Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Ld. Predecessor of this court after having gone through the material available on record and settled case law, framed a charge for the offences u/s 376/ 366/ 506 IPC against accused Surender Rai and another charge for the offences u/s 109 r/w 376/ 506 IPC against accused Amar Nath and Yogita, vide order dated 28.01.2009.

3. To prove and substantiate its case the prosecution has examined witnesses namely PW1 HC Ajay Pal - formal witness being MHCM at PS Tilak Nagar on 01.11.06. He got exhibited the copy of entry of depositing of case property as Ex.PW1/A and copy of sending the same to FSL as PW1/B; PW2 HC Amit Kumar is a formal as well as material witness. He stated that a DD was registered at PP Raghubir Nagar regarding missing of a woman Pooja Aggarwal along with two children.

20.In light of these facts and circumstances of the case and absence of corroboration from other material independent witnesses the deposition of prosecutrix to the extent of causing threat and intrusion into the life of the prosecutrix, is acceptable to the court as the corroboration is not a rule of law but the rule of prudence which culminated through the common law, as supported by judgment '2004 (1) SCC ­421 - State of Punjab Vs Ramdev Singh' So to my view under the present circumstances of the case the conviction for rape of accused in absence of independent corroboration will lead to miscarriage of justice. However, no woman in the Indian ethos and pathos and cultural traditions will tell a lie regarding her modesty and chastity in the Society, so the deposition of prosecutrix cannot be denied in toto but an inference can be drawn that if no rape has been proved by some other external circumstances yet it can safely be inferred that accused impacted the unchastity of the prosecutrix which is an offence punishable u/s 506 Part II, IPC. It is well settled proposition of law that accused can be convicted for the lessor punishment. Accordingly, I convict the accused Surender Rai for the offences u/s 506 - Part II read with 354 IPC and accused persons Yogita and Manoj Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 109 r/w 509 IPC. However, accused Surender Rai is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 376 / 366 IPC and accused Yogita and Manoj Kumar are also acquitted against the offences u/s 376/ 506 IPC precisely for the reasons discussed in the preceding paras.

Accordingly, I convict the accused Surender Rai for the offences u/s 506 - Part II read with 354 IPC and acquit him for the offences punishable u/s 376 / 366 IPC precisely for the reasons as discussed in the preceding paras; and accused persons namely Yogita and Manoj Kumar are also convicted for the offences punishable u/s 109 r/w 509 IPC and acquit them for the offence u/s 376/ 506 IPC.

However, accused Surender Rai is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 376 / 366 IPC and accused Yogita and Manoj Kumar are also acquitted against the offences u/s 376/ 506 IPC.

Accused Surender Rai be taken into custody and sent to JC. Now, case be fixed for order on sentence in respect of accused persons for 12.10.2012.

(RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ­2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi