Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined 24 witnesses. PW1 - HC Dharambir, PW2 - Constable Jas Ram Meena, PW3 - HC Suresh Kumar, PW4 - Dr. P. C. Prabhakar, Senior Medical Officer, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, PW5 - L/Constable Meenu, PW6 - Constable Praveen, PW7
- Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Incharge, Mortuary and MRD Department, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, New Delhi, PW8 - Smt. Sonia Manchanda, PW9 - prosecutrix, PW10 - Ms. Nazma Khatoon, PW11 - Dr. Parvinder Kaur, SR (Obs. & Gynae), Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, PW12 - Ms. Sunita Suman, Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW13 - SI Kuldeep, PW14 - Dr. Indermeet Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, PW15 - Dr. M. Das, CMO, SGM Hospital, PW16 - Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Dy. Director, DNA Finger Printing Unit, FSL Rohini, Delhi, PW17 - Constable Ashok Kumar, PW18 - Constable Hari Kumar, PW19 - SI Jaspal, PW20 - Sh. Deepak Wason, MM - 03, SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi, PW21 - Dr. 6 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri Manoj Dhingra, MO, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, New Delhi, PW22 - Constable Rakesh Kumar, PW23 - Dr. Bina, CMO, SGMH, Mangol Puri, Delhi and PW24 - HC Vijender.
11 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri PW6 - Constable Parveen, who deposed that on 03/08/2011, he was posted at Police Station Mangol Puri. On that day, he was on emergency duty alongwith SI Kuldeep Rana from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. At about 10:00 p.m. they were in the area of Police Station Mangol Puri for the investigation of other case and they received a telephone call from the Duty Officer that DD No. 89B was marked to SI Kuldeep Rana for further proceedings in respect of rape committed with the maid by the husband of the informer at D17, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. He alongwith SI Kuldeep Rana immediately reached at D17, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. They met prosecutrix (name withheld) and her land owner lady and accused Ashok there. SI Kuldeep Rana interrogated prosecutrix (name withheld) and recorded her statement wherein she alleged that accused Ashok committed rape with her. One lady Constable Meenu was called at the spot and thereafter he alongwith prosecutrix (name withheld) and lady Constable Meenu went to SGM Hospital on the directions of SI Kuldeep Rana for medical examination of prosecutrix where her medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, they returned back at the spot. Lady/Constable Meenu handed over MLC of prosecutrix to the IO and also handed over rape 12 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri exhibits, nine pullindas in sealed condition duly sealed with the seal of the SGM Hospital in an envelope to the IO alongwith the sample seal and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' and SI Kuldeep Rana put his signatures at point 'B'. SI Kuldeep Rana prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR and FIR No. 322/11 was got registered on the basis of above said statement of prosecutrix and rukka. He returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to SI Kuldeep Rana for further investigations. Thereafter, SI Kuldeep Rana arrested accused Ashok Kumar vide Ex PW6/A bearing his signatures at point 'A' and prosecutrix (name withheld) put her signatures at point 'B', accused Ashok Kumar put his signatures at point 'C' and IO SI Kuldeep Rana put his signatures at point 'D'. Personal search of the accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW6/B bearing his signatures at point 'A' and prosecutrix (name withheld) put her signatures at point 'B', accused Ashok Kumar put his signatures at point 'C' and IO SI Kuldeep Rana put his signatures at point 'D'. Thereafter, on the directions of SI Kuldeep Rana, he took accused Ashok Kumar to SGM Hospital for his medical examination. His medical examination was conducted and 13 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri thereafter he returned back at the spot alongwith accused Ashok Kumar and he handed over the copy of MLC to the IO and he also handed over two pullindas containing underwear and the blood sample of accused Ashok Kumar in sealed condition with the seal of SGM Hospital alongwith the sample seal to the IO, which were received by him at the Hospital. IO seized these pullindas and sample seal vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/C bearing his signatures at point 'A', accused Ashok put his signatures at point 'B' and IO put his signatures at point 'C'. Thereafter, they returned back to the Police Station and the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified the accused Ashok Kumar present in the Court.
PW12 - Ms. Sunita Suman, Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini, Delhi who proved the biological and serological reports Ex. PX6 (colly.) respectively signed by her at points 'A'.
PW13 SI Kuldeep, is the investigating officer (I.O.) who deposed that on 03/08/2011, he was posted at PS - Mangol Puri. On that day, at about 10:15 p.m. when he was at Paththar Market, Mangol Puri he received telephonic information from Duty Officer that at the house No. D17, Pushpanjali, Mangol Puri, a rape was committed on the maid by the husband of the informant. Thereafter, he alongwith, Constable Praveen reached at D17, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Victim/prosecutrix (name withheld), land lady Smt. Sonia and land lord accused Ashok Kumar met them there. Smt. Sonia informed them that 20 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri she made call to the Police and informed them that accused Ashok Kumar committed rape with her maid (name withheld). He (PW13) made call to the Duty Officer to send a lady Police Official at the spot. He made inquiries from the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) and she made allegations of rape against her land lord Ashok Kumar. He recorded her statement in detail Ex. PW9/A and prosecutrix (name withheld) put her signature at point 'A' and he also attested the same with his signature at point 'B'. Meanwhile lady Constable Meenu reached at the spot and thereafter, on his direction Lady Constable Meenu took the prosecutrix (name withheld) to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. Constable Parveen and Smt. Sonia has also accompanied them. After medical examination, they returned and Lady Constable Meenu handed over MLC of the prosecutrix (name withheld) to him. Lady Constable Meenu also handed over one parcel containing exhibits in respect of the prosecutrix in sealed condition with the seal of Hospital with sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point 'C'. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW13/A bearing his signature at point 'A' and he sent Constable Parveen with rukka for registration of the FIR. Prosecutrix (name withheld) 21 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri shown the place of incident to him and he prepared the site plan at her instance, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW9/B bearing his signature at point 'B'. He also seized one bed sheet from the bed at the place of incident and sealed the same in a plastic polythene with the seal of 'KR' and seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point 'C'. Meanwhile, Constable Parveen returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He interrogated accused Ashok Kumar and thereafter he was arrested vide arrest memo already exhibited as Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point 'D' and his personal search was taken vide already exhibited as Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at point 'D'. Thereafter, accused Ashok Kumar was sent to SGM Hospital for medical examination with Constable Parveen. He made inquiries from Smt. Sonia and recorded her statement. He also recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix (name withheld). Meanwhile, Constable Parveen came at the spot with accused Ashok Kumar after medical examination and he handed over MLC of accused Ashok Kumar to him. Constable Parveen also produced two pullindas containing the underwear and blood sample of accused Ashok Kumar in sealed condition with seal 22 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri of Hospital with sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW6/C bearing his signature at point 'C'. thereafter, he returned back to the PS alongwith Constable Parveen, accused Ashok Kumar, lady Constable Meenu and prosecutrix. He called the NGO official Nazma Khan at the PS and he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana. He recorded the statement of Constable Parveen. Meanwhile, Nazma Khan came at the PS and she made counselling with prosecutrix (name withheld). He also recorded the statement of Nazma Khan and Lady Constable Meenu. On 04/08/2011, he produced the accused Ashok Kumar before the Court and he was sent to JC. He also made application for recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix (name withheld) vide already exhibited as Ex. PX2 bearing his signature at point 'A'. After recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he made request for the copy of her statement vide his application already exhibited as Ex. PX4 bearing his signature at point 'A; and he received the copy of the statement. Thereafter, on the directions of the Court, prosecutrix (name withheld) was sent with the land lady Smt. Sonia. He handed over prosecutrix (name withheld) to Smt. Sonia vide Ex. PW13/B bearing his 23 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri signature at point 'A' and lady Constable Manju put her signature at point 'B' and prosecutrix (name withheld) put her signature at point 'C' and Smt. Sonia put her signature at point 'D'. During his investigation, he deposited the exhibits of this case to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide (RC No. 118/21/11) already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B bearing his signature at point 'B' and handed over receipt to MHC(M), which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/C bearing his signature at point 'A' and the case property was not tampered. He collected the biological and serological report from the FSL, Rohini and same are already exhibited as PX6 collectively. He recorded the statement of MHC(M). After completion of investigation, he submitted chargesheet against accused Ashok Kumar, who is present in the Court and correctly identified him. He also took the prosecutrix (name withheld) for her age determination and obtained the report. He also took the accused Ashok Kumar to the SGM Hospital and his blood sample was taken and the Doctor handed over two pullindas containing the blood sample of the accused Ashok Kumar in a sealed condition with sample seal to him and he seized the same. He deposited the same in the Malkhana. He again sent the exhibits of this case to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for DNA profiling through Constable Ashok. Thereafter, further 24 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri investigation was conducted by SI Jaspal. Accused Ashok Kumar is present in the Court and correctly identified him and deposed that he can identify the seized articles if shown to him. At this stage, Learned Addl. PP had requested that he reserves his right to get the case property/chadar identified from the witness after its return from FSL, Rohini where it has been sent for examination. He submitted that subject to this, the crossexamination of the witness may be permitted. During his (PW13) further examinationinchief recorded on 21/01/2013, recalled in terms of order dated 17/10/2012, PW13 - SI Kuldeep deposed that on 18/10/2012, an order dated 17/10/2012 passed by Dr. Kamini Lau, Learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi was received in the PS and as per the order, the ossification test of prosecutrix (name withheld) and DNA examination in the present case was required to be got conducted. On 19/10/2012, prosecutrix (name withheld) was called at PS. He alongwith Lady Constable Manju took her at SGM Hospital for her ossification test. Her ossification test was got conducted. On 21/10/2012, accused Ashok Manchanda, present in the Court (correctly identified) was called and he was taken at SGM Hospital for taking his blood sample for DNA examination. His blood sample was taken in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by 25 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri the Doctor and the sealed pullinda of his blood sample as was handed over by the concerned Doctor alongwith the sample seal was taken into Police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/C, bearing his signature at point 'A' and the same was deposited in the Malkhana. On 26/10/2012, sample seal of the Court of Dr. Kamini Lau, Learned ASJ was taken vide memo Ex. PW13/D, bearing his signature at point 'A'. On 30/10/2012, the exhibits were sent to FSL through Constable Ashok. Later on supplementary charge sheet regarding the investigation carried out in pursuant to the said order dated 17/10/2012 was filed by SI Jaspal.
9. In compliance of the order dated 08/01/2013, passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CRL. REV.P.629/2012 and Crl. MA 18714/2012, the evidence was led by the prosecution on the documents regarding which the admission was made by accused Ashok Kumar on 03/08/2012.
10. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the 37 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri prosecutrix was medically examined on 03/08/2011 at 11:50 p.m. and her MLC shows that she had bruises and scratches around her neck, chest and breast and some small abrasion on the lower limb. There is no injury on the female genetalia and vagina which is found healthy. Hymen is ruptured. There is no indication if the hymen had an old or recent rupture and it is not reflected in the MLC also. On 03/08/2011 at 11:50 p.m., when the prosecutrix is examined in the hospital there are bruises, abrasions and scratches and injury over her left lip and cheek observed by the Doctor PW4 Dr. P. C. Prabhakar. PW13 SI Kuldeep, IO does not find any injury over the person of the prosecutrix when he reaches the spot and records her statement. He does not refer to such injuries which are found on the face of the prosecutrix even in the proforma made which is forwarded to the doctor for examination of the prosecutrix. There is no reference to these injuries in the endorsement of the Rukka as he admits that he had not observed any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. PW8 Smt. Sonia claims that the clothes of prosecutrix (name withheld) were torn which she found her waiting outside the house. This fact is not reflected in her statement. SI Kuldeep states in his crossexamination that he had not mentioned in the 38 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri endorsement of Rukka that the clothes of the prosecutrix were torn or that she had injuries over her person. He had not mentioned in any of the proceedings that the clothes of the prosecutrix were in torn condition when he met the prosecutrix at the spot and recorded her statement. The FSL report also does not show that the clothes of the prosecutrix were in torn condition, nor does this fact appear in the evidence of the prosecutrix. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the injuries found by the Doctor upon the person of the prosecutrix were self suffered/inflicted when the prosecutrix remained in the company of Sonia in her car from the spot to the hospital or any time in between. Admittedly, there are no injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix despite the fact that her claim is that the accused had ferociously ravished her. Learned Counsel further submitted that the FSL report indicates that semen was detected on the two underwears sent to it for examination. One underwear is B1 and the other is Ex. C1b. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was wearing an underwear B1 which was seized during investigation. However, during the course of proceedings another underwear C1b rolled out of the bed sheet at the time of recording of the evidence of PW8 before the Court. There is no 39 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri seizure memo of this underwear and this underwear is also not shown to the prosecutrix during her evidence in court since it had come as a surprise to the prosecution. Both the underwears showing semen alongwith the bed sheet in the FSL report clearly indicate and establish the case of the defence that Sonia has manipulated the evidence on the case property after having sexual intercourse with the accused and planted it according to a well conceived plan. The seizure of the second underwear showing semen stains foils the play of Smt. Sonia who had planned to foist this evidence against the accused and it was the brain of a woman involved in serious/long drawn litigation with her husband/the accused over the property and money dispute. Learned Counsel further submitted that semen was also not detected upon the shirt, salwar, shemeez or the underwear of the prosecutrix. Even the strands of the pubic hair of the prosecutrix do not show the presence of semen in the FSL report. This fact clearly proves that the two micro slides of vaginal smear were the result of foisting/planting of evidence by Smt. Sonia on the person of the prosecutrix in a well planned manner to implicate her husband. Learned Counsel further submitted that a PCR call was made by PW8 which reached the spot at the first instance, much before the 40 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri police of PS - Mangol Puri came there and made inquiries upon the report/call made. The PCR officials examined prosecutrix (name withheld) and Sonia which fact appears in the testimony of Sonia and the prosecutrix. Even otherwise it is admitted case of the prosecution that the PCR was called at the spot by Smt. Sonia. However, SI Kuldeep claims ignorance of the PCR van having reached at the spot or making inquiries in the matter. No PCR official has been examined by the investigating agency. The inquiry made by the PCR officials, the conclusion drawn by them or the fate of the call made to them has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution. The defence witness DW3 was also examined on this account and his unshaken testimony proves that the PCR officials had reached the spot, made inquires and had closed the report/call being false. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix negating the fact of the alleged brutal rape. Hymen was found to be ruptured but there was no observation if it was an old or a recent rupture. Dr. Asha the gynecologist who had internally examined the prosecutrix has not been produced in the witness box by the prosecution and the witness produced, PW11 Dr. Parvinder Kaur could not say if the hymen rupture 41 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri was old or fresh. Therefore the defence has been seriously prejudiced by non production of the most important witness of the prosecution which could have clearly negated the story of rape more particularly in view of the fact that there is no mention of any injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix/labia majora which is first attacked when a sexual assault is committed upon a female. Even the nail clippings of the prosecutrix 'A1j' and 'A1k' did not indicate the presence of blood, semen etc. ruling out any resistance as alleged by the prosecutrix in her deposition, to the assault committed. Learned Counsel further submitted that the accused was also examined immediately after the occurrence at 4:15 a.m. on 04/08/2011 and no injury of any kind was seen or found on his person at the time of examination which again is a circumstance suggesting false implication of the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that the suspicious circumstances of the case requires corroboration from independent sources/public witnesses to the alleged sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. It is an admitted case that the house of the accused is situated in a congested residential locality. No hue and cry is raised by the prosecutrix to invite the attention of the neighbourers. No neighbour collects at the spot and the prosecutrix does not call for any help from 42 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri any one. The most important witness to the incident could have been the two sons of the accused and Sonia namely Prince and Sumit who were both present in the house. They have not been produced as witnesses in the case. IO claims that they were not present in the house. However Sonia asserts that both her sons were present in the house and inquiries were made from them by the Police. The prosecution has therefore withheld important evidence from the Court which favoured the accused and went against the prosecution. It should not be the aim of the prosecution to see that the prosecution of the accused ends with success but it has to see that the trial should result in delivering justice to the accused. The accused has also led the evidence of DW1, the tutor of the son of the accused and Smt. Sonia. This witness has categorically stated that Prince had not gone for tuition on 03/08/2011. The evidence of this witness remains firm, specific and undeterred during cross examination. He has also filed the admission/joining form of the Prince with his institution, which was called by the Addl. PP during the cross examination. This form bears the signatures of the son of the accused and Sonia on the said admission form. It is admitted case of the prosecution that prince used to take tuition from DW1 who pulls the 43 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri grassroots out of the testimony of Sonia by saying that Prince did not take class on 03/08/2011 and this fact was conveyed by DW1 to the police when he was joined in the investigation on the next day of the alleged occurrence. The evidence of this witness demolishes the case of Sonia that she had gone to fetch her son after his class with the DW1 and the incident took place when she had left the house for that purpose. Therefore, the conduct of the prosecutrix in not raising any alarm at the time of the incident or even thereafter, not showing any resistance at the time of alleged rape, no injury having been found on her private parts, no marks of resistance on the body of the accused or on his private parts to show force having been used by the accused, absence of semen on the cloth of the prosecutrix, the inquiry made by the PCR officials which has been withheld and no corroboration being sought to the version of the prosecutrix are enough to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix made against the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution heavy relies upon the DNA Test Ex. PW16/A which compared the alleles from the micro slides, underwear and bed sheet which were compared with the blood of the accused. This piece of evidence, is the result of plantation by wife of the accused namely Sonia 44 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri in collusion with the prosecutrix. DW3 has stated Sonia went alone with her maid/prosecutrix to the parlour at about 8:00/8:15 p.m. and she made a call to the police immediately after she came back with her to her residence. The story of PW Sonia that she had gone alone for dropping her son with the tutor is belied by the tutor himself who has appeared as DW1 before the Court. The evidence of an independent public witness DW1 and DW3 who is the relation of the accused and Sonia has remained unscathed in crossexamination and has proved the case of defence beyond all doubts. This part of evidence has to be seen in the light of the fact that both the sons of Sonia and accused were not examined by the investigating agency who could have unfolded and negated the story put forth by PW8 Sonia. Even the PCR officials who firstly reached the spot and examined the prosecutrix would have enlightened the Court on the facts of the matter but these witnesses have deliberately been withheld by the Investigating Agency and an adverse inference has to be raised against them. One would not loose sight of the fact that even the pubic hair of the prosecutrix did not show the presence of semen upon them, apart from the clothes she was wearing which again is suggestive of planting of the evidence. Learned Counsel further 45 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 03/08/2011 and the DNA examination was conducted on 30/12/2012 and PW16 admits in his crossexamination that the samples would degrade/break down when they age or become old and the condition for degrading could be the cold, heat or the moisture etc. Admittedly the samples remained with the MHC(M) from 27/11/2011 to 30/12/2012 and the conditions in the Malkhana are not conducive for storing of the samples, it being exposed to extreme heat, cold and moisture for more then a year and thus the results were prone to error. The DNA examination after an inordinate delay of about an year is of no assistance to the prosecution and has to be discarded from consideration. There is no subjective satisfaction of the analysis. The settled proposition in this regard is that the subjective satisfaction is necessary for analysis of the sample and the mechanised result is always open to suspicion. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix (name withheld) gave her age as 20 years in the FIR. Even before the MM while recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she describes her age as 20 years. The Ossification Test was carried out under orders of the Court and the report submitted in the court gives her age as between 1718 years. The 46 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri settled proposition of law is that a margin of 2 years on either side has to be given in the case of Ossification Test and judicial notice can be taken of the aforesaid fact. With that yard stick applied, the age of the prosecutrix would fall in the range of about 20 years. No effort is made by the Investigating Agency to take her School Certificate despite the fact that she had studied upto the VIIth Class. In the absence of any other evidence, except the Ossification Test, the age of the prosecutrix has to be determined as somewhere around 20 years and even her genital examination suggests that she is a fully grown up girl capable of understanding the nature of act and showing resistance to the assault committed upon her. However, she is a tool in the hands of Smt. Sonia who used her against the accused in a planned manner to achieve her illegal motive. Learned Counsel further submitted that the collusion of the police specially SI Kuldeep Kumar with the witness Sonia is writ large over the facts of the case. He bluntly denies that a PCR van had reached the spot and made inquiries. He does not examine or cite the PCR officials as witnesses in the case. The injuries are self suffered on the person of Prosecutrix (name withheld) after she came into the custody of the Police and he allows Sonia to create false evidence as she 47 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri accompanies to the hospital in her own car. Therefore, she had time and opportunity to create false evidence. The IO admits that he did not seek corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix from the neighbours. The IO does not join the two sons of Sonia and accused namely Sumit and Prince in the investigation and does not record their statement who are admittedly present in the house. He allows Sonia to create false evidence and recovery of two underwears both with alleged semen stains is the result of the attempt made by the investigating agency to procure evidence against the accused. The entire proceedings were conducted in the police station itself where they got sufficient time to plant and create a web against the accused. PW5 - Constable Meenu is categorical in saying that statement of prosecutrix (name withheld) was recorded in Police Station which the IO says, was recorded at the spot. PW5 even denies the suggestion of Addl. PP that it was recorded at spot. There are glaring contradictions in the testimony of Constable Praveen PW6 and the L/Constable Meenu. PW6 says that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded after returning from the Hospital which again belies the case of the prosecution. She is contradicting the IO on the parcels made. PW8 Sonia has made material improvements in her case with which 48 of 189 PS - Mangol Puri she was confronted. There are glaring inconsistencies in the statement of PW's suggesting false implication of the accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for the acquittal of the accused on all the charges leveled against him. Learned Counsel referred to the cases and are reported as 'Manmohan Lal Sachdeva Vs. State' 79 (1999) DLT 734; 'Abhilasha Vs. State of Rajasthan' (2000) 10 SCC 237; 'Dantha Trinadha Rao Vs. Special Judge - cum Addl. District & Sessions Judge 2014 CRI.L.J. 1422 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); 'Lalhmingchhuanga Vs. State of Mizoram' 2010(3) Crimes 850 (Gau); 'Kailash Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra' 2010 CRI LJ 3255; 'Anrej Singh Vs. State of Punjab' 2007 (1) CC Cases (HC) 475; 'Ramadhin Vs. State of M.P.' 2010 (2) Crimes 666 (Chhatt); 'Hari Chand Vs. State (Delhi)' 1999 (3) CC Cases HC 248; 'Banarsi Das Vs. Teeku Dutta & Anr.' IV 2005 SLT 136 (SC); 'Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat' 2009 CRI.L.J. 2888 and 'Saroti Devi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.' 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 182.