Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. R. Prabhu, on 18 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.19/13.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0288972012.
State Vs. 1. R. Prabhu,
S/o Sh. C. Rajendranan,
R/o RZM-16, Tamil Enclave,
Madrasi Colony, Vijay Enclave,
Dabri,
New Delhi.
2. Radha,
W/o Sh. C. Rajendranan,
R/o RZM-16, Tamil Enclave,
Madrasi Colony, Vijay Enclave,
Dabri,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 23.11.2012.
FIR No.36 dated 07.2.2012.
U/s. 376/382/354/506/34 IPC.
P.S. Dabri.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 07.10.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 18.10.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The abovenamed two accused had been chargesheeted by the prosecution for the offences u/s. 376/382/354/506/34 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a typed complaint dated 26.12.2011 had been received in the police station from the prosecutrix 'K' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) SC No.19/13. Page 1 of 34 wherein she had stated that accused befriended her during the time when she was doing a course at Management of Information System, NIIT, Preet Vihar, in the year 2006, then he raped her at his house on 21.1.2010 after making her unconscious by administering her some stupefying substance mixed in cold drink, solemnized marriage with her at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi, on 02.2.2010 by force and without her consent, continued to rape her thereafter also, used to blackmail her by taking money from her from her salary every month, took a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her brother on the pretext that he would not reveal her obscene video and photograph to anybody, he alongwith some other person raped her again in his house on 10.11.2011 to the knowledge of his parents and also had oral sex with her but still did not handover to her the obscene video and photographs.
3. The aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix was marked to SI Kishan Kumar, who prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter the investigation was marked to ASI Pushpa. She recorded the statement of witnesses and got the prosecutrix examined medically in DDU Hospital. She seized the sealed pullindas given to her by the doctor. Accused Radha was arrested on 11.2.2012. Thereafter further investigation was entrusted to SI Beena. She obtained NBWs against accused R. Prabhu, who then surrendered in the court of Ld. M.M. on 30.8.2012. He was arrested and got medically examined in DDU Hospital. Sealed exhibits given by the doctor were seized by the IO. Thereafter further investigation was handed over to SI Nirmal Sharma. She prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same to the concerned court.
SC No.19/13. Page 2 of 344. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, charges u/s.376/109 r/w section 34 IPC and u/s.506 r/w section 34 IPC were framed against both the accused on 15.1.2013. Further charge u/s.376 IPC was framed against accused R. Prabhu on the same date. Both the accused denied the charges and trial was held.
5. At trial, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 28.3.2014, wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. Accused R. Prabhu further stated that the prosecutrix was in love with him since the year 2008 and her family was aware about the same. However, her family was not in favour of her marriage with him as he belongs to a middle class family and to a different caste, being a Tamilian and therefore had forbidden her from meeting him but the prosecutrix continued to meet her and upon her insistence the marriage between the two was performed in Arya Samaj Mandir on 02.2.2010. He had shown original marriage certificate to the prosecutrix's brother Vineet Bhatia, upon which the family of the prosecutrix used to threaten him to divorce her.
6. Accused R. Prabhu entered the witness box as DW3 and also produced seven more witnesses in his defence. The deposition of defence witnesses is to the effect that the prosecutrix was in love with the accused and had solemnized marriage with him voluntarily and without any pressure or force on 02.2.2011.
SC No.19/13. Page 3 of 347. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire material on record.
8. The prosecutrix 'K' has been examined as PW12. Her examination in chief spans over ten pages. I feel it unnecessary to burden this judgment by reproducing the lengthy chief examination of the prosecutrix. Suffice it to say that she reiterated whatever she had mentioned in her typed complaint sent to the police station. She proved the said complaint as Ex.PW12/A. In the cross examination, she deposed that the complaint Ex.PW12/A was dictated by her to her brother Vineet and he typed the same on the computer at their residence. She admitted that she had met accused R. Prabhu for the first time in November, 2008. She could not tell the exact date and time when the accused had been sexually assaulting her between 21.1.2010 and 10.11.2011 as, according to her, it happened several times during that period. She reiterated that the accused raped her for the first time on 21.1.2010 during her unconsciousness. He had shown her the photographs and video film of the rape act on the same day. She could not say whether accused used to wear condom etc. before committing rape upon her as she used to keep her eyes closed for the reason that she was not able to bear the trauma. She admitted that all the ceremonies requisite for a valid Hindu marriage were performed on 02.2.2010 in Arya Samaj Mandir but added that this did not happen on her wish and she was forced to do so. According to her, she has never accepted or considered the accused R. Prabhu as her husband. She denied having chatted or exchanged scraps/photographs with accused R. Prabhu through website SC No.19/13. Page 4 of 34 'Orkut'. She deposed that Pawan was her classmate at NIIT and Kulbhushan was her colleague at M.s. Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd. but they were not her friends. She deposed that Pawan had reached Akshardham Mandir on 02.2.2010 after the rituals of marriage had been completed. She stated voluntarily that she was forced to invite him. She admitted that the letter Mark-A is in her handwriting. She deposed that accused had introduced her to her friend Balraj and Wilson Loyall in the year 2009 after he had proposed to her. According to her, the photographs Ex.PW12/D1 to Ex.PW12/D1 to Ex.PW12/D10 were taken during her birthday celebration in the year 2009 on 13th July at Rajouri Garden Mall. She deposed that the photographs Ex.PW12/D11 to Ex.PW12/D26 pertain to her childhood and adulthood and further stated that these have been hacked by accused R. Prabhu from her E-mail ID ID [email protected].
9. She deposed that the photographs Ex.PW12/D27 to Ex.PW12/D30 are of the Roka ceremony of her cousin Neetu which took place on 30.11.2008. She deposed that the photographs Ex.PW12/D30 to Ex.PW12/D58 were taken after their marriage on 02.2.2010. She added that she had to put on smiling face in these photographs by force. She deposed that letter Mark-A was sent by her to accused R. Prabhu through E-mail after scanning it on her home computer and denied that she had sent these letters through E-mail ID [email protected]. She stated that the accused had told her to write the said letter and to send him the same after scanning it so that he comes to know that she has written the said letter. She deposed that the photographs Ex.PW12/D59 to Ex.PW12/D77 were taken by accused at his SC No.19/13. Page 5 of 34 residence by her camera which he had stolen from her bag and the accused did not return the said camera to her despite her demands. She admitted that she had attended the marriage ceremony of the accused's friend Nagraj and further deposed that accused had asked her to keep smiling so that everybody believes that they are husband and wife. The photographs Mark-B to Mark-O are of the said marriage of Nagraj. According to her, photographs Ex.PW12/D78 to Ex.PW12/D85 were taken during the year 2009 when she and the accused R. Prabhu were friends. She deposed that she had gone to Adventure Island, Rohini, alongwith accused's friends as well as her own friends. Her cousin Ravisha had also accompanied her. She deposed that accused had been taking her to Talkatora Stadium after the marriage and once in the year 2009, she had seen a movie alongwith the accused after her birthday celebration. She deposed that her clothes got blood soaked at the time of first rape incident dated 21.1.2010 and she had to wear the same clothes even after the rape incident as she did not have extra set of clothes. The video film which had been shot by the accused from the mobile phone showed both of them in sex act. She deposed that it seemed that the accused had already kept a mobile phone at some place in the room which shot film. She did not see where he had kept the mobile phone. She did not disclose the incident to anybody at home on that day or thereafter that the accused had threatened her that he would expose the video film and her nude photographs. She deposed that the photographs Ex.PW12/D86 to Ex.PW12/D88 were taken at the time of their marriage on 02.2.2010. She did not remember the date and month when accused R. Prabhu had gifted her a mobile phone. She used the same for about a year till she got a SC No.19/13. Page 6 of 34 job in September, 2010 and did not return the same to the accused. However, she left the same in the house of the accused after about two or three months. She deposed that the accused had pressurized her to make calls to her friends asking them to participate in the marriage and hence she had made calls to Pawan, Shruti, Prashant etc. She deposed that she had never became pregnant on account of physical intercourse with the accused. She has not filed any suit/petition for seeking divorce from the accused or for annulment of their marriage as she does not accept that marriage. She admitted that the accused had put a Mangalsutra around her neck at the time of marriage but added that it was not of gold and she threw the same in river Yamuna later on. She denied all the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. PW15 is Vineet Bhatia, the brother of the prosecutrix. He deposed that in April, 2011, he was doing job in Dubai and one day, he received phone call from his home informing him about serious sickness of his father. He immediately reached home and found that his father had suffered fracture in his left leg. About four or five hours of his reaching home, his parents asked him to talk to his sister i.e. the prosecutrix as she is not keeping well and remained in depressed state. He found the prosecutrix in a very feeble state and asked what the matter was but she did not say anything. As she was in a depressed state, he did not stress any further upon her and decided to talk to her the next day. Next morning, the prosecutrix did not come out of her room for breakfast and he took her breakfast to her room. He asked her to share her problem with him but she told him that he cannot solve SC No.19/13. Page 7 of 34 her problem. He realized that she is in deep trouble and insisted upon her to share her problem with him so that a solution could be found. At that juncture, she started crying that a boy is blackmailing her. Then she narrated to him everything in detail, which had taken place between her and the accused. Upon hearing all this from his sister, he was in a fix about what to do. He could not decide whether to inform his parents about the same as his father was bed ridden and he himself had to return to Dubai for his job. However, after deep deliberations, he decided not to inform his parents about the same. He made a call to the accused asking him to return the photographs and videos of his sister to them. He told the accused that they will do whatever he wants them to do but he shall keep away from his sister. The accused asked him to pay Rs.50,000/-. He asked for 3 to 4 months for making payment as he did not have any spare money with him at that time. Accordingly, he left for Dubai. He returned to India in July, 2011 on the occasion of birthday of the prosecutrix. He stayed here for one or two days and again left for Dubai but did not contact the accused during this period. The accused contacted him through internet chat in the month of August, 2011 and told him that he (accused) has beaten his sister i.e. prosecutrix. He lost patience upon hearing this and started abusing the accused through the chat. He decided to return to India immediately and hence resigned from his job. He returned to India in September, 2011. He further deposed that on reaching home, his parents fixed his marriage as they did not know what was going on with the prosecutrix. In such situation, he found it necessary to inform his parents about the plight of the prosecutrix. Upon hearing about what the prosecutrix had been suffering through, his parents SC No.19/13. Page 8 of 34 became totally distressed and shocked. However, he managed the situation with great difficulty or otherwise, she would have lost one of her parents. Meanwhile, accused came to know about his marriage and started threatening him that he would come into marriage function and would declare that he is prosecutrix's husband. They had no option but to bow down in front of the accused and decided to pay him the demanded amount. His marriage was fixed on 21.11.2011 and about 10 or 15 days before that he called accused to McDonald restaurant in Connaught Place and paid him Rs.50,000/- there. On receipt of the said amount, the accused deleted the photographs and videos related to the prosecutrix from his mobile phone in his presence. He further deposed that during the night of 10.11.2011 and 11.11.2011 accused pasted posters around their residence which was in the shape of a marriage certificate. Around 1 a.m. during that night, accused rang their doorbell and when they came out, he hurled abuses upon them. Accused cried loudly asking them to send the prosecutrix with him to Chennai. Accused manhandled him as well as his father. He was drunk at that time. After the aforesaid incident, prosecutrix told him that she wants to file a complaint against the accused. Accordingly, he typed the complaint on their home computer on the dictation of the prosecutrix and thereafter the prosecutrix alongwith her mother went to the police station and filed the complaint. He also deposed that when the mother of the accused was arrested by the police pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the accused made call to him saying that he would kill all of them. He also deposed that after the accused R. Prabhu was released on bail, he has been continuously calling him to say that they should withdraw the complaint. He further deposed that his SC No.19/13. Page 9 of 34 sister had told him that on the asking of the accused R. Prabhu, she had again visited the accused's house where he had again shown her nude photographs and videos and tried to sell her to some person named Anna which meant that the accused was still in possession of the photographs and videos of the prosecutrix.
11. In the cross examination, he deposed that he has filed three complaints against the accused regarding threats received by him from the accused after his release on bail. He had not done any recording that he handed over Rs.50,000/- to accused R. Prabhu. According to him, the said amount was given by him to the accused probably on 6th or 7th November, 2011. He denied that his wife Ashu was introduced to the accused by his sister i.e. the prosecutrix. He further denied the suggestions put to him.
12. PW3 is the Notary Public and as per his deposition used to sit in Chamber No.168, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in the month of February, 2010. He deposed that on 01.2.2010 a person named R. Prabhu alongwith a lady 'K' had come to him with their affidavits for attestation purpose. He attested their affidavits and made entries in this regard in his register maintained for the said purpose. He proved the photographs of these affidavits as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. He also proved photocopy of the relevant page of his register containing entries regarding these two affidavits as Ex.PW3/C. He further deposed that he had also taken the photographs of R. Prabhu and 'K' and had fixed the same on the register page. He also proved the signatures of R. Prabhu and that of 'K' at points A & B on the said register page and his own initial at point C. SC No.19/13. Page 10 of 34
13. PW4 is Sangathan Mantri, Akhil Bharti Hindu Mahasabha Bhawan, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. According to him, the marriage between accused R. Prabhu and prosecutrix 'K' was performed in their temple on 02.2.2010 and produced original record in respect of the said marriage. He proved the photocopy of the marriage certificate as Ex.PW2/A and the photocopies of the affidavits of R. Prabhu as well as 'K' as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. He proved original photographs of the couple taken during performance of marriage ceremony as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that R. Prabhu had submitted photocopy of his Election I. Card as proof of his identity which he proved as Ex.PW4/B and the photocopy of his date of birth certificate as Ex.PW4/C. He also proved the photocopies of the driving licence submitted by 'K' as proof of her identity as Ex.PW4/D and her matriculation certificate showing her date of birth as Ex.PW4/E. He further deposed that the marriage was witnessed by S.R. Balaji, C.M. Kartik, Rajendera Mandal and Vijay Vishwakarma. He proved the photocopy of driving licence of S.R. Balaji as Ex.PW2/B, photocopy of driving licence of C.M. Kartik as Ex.PW4/F, photocopy of I. Card of Rajendera Mandal as Ex.PW4/G and photocopy of Ration Card of Vishwakarma as Ex.PW4/H. He further deposed that they had recorded the statement of 'K' and accused R. Prabhu before performing their marriage which he proved as Ex.PW4/I and Ex.PW4/K respectively. In the cross examination, he admitted that accused R. Prabhu had come to their office on 29.1.2010 and had deposited the fee for the marriage which he proved as Ex.PW4/K. He deposed that the statement Ex.PW4/I and Ex.PW4/J were filled up by the prosecutrix 'K' and R. Prabhu in their own handwriting.
SC No.19/13. Page 11 of 3414. PW2 is Sh. S.R. Balaji, a school friend of accused R. Prabhu. He deposed that one day about two years ago, accused R. Prabhu solemnized marriage with 'K' at Hindu Maha Sabha, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, in his presence. He had signed the marriage certificate of the accused as a witness. He identified his signature at point A on the marriage certificate Ex.PW2/A and also identified the photograph of R. Prabhu at point X and that of 'K' at point 'Y' on the same. He deposed that he had submitted photocopy of his driving licence as proof of his identity to the temple authority which he proved from court record as Ex.PW2/B. According to him, their school friends namely Shalini, Mahesh, Sapna, Kartik etc. were also present at the time of marriage. In the cross examination, he deposed that the prosecutrix 'K' was a girlfriend of R. Prabhu and he knew her for about one year before the marriage. According to him, both the accused as well as the prosecutrix had called him on phone and invited him to the marriage. He deposed that it appeared that the marriage was being solemnized with free will and wish of both the parties and none of them was under any pressure or threat. Nobody from the family of 'K' attended the marriage but her friends were present during the marriage function.
15. As already noted herein-above, accused R. Prabhu besides examining himself as DW3 has also examined seven more witnesses in his defence. I feel it necessary to state here what the defence witnesses had to say.
16. DW1 Ms. Shalini Bhatat stated that accused R. Prabhu SC No.19/13. Page 12 of 34 was the classmate of her brother and she knew him for the last 15-20 years. She further deposed that in the month of September, 2009, her brother told her that the accused has a love affair with a girl named 'K'. She received a phone call from accused R. Prabhu on 01.2.2010 saying that he is going to solemnize marriage with the girl 'K' on the subsequent day and the marriage has been fixed in a hasty manner on account of pressure of 'K'. At the request of the accused, she alongwith her brother reached the marriage venue i.e. Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, on 02.2.2010 where they found accused, prosecutrix 'K', 7 or 8 friends of the accused R. Prabhu and two girls from the side of 'K' present. According to her, 'K' seemed to be in a very happy and excited mood and a proper marriage was solemnized between her and the accused by Pujari of the temple. She deposed that the couple had taken Feras around the sacred fire and after the marriage, they all took tea together and thereafter she left. She further deposed that 'K' had taken out her Mangalsutra and kept the same in her bag and also wiped out the vermilion on her forehead saying that she has not disclosed the marriage in her family. She further deposed that after about one month, she again met 'K' in a restaurant in Connaught Place, when 'K' told her that she is worried about the future of accused R. Prabhu as he does not have a stable job. In the cross examination, she denied that the marriage between accused and 'K' was not with her consent or that she had been forced to marry the accused.
17. DW2 Sh. Pramod Kumar Bhagat deposed that he had met the prosecutrix 'K' for the first time in the month of October or November, 2008 in a restaurant in Connaught Place. On that day, SC No.19/13. Page 13 of 34 he alongwith his wife had gone to Connaught Place and they met 'K' as well as accused R. Prabhu. He deposed that the accused and the prosecutrix 'K' were discussing about their marriage plan. 'K' was telling that her parents are not agreeable to the said marriage. He further deposed that one day in the year 2009, he alongwith his wife and brother-in-law had gone to attend marriage at Naraina where he saw 'K' for the second time. 'K' had come there alongwith accused R. Prabhu. In the cross examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him.
18. DW4 Ms. Roma deposed that she knew accused R. Prabhu as he used to work with her brother-in-law Wilson Loyall. She got married to Wilson's brother Samson in the year 2002. She further deposed that one day in the month of February, 2008, accused alongwith 'K' had come to their house to meet them and she saw her for the first time on that day and came to know that she and the accused had plan to marry each other. She further deposed that accused R. Prabhu told them that the parents of 'K' are against the marriage but 'K' had pressurized him to solemnize marriage with her. Thereafter they did not have much talk with R. Prabhu. In the cross examination, she deposed that she did not talk directly to 'K' and 'K' did not tell her that her parents are against the marriage and that she ('K') is pressurizing the accused to solemnize marriage with her. According to her, she came to know through her husband that 'K' and R. Prabhu planned to marry each other. She had also come to know from her husband in the year 2010 about the marriage of 'K' with R. Prabhu. Neither she nor her husband attended the marriage.
SC No.19/13. Page 14 of 3419. DW5 is Sh. Samson Loyall, the husband of DW4. He deposed that he knows accused R. Prabhu since the year 2003 through his younger brother Wilson Loyall, who is accused's friend. He also had developed good relations with accused R. Prabhu and was on visiting terms to him. He deposed that one day in the month of April or May, 2008, R. Prabhu alongith a girl named 'K' came to his house and had lunch with them. Thereafter R. Prabhu went to Singapore in connection with his job and they lost contact with each other. He further deposed that one day in the month of February, 2011, he received text message on his mobile phone from an unknown number "Prabhu Ne Mujhe ditch Kar diya aur Mein Uske Saath relation Nahi Rakhna Chahati" (Prabhu has ditched me and I do not want to keep any relation with him). He did not recollect the mobile number, from which he had received the said SMS and later on, he came to know from his brother that it was the mobile number of 'K'. Thereafter he had once met accused R. Prabhu and advised him not to continue relation with 'K' and to concentrate upon his future. In the cross examination, he deposed that he had not saved the aforesaid text message in his mobile phone and did not approach the police officials with the same after getting information about the arrest of accused in this case.
20. DW6 is Firoz Khan, who deposed that he knew both accused R. Prabhu and his mother Radha for the last about 14 - 15 years being their next door neighbour. He further deposed that he used to see a girl, aged 22 - 23 years, visiting the house of the accused once in 15 or 20 days but did not know her name.
SC No.19/13. Page 15 of 3421. DW7 is Sh. Mahesh Thangavellu, a school friend of accused R. Prabhu. He deposed that in the month of February, 2010, he came to know that accused is going to marry. Accused had introduced him to the girl with whom he was going to marry. One day in the year 2008, he alongwith R. Prabhu, Balaji and 'K' and her cousin Ravisha had spent the day in Amusement Park at Rohini. He further deposed that he had attended the marriage function of R. Prabhu and 'K' in Birla Temple, Mandir Marg, and after two or three days of the marriage, they had a small get together in a restaurant in Connaught Place in order to celebrate the marriage. Thereafter, R. Prabhu told him that they are not residing together due to some family reasons as parents of 'K' were not in favour of the said marriage. He deposed that as far as he knows, 'K' was not forced to marry R. Prabhu. He further deposed that later on, one day R. Prabhu told him that 'K's parents had filed a case against him.
22. DW8 is also a school friend of accused R. Prabhu. He deposed that he saw the girl 'K' for the first time in the year 2008 at Shivaji Stadium on the occasion of reunion of his school friends. She was standing alongwith one of her friend Balaji and remained present in the function for some time. She saw her for the second time in the marriage function of one of his friends named Nagrajan in the year 2010.
23. Accused has examined himself as DW3. His examination in chief is also very long spanning over seven pages and I find it not proper to reproduce the whole of it here. However, the gist of his testimony is that he started chatting with SC No.19/13. Page 16 of 34 prosecutrix 'K' on internet in December, 2007 and met her for the first time on 02.2.2008 in Connaught Place. Thereafter they used to meet regularly on Saturday which was off day for him. They had celebrated his birthday together on 14.4.2008 at McDonald Restaurant, Nehru Place, and that of 'K' on 13.7.2008 in a Mall at Rajouri Garden. They had a break-up on 08.9.2008 as the family members of 'K' had quarreled with her and were not in favour of their relationship. However, 'K' met him again on 10.9.2008 stating that she wants to continue her relations with him. Thereafter they kept on meeting each other on Saturdays and Sundays. They again celebrated the birthday of 'K' together on 13.7.2009 in the Mall at Rajouri Garden and he gave a mobile phone as birthday gift to her. The mobile phone was having no.9278007717. Thereafter 'K' expressed her desire to marry him and he started planning for marriage. He sold his motorcycle and borrowed some money from his mother to raise funds for the marriage. They fixed the date of marriage as 02.2.2010. However, they had got prepared all the affidavits etc. on 01.2.2010 which were to be submitted in the court for registration of marriage. They solemnized marriage in Hindu Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, on 02.2.2010 in presence of their friends and as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, they all went to McDonald Restaurant to celebrate the marriage. Thereafter, they continued to meet each other regularly. He had given another mobile no.9268537036 also to 'K'. The prosecutrix 'K' had not disclosed the factum of marriage to her parents. She disclosed about the marriage to his brother through a letter and also sent a copy of her letter to him through E-mail. On 09.9.2010, there was a conference call between him, 'K' and her brother Vineet wherein Vineet blamed him for the conduct of 'K' at SC No.19/13. Page 17 of 34 home and for disturbance in her studies. Vineet also asked him to come to their level as he was getting a salary of Rs.1 Lac per month and then to talk about marriage. Meanwhile, they continued to meet each other once in a fortnight. 'K's brother Vineet met him at Connaught Place in the first week of April, 2011, and told him that he is aware about 'K's marriage with him. Vineet requested him not to disclose the same to anybody and to delete all the photographs of 'K' from 'Orkut' and Facebook account. Upon insistence of Vineet, he handed over the original marriage certificate to him in the second week of April, 2011. They again celebrated his birthday together on 14.4.2011 at Select City Mall, Saket, on which date 'K' had purchased a gift for him from Arrow Showroom. Thereafter she started asking him when he would be in a position to earn Rs.50,000/- per month. They again celebrated her birthday together on 13.7.2011 at Nehru Place. He left for Singapore on 19.8.2011 and returned on 20.10.2011. He made calls to the brother and mother of 'K' but they did not respond. Her brother used to send text message to him that they would implicate him in a rape case. On 29.10.2011 he received call from Mr. Alok Gupta, the employer of 'K', who at the instance of 'K's parents asked him to divorce 'K' but he refused to do so. On 26.12.2011, he received call from his neighbour at Delhi that his mother had been taken to police station and on talking to the police official, he was told that 'K' has filed a complaint and he would have to come to Delhi. He was at Chennai at that time, employed as Branch Manager in Superloo Company. Accordingly, he returned to Delhi, surrendered in the police station and was taken into custody.
SC No.19/13. Page 18 of 3424. In the cross examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. APP.
25. The case of the prosecution, as already noted herein- above, is that the accused, after befriending the prosecutrix, raped her at his house on 21.1.2010 after making her unconscious by administering some stupefying substance mixed in cold drink to her and then told her that he has photographed and videographed the whole act. He showed the photographs as well as video film to her in his mobile phone. The accused then started telling her to marry him or otherwise, he would reveal her obscene photographs and videos to her parents and would upload the same on the internet. The accused ultimately forced her to marry him on 02.2.2010 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The accused then forced her to have sexual intercourse with him on two more occasions and the prosecutrix was not in a position to do anything on account of constant threats of the accused. The accused had again called her to his house on 10.11.2011 where he again committed forcible sexual intercourse with her to the knowledge of his parents and a person named Anna. Thereafter accused and his father asked that person also to rape her. Accused's mother also threatened her that she should obey these people or otherwise, she would be killed. Thereafter that person referred to as Anna also raped her.
26. One thing is evident from the evidence led by the prosecution that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused had been solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir at Mandir Marg, New Delhi, in presence of their friends and according to SC No.19/13. Page 19 of 34 Hindu rites and ceremonies. The prosecutrix has stated herself in the examination in chief that she and the accused had taken rounds around the scared fire in the temple whereas the Pandit was chanting mantras. She admitted in her cross examination that the accused had put a Mangalsutra around her neck at the time of marriage and all the ceremonies requisite for a valid Hindu marriage were performed. A marriage certificate has been duly issued by the temple authority, which has been proved by PW2 as Ex.PW2/A. PW4, Sangathan Mantri of the temple proved the documents related to the marriage which have already been mentioned herein-above. These documents include the copies of affidavits of prosecutrix 'K' and accused R. Prabhu (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B), marriage photograph of the couple (Ex.PW4/A), copy of Election I. Card of R. Prabhu and photocopy of his date of birth certificate (Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C), copy of driving licence and matriculation certificate of 'K' (Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E), photocopies of the identity documents of the witnesses to the marriage namely S.R. Balaji, C.M. Kartik, Rajendera Mandal and Vijay Vishwakarma (Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G & Ex.PW4/H). He also proved the statement of prosecutrix 'K' and accused R. Prabhu (Ex.PW4/I and Ex.PW4/J) which had been recorded before performing their marriage and which are in their own handwriting.
27. The affidavits of the prosecutrix and the accused R. Prabhu (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B) had been attested by PW3, the Notary Public on 01.2.2010. He also proved the relevant page of his register as Ex.PW3/C which contains the entries regarding these two affidavits and also bears the photographs of both of them. DW1 & DW7 had also attended the said marriage function.
SC No.19/13. Page 20 of 3428. Therefore, it is very much manifest that the prosecutrix and the accused had approached PW3 with their respective affidavits on 01.2.2010, which they submitted in the aforesaid temple on 02.2.2010 alongwith their photographs, identity documents and date of birth proof whereupon their marriage was solemnized.
29. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the marriage was not solemnized with the consent of the prosecutrix and she was forced to enter the wedlock with the accused.
30. The prosecutrix has admitted that the photographs Ex.PW12/D86, Ex.PW12/D87 and Ex.PW12/D87 were taken during the marriage function dated 02.2.2010. In these photographs, both the accused as well as the prosecutrix are seen wearing flower garlands and having a cheerful smile on their face. In photograph Ex.PW12/D86, accused in seen applying vermilion on the forehead of the prosecutrix. She has also admitted in her cross examination that the photographs Ex.PW12/D31 to Ex.PW12/D58 were taken after the marriage ceremony dated 02.2.2010. In some of these photographs, she is seen alone and in some, she is seen alongwith accused. However, in all the photographs, she seems to be in a cheerful and happy mood. She wears a pleasant smile in most of these photographs. Though the prosecutrix has stated in her cross examination that she had to put on a smiling face in these photographs by force, yet it does not appear to be so. The facial expression of the prosecutrix in these photographs does not give any slightest indication that the smile she is sporting is fake and SC No.19/13. Page 21 of 34 not genuine. Even a cursory look at these photographs reveals that she is genuinely in a happy and cheerful mood and is not under any kind of force or pressure. Moreover, the prosecution witness PW2 has also deposed that the marriage was performed with consent of 'K' and she was not under any kind of pressure or threat. From the testimony of PW3 & PW4 also it is evident that the decision for marriage was not taken by the accused abruptly on 02.2.2010, as deposed by the prosecutrix, but they had visited the Notary Public alongwith their affidavits on 01.2.2010 to get the same attested.
31. Thus I find ample evidence on record to show that the marriage between the accused R. Prabhu and prosecutrix 'K' was performed as per her wish and consent and she was not under any kind of force or threat to solemnize marriage with him.
32. However, the prosecutrix has consistently stated in each of her statements including her complaint to the police that the accused had raped her during her unconscious in his house on 21.1.2010 and then again at his house on 10.11.2011, on which date another person named Anna had also raped her on the exhortion of accused R. Prabhu and to the knowledge of his parents.
33. In her complaint to the police Ex.PW12/A, the prosecutrix has described the rape incident dated 21.1.2010 as under :
"5. Sir, on 20-01-2010 he called me & told that 21-01-2010 was his birthday & that he had organized SC No.19/13. Page 22 of 34 a small get together for his friends & that I must also attend the same to which first of all I denied but later on due to his persistence I accepted the proposal to attend the party. He told his address as R.Z.M-16-A, Tamil Enclave, M-Block, Near Vijay Enclave, Dabri, Palam Road, New Delhi. On the said day he directed me on phone the way to his house and when I reached there by Metro & metro feeder etc. I got surprised & shocked by seeing that none of our friends were present there and when I asked him about whereabouts of other people he replied that they were about to come & we had to wait for them. In the said house I climbed stairs, according to his directions & reached on 1st floor where there was a small room, bathroom in front & a small kitchen & a Varandah. I asked as to where his parents were & he replied that his father had taken his mother to a doctor as she was not feeling well. Thereafter he offered me some chips & cold drinks and while I was drinking the said cold drink (Coca Cola) I felt some drowsiness & lost consciousness. Thereafter I regained my consciousness after some time and felt lot of pain in my lower abdomen & I found that there was not even a single cloth on my body & blood was coming out from my vagina which was scattered all around the bed sheet. On seeing such a situation of myself I was shocked, alarmed, scared & was under a trauma. Then I speedily wore my clothes and asked him what he had done to me to which he replied smilingly that SC No.19/13. Page 23 of 34 he had sexual intercourse with me and had also made obscene videos and pictures & thereafter he threatened me that if I would tell anyone about this incident he would publish the said obscene videos and pictures on the internet & he further threatened that he would kill me if I will not follow his instructions. I got enraged & I furiously slapped him & while doing so I fell down I cried for several minutes. I felt that my world had fallen apart and I was doomed and that I should jump from the floor & kill myself. Slowly I gathered some courage, got down the stairs & after walking for some time got an auto for Shivaji Stadium which is near my institute & I returned back to my institute where I cleaned & washed myself so that the said incident is not revealed to my parents as I am very scared of my Dad. And after that I returned back to my home. For the entire day I was dazed & on repeated queries by my mother I just told that I was not feeling well."
34. She has described the incident dated 10.11.2011 in the said complaint as under :
"On 10.11.2011 I went to his house where, he, his mother, his father and the person wearing white colour Dhoti & Kurta were present there. When I entered the house on seeing me his mother, his father and the other person who was present there went away from the room towards the verandah and after SC No.19/13. Page 24 of 34 that he again forcibly had sexual intercourse with me and thereafter he called his father and the other abovesaid person. After coming to the room his father told the abovesaid person that I belong to a rich family and that I was in full control of his son and that they already had made good amount of money by blackmailing me and my family and that more money could be made. R. Prabhu and his father told that Dhoti Kurta clad, black complexioned person that he should also rape me & then use me for blackmailing purposes. On hearing this, I got hysterical & started weeping loudly. Hearing the commutation R. Prabhu's mother also came in & tried to pacify me by threatening that I should do as those people suggested or I would be killed by them. After saying this she left the place. Thereafter R. Prabhu held both my hands & that Dhoti clad person raped me. All this while R. Prabhu's father kept on watching. After the rape, said dhoti clad person who was being referred to as 'Anna' by everybody demanded whisky and then R. Prabhu's father left the place to get whisky. Thereafter both R. Prabhu and the abovesaid person had oral sex with me and thereafter said 'Anna' further stated that they should take me to Chennai as I could earn a lot of money for them. Because of such a grave physical assault I was nearly in a stage of unconsciousness and could not even stand on my feet. After about ½ hour I regained a little bit of consciousness and thereafter I begged them to please handover me the said videos SC No.19/13. Page 25 of 34 and pictures to which they refused outrightly and told me to leave that place. Thereafter being totally distraught and shaken mentally and physically I left their place in a dazed condition as I had no other option. I reached home and due to the impending marriage of my brother I chose to be silent sufferer."
35. In her examination in chief, she has mentioned the incident dated 21.1.2010 in the following words :
"On 20.1.2010, the accused called me and invited me to his birthday party which was to take place on 21.1.2010 at his residence. He requested me to attend the birthday party and said that all other friends are also attending the same. He gave me the address of his residence i.e. RZ-M 16A, M Block, Tamilian Enclave, Near Vijay Enclave, Dabri, New Delhi and also explained to me the route leading to his house. Initially I refused the invitation but on his pursuation, I accepted the invitation.
Accordingly on 21.1.2010, after finishing my classes at center, I left for the residence of the accused and reached there at about 2.15 pm. I climbed up the stairs and reached the first floor of the house where the accused stayed but I found that there was nobody present on the first floor except the accused himself. I was shocked. I asked the accused as to where the all other friends are and he replied that they might be reaching in short while. He also told SC No.19/13. Page 26 of 34 me that his father has taken his mother to hospital for treatment as his mother was not feeling well. I got suspicious about the intentions of the accused and started leaving his place. However, he stopped me and said that it is intense heat outside and so I should take atleast some cold drink and then leave. The accused offered me a black colour cold drink in a glass and I consumed the same. After taking the cold drink, I felt drowsiness and became unconscious. I regained consciousness after about one hour and saw myself in totally nude condition lying on the bed in the room. The accused was standing at the door of the room. I was also feeling severe pain in my abdomen. I became intensely alarmed and shocked at my condition. My private part was intensely bleeding and paining. I immediately got up and put on my clothes. I asked him what he had done to me and he replied that he has committed sexual intercourse with me. He also told me that he has also photographed and videographed the whole act. He showed to me the photographs and video film from his mobile phone. I had seen the sexual act committed by the accused with me in those photographs and video film. I felt intense anger and did not know what to do. I slapped the accused. The accused threatened me that if I disclosed the incident to anybody, he would upload the aforesaid photographs and the video film on the internet and would also paste the photographs outside the center, in which I was studying and would defame SC No.19/13. Page 27 of 34 me. He also told me that whenever he would call me to any place, I would have to oblige him. I bitterly wept before the accused and requested him to handover the photographs to me and to destroy the photographs and the video film from his mobile phone but he did not accede to my request. He told me to leave that place immediately or otherwise it would not be good for me. I had no option but to leave that place and came directly to my center where I dressed up properly and then reached home. On account of fear and disgust, I did not disclose the incident to anybody at home. My mother asked me why I was not in a cheerful mood and I told her that I am not feeling well. I spent time alone in my room thinking about what had befallen upon me."
36. In the cross examination, she deposed that the accused had raped her for the first time on 21.1.2010 during her unconsciousness and had shown her the photographs and video film of the said act on the same day. She also deposed that the accused had been coming to meet her at her institute almost daily between 21.1.2010 and 01.2.2010. She deposed that she cannot say whether the accused used to wear condom etc. during rape act as she used to keep her eyes closed for the reason that she was not able to bear the trauma. At another place in the cross examination, she deposed that her clothes had got blood soaked during the rape incident dated 21.1.2010 but had to wear the same set of clothes even after the rape as she did not have extra set of clothes with her. The video film which the accused had shot SC No.19/13. Page 28 of 34 from the mobile phone showed both of them in sex act. She deposed that it seemed that the accused had already kept the mobile phone at some place in the room to shoot the film. On that day, she reached back home at 7.30 p.m. but did not disclose the incident to anybody at home on account of threat of the accused that he would expose the video film and her nude photographs. At another place in the cross examination, she deposed that on that day, the sun was shining bright when the accused had offered her cold drink. She deposed that the accused had taken 15 to 20 photographs and the video film was about 5 to 7 minutes duration.
37. She also stated the rape incident dated 10.11.2011 in her examination in chief as follows :
"The accused used to make call to us from various unknown numbers. One day he had made a call on the mobile phone of my brother. I picked up the phone. The accused asked me to meet him at his house on 10.11.2011. I had no option but to oblige him. Accordingly, I reached his house on 10.11.2011 at about 1 pm. The accused, his parents and another person were present in the house at that time. I was kept in a room. The parents and the other person went to the varandah. The accused came inside the room and again committed sexual intercourse with me against my consent. He told me that he has done the same for the last time and now he would handed over to me the photographs and the video CD. Thereafter the accused and his parents told the other person in SC No.19/13. Page 29 of 34 the house, whom they referred to as 'Anna' that they have already extorted huge amount from me and further asked him that he can also enjoy sex with me if he desires. Then that person i.e. Anna also committed sexual intercourse with me forcibly and the accused R. Prabhu had caught hold of my hands. Then Anna asked the father of R. Prabhu to get some whisky. The father of R. Prabhu went out to fetch whisky and in the mean while, accused R. Prabhu and Anna did oral sex with me forcibly. I was feeling intense pain in the whole body and I was not in a position to even walk. When father of R. Prabhu came back with whisky, that person Anna told them that they can take me to Chennai and make money from me. I felt terrorized and started weeping bitterly. The mother of accused R. Prabhu came to me and told me that if I continued weeping, they would cut me into pieces. I became very scared. I somehow mustered courage, got up and left for my home. Before leaving his house, I fell on the feet of the accused R. Prabhu and requested him to handover to me the photographs and the video film but he did not do so. There were many relatives present in our home when I reached home and, therefore, I did not reveal the incident to anybody. I behaved in such a manner that nobody suspected what I have gone through."
38. She has not been cross examined at all regarding the said incident and no suggestion has been put to her in this regard.
SC No.19/13. Page 30 of 3439. I find nothing in the cross examination of the prosecutrix which may indicate that these two rape incidents have been fabricated and had not taken place. The prosecutrix has described these two rape incidents in minute detail in her complaint to the police as well as in her examination in chief. She has also explained the purpose for which she had gone to the house of accused on these two dates. On 21.1.2010, the prosecutrix had gone there on the invitation of the accused to attend his birthday party. The invitation was only farce and an excuse to bring her home where accused first made her unconscious and then raped her. He also photographed and videographed the rape act by his mobile phone. On 10.11.2011, she had visited the house of the accused pursuant to his call as he was hell bent upon to disturb the marriage of her brother scheduled on 21.11.2011. On reaching his house, the accused first raped her himself and then got her raped by another person referred to as Anna. The accused had also told her that he would handover her photographs and the video CD on that day but did not do so.
40. The version of the prosecutrix is sufficiently corroborated by her brother PW5. I do not see any contradiction between the testimonies of these two material witnesses of the prosecution. There is nothing in the cross examination of these two witnesses to disbelieve their testimony.
41. In my opinion, the aforesaid two rape incidents cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that the prosecutrix has SC No.19/13. Page 31 of 34 solemnized marriage with the accused on 02.2.2010 whereas it is manifest from the record that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused on 21.1.2010 and again by him as well as his associate named Anna on 10.11.2011. It appears that the prosecutrix consented to marry the accused only because of the rape incident dated 21.1.2010 and therefore it cannot be taken that the marriage dated 02.2.2010 between the prosecutrix and accused R. Prabhu nullifies the incident of rape. Even otherwise also, the marriage between a rape victim and the assailant subsequent to the incident of rape does not merit any consideration for the reason firstly that the offence of rape is not compoundable and secondly that the rape victim may have considered it convenient and appropriate to marry her assailant as it would not be easy for her to find a suitable match in the society where the rape victim too is looked down upon.
42. In the instant case, the marriage between prosecutrix and accused R. Prabhu too appears to be only an eyewash. They never resided as husband and wife thereafter. They did not fulfill any matrimonial obligations towards each other. Thus it is evident that marriage was only for namesake and the accused only intended to keep the prosecutrix under his control. He was always brutal and barbaric towards her and never considered her as his wife. Thus, in my opinion, the marriage between prosecutrix and the accused should not come in the way of holding the accused guilty.
43. It is evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix that after the marriage dated 02.2.2010 also, accused used to compel SC No.19/13. Page 32 of 34 her to meet him and to satisfy his lust by issuing threats to her that how can she forget that he is in possession of her photographs and video clips of the sex act. The prosecutrix used to remain depressed at home and was not in a position to express her plight to the family members. She was neither in a position to disobey or ignore the calls of the accused nor in a position to convey her sufferings to her parents. The accused continued to take advantage of the precarious situation in which the prosecutrix was placed. He used to visit her office and extort major portion of her salary every month. It appears that somehow the prosecutrix, being fed up with the blackmailing tactics of the accused, mustered courage and narrated her tale as woes of her brother (PW15) who met the accused and tried to prevail upon him to stop harassing his sister and also paid him Rs.50,000/- as per his demand.
44. It is further manifest that the accused had made up his mind not to let the prosecutrix live peacefully. He found an opportunity when he came to know that the prosecutrix's brother PW15 is going to be married on 21.11.2011. He called the prosecutrix and asked her to meet him at his residence on 10.11.2011. The prosecutrix had no option but to oblige him as her obscene photographs and videos were with the accused and she was concerned about her honour and dignity. The accused had promised her that he would return the photographs and video CD to her and it is with this hope that she reached the house of the accused on the aforesaid date. She was unaware about what fate had in store for her. On reaching there, the accused first had forcible sexual intercourse with her and then at his instance, she SC No.19/13. Page 33 of 34 was raped by a person referred to as Anna who was present in the house of accused at that time. All this happened within the knowledge of accused's parents as they were present in the house at that time and accused R. Prabhu's mother i.e. accused Radha had told her that if she continued weeping, they would cut her into pieces.
45. As already noted herein-above, I find nothing on record which shows or suggests even remotely that the prosecutrix has deposed falsely regarding the rape incidents dated 21.1.2010 and 10.11.2011. Her testimony in this regard appears to be credible, trustworthy and inspiring confidence. Her version is corroborated by the testimony of her brother PW15. The deposition of prosecutrix and her brother is patently free of embellishments or prevarications. Their testimony is consistent with their previous statements and nothing contrary has come in their cross examination.
46. Thus the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, both the accused are hereby convicted for the offence of abetment to rape punishable u/s.376/109 IPC read with section 34 IPC regarding the incident dated 10.11.2011. Both the accused are also convicted of the offence u/s.506/34 IPC. Accused R. Prabhu is further convicted for the offence of rape u/s.376 IPC regarding the incident dated 21.1.2010.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 18.10.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.19/13. Page 34 of 34