Falsely accused man is a Rape case survivor, Courts not be swayed by emotions or media reporting.

Falsely accused man is a Rape case survivor, Courts not be swayed by emotions or media reporting. 

Glaringly the false accuser and misuser is not penalised and allowed to scot free

-:: 1::-IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number  : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number  : 02401R0137742014.
State  versus
Mr. Harminder Singh,
Son of Mr. Harinder Singh,
Resident of J-94, Ground Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 224/2014.
Police Station Tilak Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 22.03.2014.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this    : 17.04.2014.
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 04.06.2014.
Date of judgment : 04.06.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused on bail with counsel Mr. Surender Tyagi.
Prosecutrix in person.
Ms. Shubra Mehndiratta and Ms.Poonam Sharma, counsel
for Delhi Commission for Women.
************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 1of
11::-  -:: 2::-JUDGMENT
“To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to
woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is
woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power,
then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater
intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater
powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her,
man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future
is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart
than woman?”----Mahatma Gandhi.
1.    Mr.Harminder Singh, the accused, has been charge sheeted, by
Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the offence under sections
376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC)
on the allegations that for the last six months prior to 24.02.2014, date and
time unknown, at Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri within the jurisdiction of Po lice Station Tilak Nagar and once at Gurgaon, he committed rape upon the
prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity)several times under the
false promise to marry her and thereafter threatened the prosecutrix to upload her photographs and video on face book and to defame her, if she did
not maintain the physical relations with him and the accused also voluntarily gave beatings to prosecutrix many times.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed
before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.03.2014 and
after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Addition al Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, THC, Delhi for
17.04.2014.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 2of
11::-  -:: 3::-3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections
376/323/506 of the IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated
19.04.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
Prosecutrix as PW1.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the
prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in
camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in
criminal matters, as approved by the “Committee to monitor proper
implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as
well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual
offences and child witnesses” have been followed.
6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that in the month of
January, 2013, she met accused Harminder Singh through her friend
Ms.Gunjan and after 3-4 months, they became very good friends. They
started meeting each other very frequently and accused had physical
relations with her with her free consent. But after sometime there were
certain differences of opinion between her and accused and they had
strained relations. She was very much stressed. She discussed the matter
with her few relatives and well wishers who advised her to lodge a
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 3of
11::-  -:: 4::-complaint against the accused. In the month of February, 2014, someone
whose name she did not know called the police. The police reached her
house and she stated the above mentioned facts to the police. Her statement
(Ex. PW1/A)was recorded by the police. She did not have any grievance
against the accused. She has prayed that he may be acquitted. The police
had produced her before a learned Magistrate in Tis Hazari Courts where
her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter
referred to as the Cr.P.C.) (Ex. PW1/B) was recorded.  She had made the
statement at the instance of her well wishers as she was very much stressed
at that time. She was also taken to a hospital by the police where she was
medically examined.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier
statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor,
the prosecutrix has deposed that she did not remember the names of the
relatives and the well wishers at whose instance the complaint was lodged
before the police. The complaint (Ex. PW1/A)and the statement under
section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/ B)were read over to the witness by
the Additional Public Prosecutor and thereafter she was further cross
examined. She has deposed that she had not stated to the police in her
complaint (Ex. PW1/A)that about six months prior to the lodging of the
complaint, accused took her to Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri, Delhi where he
had already got booked one room and accused had forcibly physical
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 4of
11::-  -:: 5::-relations with her and thereafter promised to marry her and he further stated
that if she did not marry him, he would die. She was confronted with
statement Ex.PW1/A from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded. She had
not stated to the police in her complaint(Ex. PW1/A)that whenever she
asked him to marry her, he started saying that he would talk to his parents
first and after sometime, he stated that his mother was not liking her and
therefore he would not marry her and he started blackmailing me saying that
he was having video recording of the obscene acts and would show to the
same to her mother. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from
portion B to B1 where it is so recorded. She had not stated to the police in
her complaint (Ex. PW1/A)that whenever she refused to meet the accused,
he would chase her and give beatings to her and forcibly have physical
relations with her. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from
portion C to C1 where it is so recorded. She denied the suggestion that
police recorded her statement according to her version and she is deposing
falsely to this effect. She denied the suggestion that she had made her
statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C.
(Ex. PW1/B)voluntarily and not at the instance of her well wishers. During
her medical examination whatever she had stated to the doctor, this was
again at the instance of her well wishers. She denied the suggestion that she
had given the medical history to the doctor voluntarily and not at the
instance of her well wishers. She denied the suggestion that for the last six
months prior to 24.02.2014, the accused committed rape upon her in at
Pelican banquet, Vikas Puri and again in Gurgaon several times under the
false promise to marry her. She denied the suggestion that the accused
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 5of
11::-  -:: 6::-threatened her to upload her photographs and video on the face book and
would defame if she did not maintain physical relations with accused. She
denied the suggestion that the accused voluntarily gave beatings to her
many times. She denied the suggestion that she is not supporting the
prosecution case and deposing falsely as she has compromised the matter
with the accused.
9. In her cross examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has
admitted to be correct thatthe accused has not committed any offence. She
has admitted that accused Harminder Singh has not raped her at all on a
false pretext of marriage nor threatened her nor gave her any beatings. She
has admitted that she had physical relations with the accused with her free
consent. She has again prayed that the accused may be acquitted as he is
innocent. 
10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being
raped at all. She has not even mentioned the words “rape”, “threat” ,
“blackmail” or “beatings” against the accused in her evidence nor has
deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
11.   In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star
witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and
more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused, the
prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional
Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 6of
11::-  -:: 7::-the testimonies of other witnesses, who are official in nature. The precious
Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or
official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the
prosecution case and is hostile.
12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused is
dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the
prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross
examination by the prosecution.
13. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my
conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record,
relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the
prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the
considered view that her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and
reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj
Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has
been observed by the Supreme Court as:
“Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their
evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such
witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the
absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on
the evidence of such witness.”
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 7of
11::-  -:: 8::-@ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty
of raping the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage, threatening
and beating her. There is no material on record to suggest that the
prosecutrix was ever raped by the accused under the false promise of
marriage nor threatened by the accused to upload the photographs and video
on face book to defame her nor gave voluntarily beatings to prosecutrix
many times. No case is made out against the accused as there is no
incriminating evidence against him. In fact, the prosecutrix has deposed that
she had physical relations with the accused with her consent and she has
also prayed for his acquittal.
17. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge
the gap between “may be true” and must be true” so essential for a Court to
cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where
once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has
not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be
served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
18. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is
guilty of the charged offence under sections 376/323/506 of the IPC. There
is no material on record to show that for the last six months prior to
24.02.2014, date and time unknown, at Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri and
once at Gurgaon, accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix several
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 8of
11::-  -:: 9::-times under the false promise to marry her and thereafter threatened the
prosecutrix to upload her photographs and video on face book and would defame her, if she did not maintain the physical relations with accused and the
accused also voluntarily gave beatings to prosecutrix many times.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the
prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the
prosecution has failed to establish rape, threat and hurt. The evidence of the
prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took
place.
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this
Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home
the charge against the accused, Mr.Harminder Singh, for the offence under
sections 376/323/506 of the IPC.
21. Consequently, the accused, Mr. Harminder Singh is hereby
acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 376, 323, 506    of
the IPC .
22. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
23. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of
appeal.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 9of 11::-  -:: 10::-

24. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.

25. Here, I would also like to mention that in recent times a new expression is being used for a rape victim i.e. a rape survivor. The prosecutrix, a woman or a girl who is alive, who has levelled allegations of rape by a man is now called a rape survivor. In the present case, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape as the prosecutrix retracted and turned hostile. In the circumstances such a person, an acquitted accused, who has been acquitted honourably, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor? This leaves us with much to ponder about the present day situation of the veracity of the rape cases. 

26. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public

Prosecutor, as requested.
27. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of
limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 10of
11::-  -:: 11::-Announced in the open Court  (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
on this 04
th
day of June , 2014. Additional Sessions Judge,
(Special Fast Track Court)-01,
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 11of
11::-
----

Other exact template cases where the false rape accusers resiles but are not punished for misusing and abusing the criminal judicial process.

Sessions Case Number : 58A of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0202092014.
FIR No. 93/2013, Police Station Uttam Nagar, 
Under sections 376 (2) (g) / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 
State versus Bhure Ali.

Sessions Case Number : 150 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0488012014.
First Information Report Number : 301/2013.
Police Station Rajouri Garden, 
Under sections 354/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code. 
State v. Mr. Pawan Kumar Tyagi and another.

Sessions Case Number : 119 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0613972013.
FIR No. 143/2013, Police Station Hari Nagar, 
Under sections 342/376/506/120-B/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 
State versus Kuldeep Kumar & Ors.

Sessions Case Number : 26 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0028602014.
FIR No. 441/2013, Police Station Khyala, 
Under sections 323/354D/506/376/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Nazir 
Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, 
Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr

Sessions Case Number : 37 of 2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0102312014
FIR No. 514/2013, Police Station Moti Nagar 
Under sections 376/328/506/496 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Mahender Singh Dahiya


Source - http://judis.nic.in/