Delhi District Court
State vs Puneet Batra & Others -:: Page 1 Of 15 ::- on 10 August, 2015
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 13/2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
State
versus
1. Mr.Puneet Batra,
Son of Mr. Deepak Batra,
Resident of G/28/75, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Arjun Singh,
Son of Mr. Ajay Singh,
Resident of A-1/19, Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi.
3. Mr. Sanveer Sharma,
Son of Mr. Mohan Singh,
Resident of J/26A, Part-1, Street No.34, Chankya Place,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
4. Mr. Rohit Joshi,
Son of Mr. Uday Kumar Joshi
Resident of 3/1A II nd Floor, Prem Nagar,
Opposite Metro Pillar Number -531, Janak Puri, Delhi.
Permanent Address Super Aulto Sand Subhash Chowk,
Hazipur Vaishali, Bihar.
First Information Report Number : 733/13
Police Station: Rajouri Garden
Under sections 354, 376 D, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden
Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 1 of 15 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 16.01.2014
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal :13.02.2014.
Arguments concluded on : 10.08.2015.
Date of judgment : 10.08.2015.
Appearances: Ms.Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State on leave.
Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Substitute Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
All the accused persons are on bail.
Mr.Dev Dutt Sharma, proxy counsel for Ms.Sonia Arora,
counsel for accused Mr.Puneet Batra.
Mr.Manoj Mittal, counsel for accused Mr.Arjun Singh.
Mr.N.P.Vaish, counsel for accused Mr.Sanveer Sharma.
Mr.Pujya Kumar Singh, counsel for accused Mr.Rohit
Joshi.
Prosecutrix is present with her counsel, Mr.Mahesh Patel.
IO SI Sumitra Sharma is present.
Ms.Shubra Mehndiratta, counsel for Delhi Commission
for Women.
***********************************************************
JUDGMENT
"Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there."...........Kurt Cobain ***********************************************************
1.Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi, all the accused persons have been charge sheeted by Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi for the offences under sections 354, 376D, 506 and Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 2 of 15 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 08.11.2013 at about 7.00-8.00 pm at 'A' address (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix) within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajouri Garden, all the accused persons Puneet Batra, Arjun Singh, Sanveer Sharma and Rohit Joshi committed house tresspass by entering into the house of the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity) with intent to commit an offence of rape upon prosecutrix, which is punishable with imprisonment for life; all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, they all committed rape upon the prosecutrix and thereafter threatened her to kill her husband, if she disclosed about the incident to anyone; on 23.11.2013 at about 9.30pm at 'A' address (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix), all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed house tresspass by entering into the house of the prosecutrix having made preparation for causing hurt to prosecutrix and all the accused persons outraged her modesty by pressing the breast of the prosecutrix and by removing her clothes which she was wearing and also caused simple hurt to the prosecutrix.
2.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.01.2014 and after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for 30.01.2014.
Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 3 of 15 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
3.After hearing arguments, vide order dated 02.06.2015, charge for offence under sections 450/376D/506/452/354/354B and 34 of the IPC was framed against all the accused Puneet Batra, Arjun Singh, Sanveer Sharma and Rohit Joshi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.
5.All the safeguards as per the directions of the hon'ble Delhi High Court and hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6.The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that after her marriage, she has been living at 'A' address for the last about 4 ½ years. She is the owner of the ground floor. Her husband, her son and she reside at ground floor. Four boys were residing on the first floor. On 08.11.2013 at about 7.00 - 8.00 p.m, the four boys who were residing on the first floor, had misbehaved with her (badatmiji ki) in her house. By 'badatmiji', she means that accused persons touched her in appropriately and they had attempted to rape her. They could not rape her as her husband reached Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 4 of 15 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
home and on seeing him, the four boys had run away. She cannot identify those four boys as she did not know them. She cannot identify them today if they are shown to her. Her husband and she went to Police Station Rajouri Garden to make the complaint. The complaint (Ex.PW1/A) was written by the police and she was made to sign on the same. There were some cuttings in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) on which she had initialed. She was taken to the doctor at DDU hospital where she was medically examined. Her gynecological examination was also conducted vide MLC (Ex.PW1/B). She did not remember whether or not she had put her thumb impressions on the MLC. She has seen the four accused persons through the screen and she deposed that the four persons present in the Court are not the culprits. The prosecutrix has not identified the accused persons through the screen. All the accused persons present in the Court today have not committed any offence against her and they are innocent. She did not want to say anything else.
7.As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
8.In her cross examination by the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for State, the prosecutrix has admitted that she cannot say since how long the four boys were living as a tenant on the first floor and she cannot say whether it was 2 years, 5 years or 10 years. They may have been residing on the first floor prior to her marriage and her staying with her husband on the ground floor. She became the owner of the ground floor in February, 2012 after her marriage on 05.10.2011. She did not know who was the Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 5 of 15 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
landlord of the first floor or the property dealer for the same. She did not know who was collecting the rent for the first floor. Those four boys have vacated the first floor but she did not know when they had vacated the same. Now, a family is residing on the first floor on rent but she did not know who had given first floor to them. She did not know who is the owner of the floors above the ground floor. Her parents had gifted the ground floor to her after her marriage. She has denied the suggestion that all the four accused persons who are present in the Court today were the tenants of the first floor on the date of incident. She voluntarily stated that she has never seen the four accused persons prior to seeing them in the Court today. She further stated that on 08.11.2013 she was using the mobile phone number 9560814055 and she is still using it. She denied the suggestion that she has sent SMS from her mobile number 9560814055 to mobile phone of accused Mr.Puneet Batra i.e. 8587996311. She has denied that there is criminal case lodged on 24.11.2013 in Police Station Rajouri Garden against her husband by Mr.Puneet Batra who was a tenant on the first floor. On 23.11.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., the same four boys had again entered into her house misbehaved with her (ched-chad aur badatmiji ki). She has denied that the four accused persons who are present in the Court today are the same four boys who had misbehaved with her on 23.11.2013. She did not know the number of times her statement was recorded by the police. She has denied that the police had recorded her statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) on 24.11.2013 and it was in presence of all the four accused persons. The statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. dated 24.11.2013 of the prosecutrix (Mark A) has been Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 6 of 15 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
shown to her and after she has read the same, she has been further cross examined. She has deposed that she has not made the statement to the police as elaborated in the statement (Mark A) shown to her. She has admitted that she was produced by the police before the Court of Ms.Shunali Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who had recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/C). She voluntarily stated that she had stated before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as mentioned in Ex.PW1/C on the directions of the police. She further deposed that none of the accused persons who are present in the Court today have not committed any offence against her. The police officer who had told her to make the statement in the manner as mentioned in Ex.PW1/C was a man and she did not know his name. She has denied the suggestion that she had stated before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate voluntarily and truthfully. She has admitted that in the complaint (Ex. PW1/A) the names of Puneet Batra, Arjun Singh, Sanveer Sharma and Rohit Joshi are mentioned. She did not know how these names were written. She had not read the complaint before signing it. She cannot say whether the names were written prior to or after her signing the complaint. She was told by the police to sign on the cuttings and thereafter she had put her initials at points B to J in the complaint (Ex. PW1/A). She has denied that the complaint was dictated by her to the police and she had read the same before signing it. She has denied that she has deliberately denying the complainant (Ex.PW1/A) as she has settled the matter with the accused persons. She admitted that she had shown the place of occurrence to the police and the site plan (Ex.PW1/D) was prepared at her instance. She has denied that all the four accused persons Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 7 of 15 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
were arrested in her presence. She has admitted that all the arrest memos (Mark A to D) bear her name but none of the arrest memos are signed by her. She has admit that all the personal search memos (Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/F) bear her name and her signatures. She cannot say whether the thumb impressions at point A and B in the MLC (Ex. PW1/B) are her thumb impressions as she did not remember whether or not she had put my thumb impressions on the same. She has admitted that the names of the culprits are mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/C). She voluntarily stated that she did not know the names of the culprits, she had not told the police regarding the same. She has admitted that the role of each of the culprit is defined in the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW1/C). She voluntarily stated that the contents of the complaint (Ex.PW1/A) were not told by her to the police as she was very upset and perplexed and she had only signed on the same. She has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons had trespassed in her house on 08.11.2013 at about 7.00
-8.00 p.m, gang raped her and threatened her. She has denied the suggestion that on 23.11.2013 at about 9.30p.m., all the accused persons had trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty and had caused hurt to her. She has denied the suggestion that as the accused persons have lodged a criminal case against her husband, she has settled this case with them in order to save her husband. She has denied that she has been won over by the accused persons. She has denied that under the pressure of the accused persons, she has deliberately not identified them nor assigned any criminal role to them.
Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 8 of 15 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
9.The prosecutrix has also been cross examined by all the accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi. In her cross examination by the accused persons, she has admitted that all the accused persons had not trespassed in her house on 08.11.2013 at about 7.00 -8.00 p.m, nor gang raped her nor threatened her. She has admitted that on 23.11.2013 at about 9.30 -p.m none of the accused persons had trespassed into her house nor outraged her modesty nor caused hurt to her. She admitted that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi have not committed any offence. She has admitted that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi havenot raped her. She has admitted that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi have not committed any offence against her. She has again said that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi are innocent and they may be acquitted.
10.The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being gang raped and threatened by all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi nor that they tresspassed into her house, outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her. She has deposed that all the accused persons have not committed any offence against her and have not deposed anything incriminating against them. She has deposed that all the accused persons are innocent and has Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code. State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 9 of 15 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
also prayed that they may be acquitted.
11.In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to all the accused and has not deposed anything incriminating against them, the prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record the testimonies of other witnesses, who are formal or official in nature. The precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
12.The statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of all the accused persons Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi, are dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against them when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
13.I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14.In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 10 of
15 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable and no conviction can be based on the evidence of the prosecutrix as she has retracted from her earlier statement. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
15.Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16.In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
17.If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness-prosecutrix was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 11 of
15 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
18.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi has committed gang rape upon prosecutrix, threatened her, tresspassed into her house, outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her.
19.Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that all the accused are innocent and have not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
20.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi are guilty of the charged offence under sections 450, 376D, 506, 452, 354, 354B, 323 and 34 of the IPC. There is no material on record to show that all accused persons Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi had committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix threatened her, trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her.
Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 12 of
15 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
21.From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence against all accused persons Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi that had committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix threatened her, trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. She has categorically deposed that all the accused persons have not committed any offence and have not raped her.
22.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against all the accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr.Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi for the offences under sections 450, 376D, 506, 452, 354, 354B, 323 and 34 of the IPC.
23.Consequently, all accused persons namely Mr. Puneet Batra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Sanveer Sharma and Mr. Rohit Joshi are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences under sections 450, 376D, 506, 452, 354, 354B, 323 and 34 of the IPC.
24.Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
25.Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 13 of
15 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
appeal.
26.It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.
27.Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
28.One copy of the judgment be given to the Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
29.After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 10th day August, 2015. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 14 of
15 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
*********************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 13 of 2014 Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0030472014.
FIR No. 733/2013 Police Station Rajouri Garden Under sections 354, 376D, 506 and 34 the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Puneet Batra & others -:: Page 15 of
15 ::-