Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: false implication in rape in Devender Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 November, 2023Matching Fragments
24. The foremost defence of the appellant/accused for issuance of the cheque in question Ex.CW1/C is that he was pressurized by the police to issue the cheque in favour of the respondent no. 2 who being a Gazetted Officer exerted pressure on the police to coerce him to issue the cheque, otherwise he did not owe any debt or liability towards the respondent no. 2. The said defence is based on the premise that the respondent no. 2 had some matrimonial dispute with her husband and at her request, the appellant had accompanied her to Uttar Pradesh where her husband was staying in a village to settle their dispute but a quarrel took place there and they were attacked by some of the villagers due to which the appellant refused to accompany the respondent no. 2 again to the said village which infuriated her; and out of revenge she made a false complaint against him and by using her contacts with the police she pressurized the appellant to admit the liability in the Mediation Centre and to issue the cheque in question Ex.CW1/C in her favour without any liability, otherwise he was threatened to be implicated in a false rape case by the respondent no.2/complainant who is Class Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 1 Gazetted Officer and has acquaintance with the police officers.
26. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused during course of the arguments while referring to this part of crossÂexamination of the respondent no. 2/complainant has vehemently contended that the defence of the appellant/accused is proved that he was pressurized to sign the cheque in question by the Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 respondent/complainant with the help of police officers as he had refused to accompany her to settle the dispute with her husband and he was threatened to be implicated in a false rape case.
27. I do not find any merit in this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused. The aforesaid cross examination of the respondent no.2/complainant at the most shows that the parties were known to each other and had good friendly relations, but it cannot be inferred that since the accused had refused to accompany the respondent no. 2/complainant again to settle the dispute with her husband, she threatened him to implicate in a false rape case and pressurized him to admit the liability and to sign the cheque in question.
29. Admittedly, the appellant/accused had accompanied the respondent no. 2/complainant to settle the dispute of the complainant with her husband in the year 2013. The respondent no. 2/complainant has specified the date on which the appellant had accompanied her to meet her husband and the same is 21.04.2013. The first complaint Mark B was made by the respondent no. 2/complainant against the appellant/accused in Police Station Seema Puri on 24.03.2014. If the version of the appellant is accepted that the respondent no. 2/complainant has implicated him out of revenge because he had refused to accompany her to settle the dispute with her husband, the respondent would not have waited for about one year to lodge complaint against him. Further, a perusal of the complaint dated 24.03.2014 made to the SHO PS Seema Puri Mark B shows that the respondent no. 2/complainant has made allegations of outrage of her modesty by the appellant/accused when she demanded her money and other articles back but there is no allegation of rape against the appellant/accused. During crossÂexamination, the respondent no.2/complainant has also stated that no action was taken by the police concerned of PS Seema Puri on her complaint in which she has mentioned about the allegations of outrage of Devender Sharma vs. The State of Delhi & Anr. Judgment dt. 25.11.2023 modesty and to threaten her with revolver. The contention of the appellant/accused that he was falsely implicated and was pressurized by the police to sign the cheque in question under the threat to be implicated in a false rape case by the respondent no. 2 is also not believable in the absence of any complaint made by the appellant/accused to the Senior Officers of the respondent no. 2 to this effect, who admittedly is a Government Servant and Class I Gazetted Officer in MTNL department, Delhi. Nor any such complaint was made to the police by the appellant that he was being threatened by the respondent no. 2/complainant to implicate in a false rape case.