Delhi District court Rape aquittal False rape allegation compensation to falsely accused-amend crpc - 344 initiated against girl

Delhi District court Rape aquittal  False rape allegation compensation to falsely accused-amend crpc -  344 initiated against girl

IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 154/13.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0137162013.
State Vs.  Rohit Patel,
S/o Sh. Rajender Prashad,
R/o Gali no.29, M.No.24,
Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 15.5.2013.
FIR No.58 dated 04.3.2013.
U/s. 323/365/376/506 IPC.
P.S. Najafgarh.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 04.1.2014.
Date of pronouncement : 08.1.2014.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused abovenamed has been facing trial for
having committed the offences punishable u/s.323/365/376/506
IPC.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix
namely 'P' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity)
appeared in the police station on 04.3.2013 and stated that the
accused committed rape upon her about four or five months ago.
Her statement was recorded by SI Seema, which is reproduced
herein-below :
SC No.154/13. Page 1 of 12“My marriage has taken place 11 years ago and I
alongwith my husband as well as daughter aged ten
years have been residing at House No.9A, Budh Bazar
Road, Ramaji Enclave, Najafgarh, Delhi, on rent. My
husband is in private job. I am doing the job of
scavenger in Springfield School, Ramaji Enclave,
Najafgarh. After my marriage, we had been residing on
rent in House No.83, Gali No.5, Som Bazar Road,
Rajapuri, and accused also resided as a tenant in the
same house. Accused has been using mobile phone
no.9555184583. I was on speaking terms with the
accused. Thereafter, we shifted to the aforesaid house
in Nangli Dairy. About 4 – 5 months ago, accused
made a call to me saying that he is waiting for me at
Nangli Dairy and called me to Nangli Dairy Bus Stand
on the pretext of providing me a good job. He offered
water to me and then took me to a room in Rajapuri
where he gagged my mouth and threatened me that
he would kill me in case I raised alarm. I became
terrified and thereafter the accused took off all my
clothes and committed rape upon me, as a result of
which I became unconscious. After I regained
consciousness, accused told me in a threatening tune
that in case I disclosed the incident to anybody, he
would defame me and kill my daughter. He took me
upto Nangli Dairy Bus Stand in an RTV and dropped
me there. Out of fear, I did not disclose the incident to
anybody till today. Today at about 11 a.m. when I was
returning home from my school, accused met me in a
SC No.154/13. Page 2 of 12gali leading to my house and asked me to accompany
him. When I refused to oblige him, he started beating
me and ran away after I raised alarm.”
3. The FIR was registered on the basis of the aforesaid
statement of the prosecutrix and the investigation was
commenced by SI Seema. Prosecutrix was got medically examined
in RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan and the exhibits handed over by
the doctor were seized. Search was made for the accused but he
could not be found. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix was produced
before the concerned Ld. Magistrate, who recorded her statement
u/s.164 Cr.PC. The prosecutrix came to the police station on
07.3.2013 and told the IO that she happens to see the accused
sometimes at Rajapuri Red Light and he can be found there.
Accordingly, IO alongwith the prosecutrix reached near the
aforesaid traffic light and the accused was arrested at the instance
of the prosecutrix. He was got medically examined in RTRM
Hospital and the exhibits handed over by the doctor were seized
by the IO. All the exhibits of the case were sent to FSL for forensic
examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet
was prepared by the Investigating Officer and laid before the
concerned Ld. Magistrate.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions,
Charges u/s.376 IPC, u/s.506 IPC and u/s.323 IPC were framed
against the accused on 06.6.2013. Since the accused pleaded not
guilty to the aforesaid charges, prosecution was called upon to
SC No.154/13. Page 3 of 12lead its evidence. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to
bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused was examined
u/s.313 Cr.PC on 05.12.2013 wherein he denied having raped the
prosecutrix. According to him, the prosecutrix was involved in
physical relations with him voluntarily and on her own free will as
her husband used to remain out in connection with his job
requirements. He stated that the prosecutrix has lodged a false
complaint against him on the pressure of her husband as he had
come to know about their sexual relations. The accused, however,
did not lead any evidence in defence.
6. I have heard Ld. APP, Ld. Counsel for the accused and
have perused the entire material on record.
7. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement
of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court
as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of
the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless
there are compelling reasons which necessitated corroboration of
her statement. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the
version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for
evidence, direct or circumstantial, which may lend assurance to
her testimony where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering
from serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material on
record, the prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on
material points with a view to rule out consent on her part, no
reliance can be placed upon her evidence. It may also be noted
that even in cases involving offence or rape, it is the burden upon
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
SC No.154/13. Page 4 of 12reasonable doubt and it is not for the accused to show why the
witnesses have deposed falsely against him.
8. In the instant case, the police machinery was set into
motion pursuant to the statement of the prosecutrix, which was
recorded by SI Seema (PW10) in the police station on 04.3.2013.
The said statement of the prosecutrix has been already
reproduced herein-above. The statement u/s.164 Cr.PC of the
prosecutrix has been recorded on 05.3.2013 by PW6 and the same
is Ex.PW3/B. In this statement, referring to the incident of rape,
the prosecutrix states that the accused suddenly called her on
phone one day. She went there and the accused offered her water
and some 'Samosas'. She ate 'Samosas' and also drank water
whereafter she felt giddy and did not know what accused was
saying to her. She went alongwith the accused but did not know
the address. When she rose up, she found that the water had
fallen on her face and her clothes were wet. Accused was
sprinkling water upon her and exhorting her to stand up. She rose
up and realised that something has been done to her Accused
asked her to set right her clothes and washed her face as well as
hands. She was feeling tired and felt that certainly something has
happened with her. She was not in a position to walk. Accused
dropped her at Nangli Dairy Bus Stand and asked her to go home.
She slowly reached her home but did not disclose the incident to
her husband. This had happened about 4 or 5 months before.
Prosecutrix also stated to the Ld. Magistrate that her husband had
now come to know about the incident as the accused had told him
so on phone. When her husband confronted her with the same,
she told him that she has been raped.
SC No.154/13. Page 5 of 129. Now it would be useful to refer to the testimony of the
prosecutrix recorded in this court. She has been examined by the
prosecution as PW3. She stated that after they shifted to Nangli
Dairy i.e. their present address, the accused used to follow her
sometimes and call her sometimes on phone saying that she
should meet him. She refused to meet him but he threatened her
that he can kill her husband and kidnap her daughter. She further
deposed that about one and a half years ago, one day accused
made a call on her mobile phone asking her to meet at Dwarka
More saying that he would apologize for his acts. Accordingly, she
went to meet him at Dwarka More. Accused offered her some
'Samosas' and water which she consumed. Thereafter, she
became unconscious and did not know what happened. When she
regained consciousness, she found herself getting down from the
bus at Nangli Dairy Bus Stand. Accused was also with her and told
her to go home and not to narrate the incident to anybody.
Accused did not get down from the bus but told her that he has
raped her during her unconsciousness and would inform her
husband about the same. She went home and did not tell her
husband or anybody else about the incident for a long time.
However, the accused used to call her and asked her to meet him
whenever he wished but she did not go to meet him. One day
when she was returning home from her work, her husband asked
her whether she has any affair with anybody and she replied in
negative. She realised that the accused has apprised her husband
about his acts. It is at that time that she revealed the incident to
her husband. Then she alongwith her husband went to the police
station where her statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded. From the
SC No.154/13. Page 6 of 12police station, she was taken to hospital for medical examination.
She also proved her statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.PC as
Ex.PW3/B. She further deposed that after about two days, accused
was arrested in her presence from Dwarka vide arrest memo
Ex.PW3/C. She was declared hostile by Ld. APP and in the cross
examination conducted by the Ld. APP, she reiterated that she had
become unconscious soon after consuming 'Samosas' and did not
know whether or not accused had raped her during her
unconsciousness. She deposed that she has said that accused
raped her only because accused himself told her while getting
down from the bus that he has committed rape upon her.
10. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the
accused, she admitted that her husband had threatened to leave
her if she did not report the matter to police. She also admitted
that accused used to call her on mobile phone no.7503065416.
She also admitted that the accused had taken her photographs
near Sector-4, DDA Park, Dwarka, and can identify the
photographs if shown to her. She admitted that the accused had
taken her to a restaurant but she did not remember the name of
the restaurant and stated voluntarily that she had gone there
under the threat of the accused. She admitted that the accused
had been calling her to various places and she had been going
there for the last three years. She could not tell the name of the
shop from where accused had bought 'Samosas' as he did not
purchase the same in her presence. She deposed that accused
had also consumed 'Samosas' and thereafter took her in an RTV.
She did not visit any doctor on that day. According to her, accused
had given 'Samosas' to her at about 1.30 p.m.
SC No.154/13. Page 7 of 1211. It is crystal clear that the aforesaid testimony of the
prosecutrix is totally inconsistent with her statements recorded
during the course of investigation. She has described the incident
of rape differently at every step and hence she does not appear to
be a truthful or reliable witness. In the FIR, she has stated that
when she met the accused at Nangli Dairy Bus Stand, he offered
her water to drink and took her to a room where he threatened
her, took off all her clothes and raped her. As a consequence of
rape, she became unconscious. Thus as per her first statement to
the police, she was conscious when the accused raped her. In her
statement u/s.164 Cr.PC she states that when she met the
accused at Nangli Dairy Bus Stand, accused offered her water and
'Samosa' which she consumed and felt giddy. She didn't know
what accused was telling her but simply followed her. When she
rose up, she found her clothes wet and accused sprinkling water
over her and exhorting her to get up. She was feeling tired and
not able to walk an felt that, something had been done to her by
the accused. The accused then dropped her at Nangli Dairy Bus
Stand. This statement of the prosecutrix indicates that she was
totally unconscious and didn't know what accused had done to her
in the room where he had taken her and that she regained
consciousness in the room itself.
12. In her deposition before this court, the prosecutrix has
gone further in stating that she regained consciousness while
getting down from the Bus at Nangli Dairy Bus Stand and the
accused told her that he has raped her during her
unconsciousness. She has not deposed that she was conscious
SC No.154/13. Page 8 of 12when the accused raped her or that after regaining consciousness,
she realised that accused had raped her as mentioned by her in
her FIR and statement u/s.164 Cr.PC.
13. Manifestly, all the aforenoted three statements of the
prosecutrix are totally inconsistent and contradictory to each
other. Though in the FIR, she stated that the accused raped her
after taking off all her clothes yet in the statement u/s.164 Cr.PC
and in her testimony before this court she stated that she had
become unconscious and didn't know what happened thereafter.
There is no clearcut statement of the prosecutrix in her deposition
before this court that the accused raped her. She deposed in her
cross examination that she has said that accused raped her only
because accused himself told her so.
14. It becomes apparent from the aforenoted statements
of the prosecutrix that she is only telling a lie and in fact, no such
incident of intoxication and rape has taken place. Such huge and
major variations/inconsistencies do not appear in the statements
of a truthful witness. The prosecutrix herein is not a trustworthy
witness and her testimony cannot be relied upon. She has
fabricated a false story at each occasion when called upon to
narrate the incident.
15. Moreover, her deposition before this court is
improbable too. It is not possible to carry an unconscious lady in
an RTV vehicle which is public mode of transport without being
noticed by other passengers. It is also difficult to believe that the
prosecutrix would regain consciousness exactly at the time when
SC No.154/13. Page 9 of 12she got down from the RTV.
16. It may also be noted that the prosecutrix has admitted
in her cross examination that she had been going alongwith the
accused whenever and wherever he called her, for the last three
years. It is also evident from her testimony that on the day of
incident, she had gone to meet him on a mere phone call from
him, without any threat or pressure from him. This suggests that
prosecutrix was in some kind of liaison or affair with the accused
and the physical relations between the two were consensual. She
has also admitted in her cross examination that she lodged the
complaint on account of pressure of her husband as he threatened
to leave her if she did not do so. This implies she herself did not
intend to lodge the complaint and she lodged a false complaint
only under the threat of her husband and to save herself from
humiliation of being exposed for her extra-martial affair with the
accused and for the fear of being left alone by her husband.
17. Overall assessment of the testimony of the prosecutrix
indicates that she was having voluntary liaison with the accused
and her husband pressurized her to lodge a complaint of rape,
when he came to know about their affair. The evidence on record
shows that prosecutrix was in touch with the accused on phone
even after the lodging of complaint. As per the testimony of IO
(PW10), the prosecutrix made a call to the accused on 07.3.2013
asking him to meet her at traffic light Rajapuri. The police team
was already present at that spot. When accused reached there
after some time, he was arrested. This demonstrates the clear
conscience of the accused. Had he guilty conscience, he would not
SC No.154/13. Page 10 of 12have responded to the call of prosecutrix and would not have
come to aforesaid spot on her asking.
18. The net result of the discussion is that it is a totally
false case slapped upon the accused. He has not committed any
offence at all. It is an irony that he had to face arrest,
imprisonment and trial on the false charges of rape.
19. The accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges.
20. I find it expedient to proceed against the prosecutrix
u/s.344 Cr.PC for giving false evidence before this court, which is
being done by way of a separate order.
21. I may further note that there is a dire need for
provision to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable
the court to direct either State or the prosecutrix or to compensate
the persons acquitted of the false rape charges. In cases, where
the court comes to conclusion that the accused had been
implicated on totally false and baseless charges, the accused, in
fact, is the victim and deserves to be compensated for the mental
harassment, humiliation and physical torture caused to him in
facing arrest, imprisonment and the ordeal of criminal trial. Rape
is the most hated crime in the society. Persons accused of and
arrested on the charges of rape lose every bit of honour, dignity
and respect in the society and they are ostracized from the
community. Nobody takes note of their acquittal, after the charges
levelled against them turn to be false and fabricated. Such
unfortunate persons certainly need to be compensated and
SC No.154/13. Page 11 of 12rehabilitated.
22. At present, I do not find any provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure or any other law in force for the time being,
empowering the court to grant compensation to the accused
acquitted of the false criminal charges. Hence I consider that State
should either amend Section 357 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or add a fresh section in the Code empowering the
courts to grant compensation to the accused in such like cases.
23. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary,
Department of Law, Govt. of India and the Chairman, Law
Commission of India for their perusal and consideration.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 08.1.2014. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.154/13. Page 12 of 12

SOURCE - http://164.100.52.44/judis_cat/chrseq_dc.aspx