Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Travel to the Safdarjung Hospital

10. About 11:00 p.m., PW-73 took the victims to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. On the way to the hospital, the victims gave their names to him and informed that they had boarded a bus from Munirka and that after some time the occupants had started misbehaving and had beaten the boy and taken the girl (prosecutrix) to the rear side of the bus and committed rape on her. Thereafter, they had taken off the clothes of the victims and thrown them naked on the road. While leaving the informant, PW-1, in the casualty where he was examined by PW-51, Dr. Sachin Bajaj, and his MLC, Ext. PW- 51/A, was drawn up, PW-73 took the prosecutrix to the Gynae ward and got her admitted there. The MLC of the prosecutrix,PW- 49/B, was prepared by PW-49, Dr. Rashmi Ahuja.

23. After getting arrested, all the accused were medically examined. The MLCs of all the accused persons show various injuries on their person; viz., in the MLC, Ex.PW-2/A, of accused Ram Singh, PW-2, Dr. Akhilesh Raj, has opined that the injuries mentioned at point Q to P-1 could possibly be struggle marks. Similar opinions were received in respect of other accused persons. PW-7, Dr. Shashank Pooniya, has opined that the injuries present on the body of accused Akshay were a week old and were suggestive of struggle as per MLC, Ex.PW-7/A. MLC, Ex.PW-7/B, pertaining to accused Pawan shows that he had suffered injuries on his body which were simple in nature. The MLC, Ex.PW-7/C, of accused Vinay Sharma proved that he too suffered injuries, simple in nature, 2 to 3 days old, though injury No. 8 was claimed to be self inflicted by the accused himself.

47. PW-74, SI Subhash Chand, then left for Safdarjung Hospital where he met PW-59, Inspector Raj Kumari, and PW-62, SI Mahesh Bhargava. PW-59, Inspector Raj Kumari, handed over to him the MLC and the exhibits concerning the prosecutrix as given to her by the treating doctor and PW- 62, SI Mahesh Bhargava, handed over to him the MLC of the informant. PW-74, SI Subhash Chand, then recorded the statement, Ex.PW-1/A, of the informant at 1:30 a.m. on 17.12.2012 and made his endorsement, Ex.PW-74/A, on it and he gave the rukka to PW-65, Ct. Kripal Singh, for being taken to P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and to get the FIR registered. PW-65, Ct. Kripal Singh, then went to P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and at 5:40 a.m. and gave the rukka to PW-57, ASI Kapil Singh, the Duty Officer, who, in turn, recorded the FIR, Ex.PW-57/D, made endorsement, Ex.PW-57/E, on the rukka and returned it to PW-65, Ct. Kripal Singh, who then handed it to PW-80, SI Pratibha Sharma, at P.S. Vasant Vihar to whom the investigation was entrusted.

Thus if PW1 had failed to give the description of the bus or of iron rods to the doctor in his MLC Ex. PW51/A or in his complaint Ex. PW1/A it shall not have any fatal effect on the prosecution case. What is fatal is the material omissions, if any.”

76. The evidence of PW-1 is assailed contending that he is not a reliable witness. During the cross-examination, his evidence was assailed contending that Ex.PW-1/A is replete with contradictions and inconsistencies. Taking us through the evidence, Mr. Singh has submitted that in his first statement, Ex.PW-1/A, there were lot of omissions and contradictions and the improvements in his subsequent statements render the evidence wholly untrustworthy. The appellants, in an attempt to assail the credibility of the testimony of PW-1, inter alia, raised the contentions: (i) Non- disclosure of the use of iron rod and (ii) the names of the assailants in the MLC in Ex. PW-51/A or in Ex.PW-1/A. However, the trial court held these assertions as non-fatal to PW-1’s testimony: