states that as per the statement of the prosecutrix Section 376 was added later on. He has denied the suggestion that he had advised the prosecutrix to make a false statement and thereafter she made statement to him which is Ex.PW14/DA. The witness has also denied that Ex.PW14/DA is a false statement given on his advise. He has testified that the complainant had not provided any record showing that on 09.07.2008 there was miscarriage. PW14 has admitted that the complainant had stated to him that she is sister of the accused and states St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 23 that she had stated that the accused is son of elder brother of her father. According to him, the accused was apprehended while standing in the street but public persons had not gathered at the spot when he was preparing the documents of arrest and personal search of the accused.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. He has stated that the complaint was concocted and false and the date of birth of the prosecutrix is wrong as the same was written on the oral information given by her father. According to the accused, the prosecutrix herself induced him to get marry under pressure and coercion and a false complaint was lodged against him by a student in Police Station Tilak Nagar. He has further stated that neither any miscarriage nor abortion was carried out upon the prosecutrix by any doctor/ nursing home/ hospital. According to him, he himself surrendered before the investigating officer as he called him at Police Post Shanti Nagar. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant who lodged a false complaint against her in the women cell and finish the case she demanded Rs.15 lacs from him and since he was unable to pay the said amount, she falsely implicated him in the present case. However, the accused has chosen not to lead any evidence in defence.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Counsel appearing on St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 24 behalf of the accused. I have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed by the Ld. Defence counsel. My findings are as under:
Identity of the accused:
The identity of the accused Inderpreet Singh is not disputed in view of the fact that both the accused and the prosecutrix 'P' were known to each other even before the incident the accused being the son of the real brother of the father of the prosecutrix and had later got married. She has also duly identified him in the court and therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Age of the complainant:
Mrs. Savinder Kaur (PW6) has proved the admission details of the prosecutrix 'T' D/o Sh. Jang Bahadur Singh. She has proved that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1.4.1981. According to her, the complainant/ prosecutrix could not pass her CBSE in the year 1997 but she passed her CBSE in 1998 and hence the School Leaving Certificate was issued on 21.9.1998 showing that she had failed in class 10th. Though the accused has disputed the above but has not lead any evidence to controvert the same. It is evident from the aforesaid that the prosecutrix had attained the age of consent on 1.4.1997 and the age of majority on 1.4.1999.St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 25
Relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused:
It is an admitted case that the prosecutrix is the first cousin of the accused being the daughter of the real younger brother of the father of the accused and later they had got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi (run by Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti) on 10.3.2008. The factum of this marriage performed at Arya Samaj Mandir has been duly proved by PW4 Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi. In his cross-examination Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi has deposed that he was not aware if the accused and the prosecutrix were related to each other and the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix being Sapindas fell within the prohibited degrees. It is also evident from the testimony of Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi that the marriage had taken place according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and not according to Sikh Rites despite the fact that both the prosecutrix and the accused are Sikhs. In fact in his cross-examination PW4 Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi has admitted that in case of persons conforming to Sikh religion the marriage has to be conducted as per the dictates of Guru Granth Sahib which Ceremonies he is not competent to perform. He has further admitted that as per the Shastras the Saptpadi of a pregnant woman is impermissible. This witness has been cross- examined at length. It is evident from the testimony of this witness that he is a regular court bird and has come to the court to depose in other cases as well. He has not been able to produce any certificate to show that the organization in which he is employed, is registered and has due authority under the law to issue marriage certificates. It is further evident that proper marriage in accordance with the dictates of the faith/ religion to which the parties belong (Sikh) has not been performed and a fraud has been played in the name of performing marriage. Parties to the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 26 marriage who were incompetent to even enter into the alliance being Sapindas and also because they, though were conforming to Sikh religion they were got married accordingly to Arya Samaj practices and were made to believe that proper ceremonies of marriage as required under the law and practice have been performed as per the Hindu Marriage Act. It is writ large that parties have performed ceremonies of marriage at the belief that they were entering into a legal marriage and were legally wedded as husband and wife despite the fact that the marriage between them were not legally valid, the marriage not having been performed as per the religious dictates. Further, the marriage registration certificate Ex.PW7/A had been obtained from the office of the SDM Kanjhawla on the basis of this marriage conducted and certificate issued by Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi which he was himself not authorized and empowered to issue as per law. Hence, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the performance of marriage ceremonies between the accused and the prosecutrix has been proved and the parties had been living as husband and wife thereafter. Also, in terms of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act the marriage though void is yet to be declared a nullity by the competent court of law.
Testimony of the prosecutrix:
The case of the prosecutrix is that she is the first cousin of the accused. Initially at the age of three years the went to reside with her Bua at Jaipur and came back to Delhi at the age of eight years and started residing with her parents. According to the prosecutrix when she was in class 9th was admitted in Bhai Biba Singh Khalsa Senior Secondary St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 27 School, Moti Nagar and being weak in studies she used to take tuition from the accused Inderpreet Singh her first cousin who was residing in neighbourhood. She has further stated that when she was in class 10th the accused had also taught her for sometime but thereafter left teaching her and she failed in class 10th. During this period the behaviour of the accused towards her was very irritating and objectionable but she did not till her family members regarding the same. According to the prosecutrix, when she failed in class 10th her grandfather and other family members insisted that she should take tuitions from the accused but she was hesitant in disclosing that why she did not want to take tuition from the accused. According to the prosecutrix, initially for a few days the accused taught her properly but thereafter he started repeating his objectionable behaviour and used to hug her very often and kissed her on some occasions and on one occasion she also hit him with her bag on which the accused went away and did not come back to teach her. Later the brother of the accused Kamaljot Singh came and asked her why they had quarrel with each other but she could not disclose this fact to him though she informed him that the behaviour of the accused was not proper towards her on which Kamaljot Singh undertook that the behaviour of the accused would be proper and thereafter on insistence of her parents and grandfather she started taking tuitions from the accused and it was then that on one occasion the accused enticed her and committed rape upon her. The relevant portion of her examination in chief is as under:
".....On one occasion the accused called me on telephone and told me that he would not be coming today to teach me as he is unwell and asked me and St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 28 called me to his house for completing the lessons in Trigonometry. When I went to the house of the accused, very reluctantly he offered me a cup of tea on the pretext that he was making tea for himself also. After having the tea I had a severe headache after which I started feeling very uneasy and in that state the accused made physical relations with me under the threat. He also told me that he was in love with me and he also told me that he made physical relations with me only because he never wanted to leave me as he is in love with me. I told my cousin sister (Masi's daughter) of what the accused Inderjeet Singh done with me, and she explained what the accused had done with me since at that time I was not even 15 years of age and did not know the consequences of the act of the accused. After this incident I started feeling very unwell and I had vomiting sensations on which the accused came to see me and gave me three tablets in wrapper and told me to consume the same. I was apprehensive that I was pregnant and the accused told me that if I took the tablets and keep my mouth shut, nobody would know to know of anything. After that the accused continued to make regular physical relations with me claiming that he is my husband. My Masi's daughter/ cousin sister explained to me St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 29 that even if the accused gets marry to me, it will not be a valid marriage in the eyes of law but the accused continued to tell me that he will marry me and he told me that their marriage is possible and even in the Muslims such marriage is valid. For about three years the accused continued to make physical relations with me but thereafter I disclosed this fact to the mother of the accused who is my Taiji on which his mother got irritated and started spreading rumors about me in the neighbourhood. When my parents came to know about the same I was beaten at my residence. When the accused came to know that my parents gave beatings to me, he told me that he had already explained to me that nobody else would side with me except him. He also told me that under these circumstances that nobody else would marry me and it is only he who would marry me. After this he continued to make relations with me. The accused made physical relations with me for almost 12 years. After Kamaljot Singh got married, I insisted that the accused should marry me because of his long standing relations with me but he refused. However, when he continued to make physical relations with me I became pregnant and I insisted for marriage and also threatened the accused to inform the police. On this he contacted St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 30 a lawyer and took me to Arya Samaj Mandir at Yamuna Bazar and the accused marry me on 10.3.2008. On 27.3.2008 the accused took me to the office of SDM, Kanjhawla where we got our marriage registered. At Kanjhawla I told the accused that there was a column of pregnancy and we should tick mark it but there was some other person with the accused who advised that I should not insist upon tick-marking the said column as it would create a problem for the accused. When I was got married with the accused, I was issued a certificate by the Pandit which is already Ex.PW4/A bearing my signatures at point X. The marriage certificate issued by SDM Kanjhawla is Ex.PW7/A....".
I may mention that the testimony of the prosecutrix PW6 does not find due corroboration from any other witness except to a limited extent from the testimony of her mother Smt. Manjeet Kaur (PW5) who has only deposed to the extent of her relationship with the accused and the fact that in May 2008 the prosecutrix had left the house and did not return and later she came to know that she has started living with the accused and had even got married to him which marriage was not having any legality as the accused was the real son of his real Jeth Sardar Mahender Singh. Manjeet Kaur has also corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix to the extent that the accused used to come St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 31 to her house to teach the prosecutrix who was giving the Board Examination. I may mention that as per the school record the prosecutrix had given the Board Examination in the year 1997 and also in the year 1998 since she could not clear the same earlier and at the relevant time was 14 - 15 years of age.
The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2006 SC 2214 has pertinently observed as under::
"........... The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence (of rape) because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instance case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after staking her own prestige and honour......"
In the present case the position is virtually the same the family of the accused and the family of the prosecutrix are related by blood and both the prosecutrix and the accused being first cousins i.e. children of real brothers. Their families are residing in the same gali and there was no history of any dispute whatsoever and hence no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused. In fact, the evidence on St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 32 record is very categorical. The accused who was seven years elder to the prosecutrix abused the family trust while abusing his younger cousin. The prosecutrix due to shame and familial inhibitions could not disclose this fact to anybody in the family and it is this situation that the accused exploited when he continued to maintain physical relations with the prosecutrix over the years as a result of which they eloped and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi.
The evidence on record points towards only one conclusion and that is that Inderpreet Singh the accused in the present case has developed intrafamilial relationship with his first cousin and it is only as a result of the same that the prosecutrix was compelled to leave her house and marry him, a fact which find due corroboration from the testimony of her mother Smt. Manjeet Kaur (PW5). I may mention that in a cases of incest the only witness is the prosecutrix and there can be no independent corroboration and that too when the said relationship extends over a period of time. It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded though in appropriate cases, the court may look for corroboration from independent sources or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid I hold that the testimony of the prosecutrix 'T' may not find corroboration from the testimony of any other witness but finds due corroboration from the surrounding St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 33 circumstances and is otherwise trustworthy and implicitly reliable.
Consent of the prosecutrix:
It has been vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of marriage and had a consensual relationship with the accused for which the accused cannot be held liable. The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand has vehemently argued that the reason for the prosecutrix to enter into the marriage with the accused was that the accused had been making the physical relations with her ever since she was a minor and was studying in class 9th and 10th before she was even 15 years of age as result of which she later on conceived and it was only on account of this reason that she was compelled to marry him.
I have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the parties before this court are Sapindas, the accused being the son of Tayaji of the prosecutrix 'T'. Initially the prosecutrix used to reside with her Bua's house at Jaipur and at the age of eight years she came back to her parents house. The accused was seven years elder to her and the prosecutrix being weak in studies used to take tuitions from the accused a fact which has been proved by the mother of the prosecutrix namely Manjeet Kaur. It was during this period when the prosecutrix was in class 10th that the accused developed physical relations with her on the pretext that he was in love with her. According to the prosecutrix, she had even told to her first cousin i.e. daughter of her Masi about the incident and the conduct of the accused but incidentally the daughter of the Masi of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution. The case in hand pertains to incestuous relationship which continued St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 34 over a long period of almost 12 years and at the very outset, I may observe that the consent of the prosecutrix if any would otherwise be immaterial on two counts Firstly because at the time of the inception of the relationship the prosecutrix was hardly 14 to 15 years of age and was studying in class 10th. Being legally incapable of giving the consent i.e. not even having arrived at the age of consent, presuming that she consented to such a relationship, the said consent would be immaterial. Secondly because of both the parties are closely related by blood. Incest constitutes a cultural taboo in most societies and is prohibited by law. Members of the family covered by the incest prohibition vary from one society to another. In some cases only those related by birth or those who live in the same household are included whereas in some societies it also includes those related by adoption, marriage, or clan. However, this incest prohibition universally covers close members such as siblings or parents and children, while the prohibitions on more distant relatives, such as cousins, vary from one society to another depending upon the cultural taboos. Whatever the extent of the prohibition, incest is universally condemned and viewed with horror. The existing social, cultural and the law prohibits such a relationship and hence the question of consent in any incestuous relationship if any again would not arise in cases of incest.
I may further observe that it is an admitted case of the prosecutrix and the accused that they were Sikhs and had eloped and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir run by Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti. This would arise only under the compulsive circumstances which circumstance in the present case as reflected from the testimony of the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 35 prosecutrix was the pregnancy of the prosecutrix. The accused has tried to controvert this argument by claiming that he had been trapped by the prosecutrix on account of a previous complaint filed against him by some student of his Coaching Center, an aspect which has not been proved in accordance with law. The story put forward by the accused is on the face of it a cock & bull story. To think that an educated person facing charges of molestation would go by the advice of his cousin sister seven years younger to him rather than seeking advice of the elders of his family or a legal practitioner, is unbelievable. No record of the said case has been placed before this court and the entire story so put forward appears to be an after though only to wriggle out the allegations made by the prosecutrix and presuming that it happened in the manner as suggested by the accused then it is writ large that the accused is habitually involved in these kind of acts, so much so that allegations were made against him by his own lady student.
Presuming that there was some complaint against the accused made by some student, why the prosecutrix who is the cousin of the accused make a false claim before the police of being his wife unless there was some truth in this regard and having himself admitted the relationship between himself and the prosecutrix of being husband and wife, how then can the accused now go back on his claim. The entire story does not appear convincing enough. It is also evident from the record that the families of the prosecutrix and the accused do not have any history of dispute and hence, all the more doubtful why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the accused. The entire evidence on record including the fact that the accused and the prosecutrix had entered into the marriage alliance, unequivocally point out towards the guilt of St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 36 the accused and there is no reason to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix in this regard.
Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty by husband on a woman) and Section 323 IPC:
The provisions of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code provide for punishment to the husband/ relatives of the husband who subjects the woman to cruelty for a term which shall be extended to three years and also liable to fine. Cruelty as defined under Section 498-A Indian Penal code means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or gander to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
The object of introducing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. The willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring him the charge under Section 498-A IPC and not de-hors the same.
In the present case, the ME of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW11/A duly proved by Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW11) shows that when she was brought to the hospital she had given the history of alleged physical assault and abrasions on her neck and chest were observed and she was complaining of plain in the right side of her face, which St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 37 injuries were opined to be SIMPLE. The detail testimony of the prosecutrix shows that she was being subjected to continuous physical abuse by the accused which abuse continued for twelve years. The prosecutrix 'T' is in fact a victim who has suffered physically abuse right from the childhood after the accused made continuous physical relations with her and she was made to believe that nobody else would marry her under these circumstances. As per the allegations she had even conceived from the accused but the child had to be aborted. It is writ large that the entire relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix is based upon Lust, Lies, Tricks and Fraud.
The fact that the prosecutrix was being subjected to regular physical abuse by the accused her first cousin is writ large from her statement and also reflected from her ME and it is only thereafter that the present case was registered. This court has been informed that a petition has been moved for declaring the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix as nullity which is pending before the competent court but that in itself will not mitigate the offence committed by the accused. The marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused being void is yet to be declared nullity by the competent court of law, the provisions of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code would hereby apply.
PW13 Tej Pal Singh had rented his house to the accused and the prosecutrix. He has proved that the accused Inderpreet Singh used to reside in his premises with his wife i.e. the prosecutrix 'T' and had shifted in his house in May 2008 and after one week they both entered into a rent agreement which is Ex.P-1. In his cross-examination, Tej Pal Singh (PW1) has deposed that his wife often told him that the prosecutrix used St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 38 to complain that the accused was not taking care of her and was not giving any money to her and therefore, it was for this reason that the rent agreement was not renewed. Though this witness has in his cross-
examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel deposed that there was no incident of any assault on the prosecutrix in his presence yet he has deposed that his wife had told him that on one occasion the prosecutrix had come to her and told her that the accused had done mar-pitai with her on which he told his wife that they should get their premises vacated as the said persons will not even pay the rent to them. No doubt the testimony of Tej Pal Singh (PW13) is based upon what has been told to him by his wife but I may mention that the reason why he wanted the house to be vacated was based upon his personal knowledge since the accused was not paying the rent to them and there were some issues between the accused and the prosecutrix which corroborated the version given by the prosecutrix regarding the physical abuse. Further, the testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix Manjeet Kaur (PW5) is also very specific in this regard. She has told the court that the prosecutrix returned to her after seven to eight months and told her that she was being beaten by her husband. The mother of the prosecutrix although has chosen to side her family by deposing that they were all living together as a joint family and her daughter had never told her the reasons why she got married to the accused not the accused had beaten her daughter in her presence. This being so. I find no reason to discard and disbelieve the testimony of Manjeet Kaur (PW5) the mother of the prosecutrix who has rather chosen to support her family than the version given by the prosecutrix. Her statement to the extent of corroboration St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 39 can be read into evidence and I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the psychological and mental torture inflicted upon the prosecutrix apart from the physical injuries caused to her as reflected from her ME. I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the aspect of cruelty implicated upon the prosecutrix by the accused.
Section 312 IPC (Causing miscarriage):
The case of the prosecutrix is that the accused Inderpreet Singh was instrumental in causing miscarriage of the prosecutrix. Tn this regard the only evidence place on record is the oral testimony of the prosecutrix 'T' which does not find any independent corroboration from any other source. The prosecutrix has claimed that on the first occasion the accused had given her some pills which she had consumed and on the second occasion, the miscarriage was caused due to physical assault upon her when she had gone to the house of the accused and after she aborted, the accused did not come home immediately rather came at night and offered to take her to the doctor. This being the background, once there was no previous medical record available with the prosecutrix, the least that could have been done was to get a detail Gynecological examination of the prosecutrix conducted in order to establish whether there was any history of miscarriage or abortion as claimed by the prosecutrix which incidentally has not been got done. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby grant benefit of doubt to the accused and hold that the prosecution has failed to bring him the charge under Section 312 Indian Penal Code.St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 40
Section 506 IPC/ Criminal Intimidation:
The case of the prosecutrix is that during the time the accused had relationship with her and also after her marriage the accused had criminally intimidated her and threatened her time and again. In this regard the only evidence on record is the oral testimony of the prosecutrix. The testimony of the prosecutrix shows that all the allegations made by the prosecutrix are very vague and general. No specific incident of a particular date has been given. The threat so alleged is also non specific. Therefore, under these circumstances, benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused.
Section 509 IPC/ Uttering objectionable remarks to a woman:
As per allegations the accused Inderpreet Singh intending to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix, uttered such words intending that such words would be heard by her or intrude upon her privacy. Again in this regard, I may mention that the allegations made are only general and non specific. The specific incident, its date and time and words uttered by the accused have not been specified nor there is any other corroboration from any other source in view of which benefit of doubt is being given to the accused and I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
FINAL FINDINGS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 41 recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the identity of the accused Inderpreet Singh stands established. The relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix stands established and it also stands proved that the accused is the first cousin of the prosecutrix (being the son of her real Tayaji). It further stands established that the date of birth of the prosecutrix 'T' is 1.4.1981 and that of accused is 15.7.1974 thereby showing that the St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 42 accused is seven years elder than the prosecutrix. It also stands established that the accused Inderpreet Singh used to give tuitions to the prosecutrix when she was hardly 14 to 15 years of age and was a student of class 9th and 10th. It has been established that the accused Inderpreet Singh first made physical relations with the prosecutrix when she was in class 10th and was hardly 14 to 15 years of age without her consent which relations he made over a period of 12 years. Even otherwise keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix and her relationship with him (first cousin) her consent, if any, is immaterial. It also stands established that on account of long period of physical abuse the prosecutrix had become pregnant from the accused and both the accused ad the prosecutrix were compelled to marry and on 10.3.2008 the marriage ceremonies was performed. It stands established that the prosecutrix and the accused are Sikhs but the said marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites. It further stands established that the prosecutrix and the accused went to Arya Samaj Mandir at Zamuna Bazar run by Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti where Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi performed their marriage. It has been further proved that proper Kanyadan had not taken place since no family member of the accused and the prosecutrix attended to the marriage. It also stands proved that on the basis of the certificate procured from the Arya Samaj Mandir run by Arya Samaj Sewa Samiti, the marriage between the parties was got registered at SDM Kanjhawla Office. Further it stands established that Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi had no legal authority to issue the marriage certificate and apparently the marriage ceremonies were performed and the parties were made to believe that they were legally wedded as husband and wife and thereafter both the accused and prosecutrix started residing together as husband and wife in St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 43 the house of Tejpal Singh at C-4/28, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi. It stands further proved that the accused failed to pay the rent and used to physically abuse the prosecutrix due to which reason even Tejpal Singh decided not to extend their rent agreement. It is further proved that the prosecutrix thereafter returned to her parent's house after which she made a complaint to the CAW Cell. Her medical examination revealed multiple abrasions and injuries simple in nature on her body.
The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
The provisions of Section 376 (1) Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of rape. In the present case, the prosecutrix no doubt was the wife of the accused but I may observe that the rape committed on her and the physical relations made by the accused with the prosecutrix was before the time when the accused and the prosecutrix were married. This is not a case where the accused has been accused of raping of his own wife under the age of 12 years but a case where he had been accused of raping his first cousin when she was a minor below the age of 15 years and was compelled to marry the accused on account of St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 44 long term physical relations which he had made with the prosecutrix. Hence, in view of the above, I hereby hold the accused Inderpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section 376, 498-A,323 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. However, in so far as the charges under Sections 312, 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code are concerned, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the same against the accused who is hereby acquitted of the same.
Copy of this order is directed to the placed before the Ld. ACMM for directions to the investigating officer to inquire into the allegations against Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi for having performed the marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix both following Sikh faith and being Sapindas and having issued a marriage certificate which he did without any apparent legal authority. Needless to say, the Ld. ACMM shall personally monitor the said investigations from time to time.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 25.5.2011.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 19.5.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ 19.5.2011 St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 45 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1218/10 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0112382010 State Vs. Inder Preet Singh S/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o House No. 1787/133, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi FIR No.: 86/2009 Police Station: Keshav Puram Under Section: 498-A/376/312/506/509/323/34 IPC Date of Conviction: 19.4.2011 Arguments heard on: 25.5.2011 Date of Sentence: 31.5.2011 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Inderpreet Singh in judicial custody with Sh. C.M. Sharma Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Child sexual abuse are dark realities in Indian society like in any other nation. 53 per cent of our children are sexually abused, according to a statistic from a survey done by the Government of India. A 1985 study by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences reveals that one out of three girls and one out of 10 boys had been sexually abused as a child.St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 46
50% of child sexual abuse happens at home. In 1996, Samvada, a Bangalore based NGO, conducted a study among 348 girls. 15% were used for masturbation mostly by male relatives when they were less than 10 years old. 75% of the abusers were adult family members. A report from RAHI, (Recovering and Healing from Incest), a Delhi based NGO working with child sexual abuse titled Voices from the Silent Zone suggests that nearly three-quarters of upper and middle class Indian girls are abused by a family member - often by an uncle, a cousin or an elder brother. (Rel. on material from Internet) The prosecutrix before this court is one of the thousands of such victims who have suffered this kind of intrafamilial sexual abuse since her childhood and the violator being none other than her first cousin i.e. son of the real brother of her father (Tayaji). During the childhood the prosecutrix had gone to her Bua's house at Jaipur and had come back to Delhi at the age of eight years and was put in a local school but not being very good in studies the family advised her to take tuitions particularly in Mathematics from the accused Inderpreet Singh (seven years older than the prosecutrix) who was her first cousin as she was to prepare for her board exams. During this period taking advantage of the fact that there was no inhibition in the family being close relative, the accused developed close physical relations with the prosecutrix claiming love for her which perhaps reflected even in her personal life and adversely affected her studies when she failed in class 10th. The accused maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix for almost twelve years claiming that he did so out of love since he could not see any one else marrying her and in fact under these circumstances nobody else would St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 47 marry her. During this period when the accused maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix realized that she had become pregnant from the accused that she insisted upon the marriage which otherwise was impermissible under the Hindu Marriage Act the parties being Sapindas. In view of these circumstances, both the prosecutrix and the accused who were conforming to Sikh religion, allegedly got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi and obtained a certificate from Pt. Dhananjay Diwedi was devoid of any legal authority to issue such marriage certificate. On the basis of this certificate of marriage they got the marriage registered with the SDM Kanjhawla and thereafter both the prosecutrix and the accused started living residing together as husband and wife at the house of Tejpal Singh on rent. Within seven to eight months of this marriage the child which the prosecutrix was carrying was aborted on account of the alleged physical beatings given to her by the family of the accused and the accused thereafter abandoned her as a result of which she was by compulsion returned to her mother's house where she is residing ever since resulting into registration of the present case.
Charges under Sections 376, 498-A, 323, 312, 506, 509 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused but on the basis of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, vide my detailed judgment dated 19.4.2011, the accused Inderpreet Singh has been held guilty of the offence under Section 376, 498-A, and 323 Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted. He has, however, been acquitted of the charges under Sections 312, 506 and 509 Indian Penal Code.
St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 48I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Inderpreet Singh is aged about 37 years having a family comprising of aged father and one brother. He has done his B.Sc. From Tamil Nadu and was working as a Lab Assistant in Government School, Subhash Nagar. He is in judicial custody w.e.f. 23.3.2010 till date. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict had vehemently argued that the convict is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. According to him, the convict is a government servant and any harsh view taken by this court would spoil his entire future.
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that the convict Inderprret Singh is the first cousin of the prosecutrix 'T' who has committed "intrafamilial child sexual abuse" upon the prosecutrix 'T'. He submits that the convict does not deserve any leniency.
I have considered the submissions made. The present case is a glaring example of the growing menace of sexual abuse of minors and young children. Rape is an abominable and ghastly and it worsens and becomes inhuman and barbaric when the victim is a minor and a close relative of the abuser over whom the family has repose faith as has happened in the present case where the prosecutrix 'T' when she was minor has been subjected to unwanted physical contact by the convict her first cousin. The convict Inderpreet Singh had been making physical relations with the prosecutrix when she was not even 15 year of age. Due to her tender age, neither the body of the child was fully developed nor she was in a position to offer any resistance to the convict. The convict has taken advantage of a helpless and defenceless girl who at the given St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 49 time did not even understand the gravity of the offence or tried to escape and was an easy and vulnerable prey. She must have undergone immense physical pain and agony when the offence was committed which physical abuse continued till the prosecutrix had attained majority and had become pregnant from the convict compelling her to marry him after which she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty.
Where the elder cousin brother is the perpetrator of the abuse on his cousin sister, he should not only be arrested but also punished sternly for the offence of rape. The psychological harm on the victim is massive as it evokes doubts, raises questions for which answers are not easy to get. The victim may suppress emotions or be filled with feelings of rage, guilt and shame. It is difficult for such victims to trust others later on in life. The victim needs to stand up for herself and not allow the trauma to make them psychologically and socially weak. Active social support from family, friends, guidance centres and counselors can bring the victim's faith in the goodness of human beings back.
Section 376 IPC reads that Punishment for rape:- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:.............
St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 50The Hon'ble Supreme Court has has in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. . Raju, reported in 2007 (11) SCC490 has held that:
"The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused . It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent. ? To show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be a travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. The legislative mandate to impose a sentence, for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to life and also to fine reflects the intent of stringency in sentence."
Crime against women has increased in recent years, most of the offenders being previously known to the victim or enjoying some kind of a fiduciary, family or trust relationship which they betray. It is for the Courts to meet these challenges by moulding the sentencing St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 51 system to ensure that public confidence in the efficacy of law is not undermined. The victim of incestuous rape lacks self-confidence and is always under a sense of guilt and denial. It's not about the body. It's more about the mind. Child sexual abuse is a rape of the mind and thought processes. The convict before this court being the first cousin of the prosecutrix was in a position of trust and he exploited the family relationship. In so far as the position of the victim/ prosecutrix is concerned financially and socially she is totally dependent upon her family whose trust the convict has betrayed. In this background considering the various aggravating facts and also the conduct of the convict Inderpreet Singh, I hereby award the following sentences to the convict:
1. The convict Inderpreet Singh is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years (Seven Years) and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The total fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, if recovered, shall be paid to the prosecutrix 'T' as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
2. He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Seven days.St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 52
3. He convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict is already in judicial custody. He is sent to custody for serving the sentence. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial as per rules.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached along with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 31.5.2011 ASJ-II(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Inder Preet Singh, FIR No. 86/09, PS Keshav Puram Page No. 53