Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons she admitted that sister of all the three accused persons made a case of rape against her husband and her husband has already been convicted in that day and now her husband is in jail. In the rape case, the sister of accused persons Asha Rani's statement was recorded at Gurgaon Distt. Court on 19.2.2005. She have three children, two female aged about 18 and 16 years and one male child aged about 5 years and except her three children no one was residing with her, in her flat of Munirka Village. The said flat was owned by her husband. She is having no servant in her said flat nor she kept any servant for part time. She is GIC Agent and doing this job since last about 5-6 years. Sometime her husband used to provide help in the said job. She do not have any own office for GIC Agent but headquarter of GIC is situated in Laxman House Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. She had a car make Maruti Zen and its no. is DL2CJ- 6215. She have no single client in Gurgaon City. She saw Asha the sister of all the three accused on 13.10.2004 when she appeared in District Court Gurgaon for recording her statement. But she did not know her. She met first time with accused Anil, his mother Smt. Rampyari and his sister on 2.10.2003 when they gave her the earnest money/bayana of her flat situated in Shalimar Bagh and said LIG flat is in her name. They paid her Rs. One lac as earnest money of purchasing the said flat and a written agreement was executed between her and them. The receipt of Rs. One lac was got typed by the property dealer Ombir and same was signed by her but she have no photocopy of any document including agreement. It is denied that no dealing has ever executed between her and the accused family nor the accused have paid her a sum of Rs. One lack as earnest money. It is denied that she is running her interior decorator office in DLF Colony, Gurgaon and Asha sister of the accused persons was working with her. She used to change her mobile as received threat from Ombir and Ajay and she made a complaint in this respect in P.S. Sarai Rohilla. It is denied that her husband was also doing the property business with Rajender Jain. It is also denied that she used to talk on mobile to Rajender Jain and Mobin on several times and she offered them a sum of Rs. 7 lacs just to get Asha hostile in the rape case against her husband at Gurgaon Court. She admitted that it is in the knowledge of Veena Jain and Janinder Jain, about her huabsnd case as well as this present case. She also used to visit the jail to meet her husband once or twice in a week. After registration of rape case by Asha against her husband. She have never tried to meet the accused persons but the accused Ajay used to met her in Gurgaon court and asked for arrangement of Rs. 4 lacs and sometime Ombir used to be with him. She never made complaint to the court of Gurgaon. Her friend Veena Jain and her husband Janinder Jain are not known the Asha and accused persons. Ajay came to her house on the day of incident at about 7 pm. She talked to her for about 4-5 minutes from inside her house after opening the wooden gate but the iron gate with jali was closed at that time her children were present inside the house. She did not disclose regarding demanding of Rs. 4 lacs on 8.8.04 by accused Ajay from her to anyone. She engaged the TSR from both ways for a fare of Rs. 250/-. she came to Sarai Rohilla from her house by Liberty road and then Shastri Nagar Metro Railway Station. There are three shops in the house of accused persons bu t at that time those were closed. When she was reached at the house of the accused persons, accused Anil was standing outside the house, who took her inside the house and offered to sit in a drawing room and sat there. When she was sitting in the drawing room at that time Anil left from there and Smt. Ram Pyari entered in the drawing room and thereafter accused Ajay and Amit have also come in the drawing room. Four accused persons were seen by her in the house. There is one window in the drawing room which opens towards inside the house. The mother of accused persons was sitting with her on a Diwan and accused persons were sitting on chairs and on the cot. First Ajay left the drawing room for preparing tea and then he called h is mother Ram Pyari. She (PW4 Geeta) used to keep a sum of Rs. 4000/- to 5000/- in the house, for daily need expenses.

In view of the rival contention and the material on record, it is true that in case of rape evidence of prosecutrix must be given prudence consideration.

The Supreme court has observed in catena of judgment that in rape cases a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same is reliable and trustworthy.

In the case of Madho Ram and Anr. Vs. The State of UP, AIR 1973 SC 469, The Apex court has observed that " The only rule of law is the rule of prudence, namely the advisability of corroboration should be present in the mind of the judge or the jury, as the case may be. There is no rule of practice that there must in every case, be corroboration before the conviction can be allowed to stand."

Similarly in case State of Rajasthan Vs. Biram Lal (2005) 10 SCC 714, wherein it was observed that " if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and implicitly reliable, then a conviction can be recorded on that basis.

As regarding the evidence of victim PW4 Smt. Geeta she is a educated lady having kids. Her husband is behind the bar, in a case of rape of the sister of the accused persons. The accused Ajay Kumar is the bad character of the area. The victim had indeed require of money for case pending against her husband. She has enter into an agreement with the family member of the accused through Himgiri Property Dealer to the tune of Rs. One lakh was given as earnest money by the family of accused persons out of Rs. 7 lakhs has agreed to sale her property bearing No. BB-74C, located in Shalimar Bagh Delhi in favour of Ram Pyari. The Ram Pyari and her family members failed to pay remaining balance amount of the sale price so the earnest money stood forfeited. Out of animosity between the parties husband of Geeta involved in rape case with Asha sister of accused persons decided at Gurgaon wherein husband of the victim was convicted vide judgment, dated 24.5.05. The present accused persons certainly had taken the revenge of committing rape upon their sister. It is also admitted by victim Smt. Geeta and she had approached to the house of Ram Pyari, mother of the accused persons and paid Rs. 30000/- on 8.8.04 at about 7 pm and when she reached at the house of the accused persons at Shastri Nagar found malafide intention of the accused persons she tried to run away from there but she was pushed in a room along with all the three accused persons along with their mother. The accused Anil forcibly entered into the room give beatings and tried to commit Galat Kam. She tried to save herself but the accused Anil hold her hands, torn her cloths, shirt and Salwar and he started forcibly committed rape upon her to put of her cloths from her body she became naked then lying her on the Deewan and committed forcibly sexual intercourse and during commission of rape she tried to save herself. Thereafter accused Ajay forcibly committed rape upon her and was saying that he was taking revenge of his sister. Thereafter accused Anil committed forcibly rape upon her. The accused were abusing in filthy language and also taken out her wearing cloths from her body and tried to torn her cloths. The accused Ajay also scratched on her body with some sharp object to which she sustained scratch injuries on her thigh, hands, chest and abdomen and he also uttered her that she shows the injury to her husband and telling him that the accused persons have taken the revenge of allegation of rape upon their sister. Due to act of the accused persons her body become senseless and she also felt giddiness and then become unconscious and she remained lying in the said room till morning. In the cross examination on behalf of accused persons she admitted that sister of the accused persons made a case of rape against her husband and her husband has been convicted in the said case and he is in Jail. Therefore, the deposition of Asha, sister of the accused persons is much prior to the deposition of PW4 victim Geeta and the case against her husband was much earlier to the present one. Asha sister of the accused statement was recorded on 19.2.2005 and the present incident took place much prior i.e. 8th and 9th , August, 2004. The prosecutrix alone cannot go to the house of the accused persons to take revenge from the accused persons and their family members rather accused persons have allured her to come at their house by way of returning to the part payment of the earnest money. The accused Ajay had gone to her house at Munirika and asked her to give Rs. Four lakhs to withdraw the rape case which was lodged by his sister. She told that she did not have such a huge amount to which accused Ajay told her that she should meet his mother in this respect at his residence at B-1359, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. In cross examination on behalf of accused persons she denied each and every suggestion made by the defence counsel. The incident took place in the room belonging to the accused persons which has no window and ventilator and she raised alarm but as there is no window or ventilator in the room as such no useful purpose served for raising alarms for help. The said room is situated entirely deep in side the house there was no window or ventilator in that room. The question of help after noise heard by some neighbourer will not arose even through the voice have been heard by neighbourer and other family members. No neighbours or family members will not come to rescue her they are living in same vicinity. She correctly identified the accused persons as they are the real culprit who committed rape upon her..

The identification of the accused persons is not disputed at any occasion , they are well known to the victim vis a vis the accused persons also knew the victim.. Even through woman who has been raped would not forget the face of the person who had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Hence even in absence of identification parade, her evidence can be accepted.

Counsel for accused persons have also urged that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as prosecutrix wanted to take revenge for conviction of her husband on the deposition of Asha in a rape case. Vis a vis accused persons were also in a mood to take revenge through the prosecutrix from her and called her at their residence since the husband of Geeta has involved and confine in judicial custody in the rape case of their sister Asha, as such accused persons wanted to take revenge and have committed rape upon the prosecutrix Geeta. The accused Ajay made the scratches on the body , thigh, chest of the prosecutrix and also stated that he has taken the revenge of the rape of his sister Asha and told to the prosecutrix , to show the scratch injury to her husband. The testimony of prosecutrix have been corroborated with the medical and serological report. Non availability of any incriminating evidence from the place of occurrence is beyond control of the victim and the investigation necessary since the place of incident was house of the accused persons and there is every possibility to remove all incriminating evidence available at the spot within the sufficient period of time, as after incident police arrived at the spot which was found locked and there was a sufficient period of time in which incriminating evidence like the bed sheets, used condom etc can be removed or it may be possible that Investigating Officer may deliberately have not collected the evidence from the spot in connivance with the accused persons. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved.