If wedlock turns deadlock, grant divorce, HC says

Judgment Text Awaited

If wedlock turns deadlock, grant divorce, HC says

As on Manish Raj, TNN | Jun 29, 2014, 04.49AM IST

CHENNAI: It is inhuman to compel two people to live together when their "wedlock has become a deadlock," the Madras high court has held. Allowing a divorce based on a man's complaint that he was being tortured by his wife who kept filing police complaints, the court recently said the sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of the annoying spouses. Setting aside the order of a family court, the court granted divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion by the wife. 

Arun Kumar Jain alias Bunty and Geeta got married in March 2001 and the couple had a male child. Disputes arose in the marriage after he found that his wife was elder to him. He moved the family court in 2004 seeking divorce. In his petition, he said Geeta insulted him often citing the educational qualification of his family members and threatened to book them under false charges of demanding dowry and attempt to murder. In November 2002, she lodged a police complaint saying her brother-in-law had tried to outrage her modesty and her in-laws had tried to kill her, Bunty said, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. 

Denying the allegations, Geeta said Bunty was jealous of her educational qualifications and he along with his family abused her in filthy language. In its verdict in December 2010, the family court denied divorce saying the charges of cruelty and desertion were not proved. The next year, Bunty moved the Madras high court. In its order, the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice S Vaidyanathan pointed to the events after the family court quashed the divorce petition. It said Bunty had subsequently sent a letter and a telegram asking Geeta to come back. Also, after Bunty's family was acquitted in the dowry harassment case, Geeta filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act following which Bunty and his family were arrested, the bench said. 

Instead of solving the disputes amicably, Geeta had continuously initiated criminal proceedings against Bunty which meant she made all attempts to ensure he could not live in peace, the bench said. The fact that she was living apart from her husband for more than nine years showed that Geeta had subjected her husband to mental cruelty and deserted him, the bench said, granting divorce.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/If-wedlock-turns-deadlock-grant-divorce-HC-says/articleshow/37425302.cms

Delhi court sends strong message - Girl and Women to face legal consequences for falsely accusing and fabricating false evidence

Delhi court sends strong message - Girl and Women to face legal consequences for falsely accusing and fabricating false evidence 

While digging http://judis.nic.in/ found out that in the fast track Delhi court for POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) majority ~90% cases were false and girls (less than 18 years old) and their mothers or sisters are blatantly abusing the POCSO. This Special law (POCSO) is also being misused and abused freely by women (including Girls) folk to settle the personal score and for oblique motives and is turning out to be another weapon of Legal Terrorism. 

Truely Feminism in India has trained Girls to become a part of Legal Terrorism network. 

There were other cases where the judge pulled Police for the Shoody investigation which shall be posted soon.

Interesting Media is not highlighting these cases for reasons known to all !

Men and Boys wake up !

-----

IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL): DELHI

SC No. : 194/13

ID No. : 02401R0596392013

FIR No.   : 87/13

Police Station : Gulabi Bagh

Under Section : 323/354/506/34 IPC 

r/w Section 8 POCSO

State 

Versus

Karnail Singh

S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal

R/o 10613, Gali No. 5

Pratap Nagar, Delhi

.........Accused No. 1

Deepa

W/o Karnail Singh

R/o 10613, Gali No. 5

Pratap Nagar, Delhi

.........Accused No. 2

Date of Institution  : 21.11.2013

Date of judgment  :  19.05.2014

Present:  Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the 

State.

Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Sethi, 

Advocate, counsel for both the accused persons.

J U D G M E N T (ORAL) : - 

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 1of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

1.                   Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on July 03,

2013 at about 9 PM, complainant (PW1) along with her two sisters, namely,

PW2 and PW3 came to the police station Gulabi Bagh and lodged a

complaint with duty officer that accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa

had beaten them. Said intimation was recorded vide DD 21A (Ex.PW10/C).

Constable Anjela was directed to record the statement of complainant

(PW1) and thereafter DD No. 21A was assigned to SI Vijay. ( since the

complainant and her sisters are victim of sexual assault, their identity is

withheld and they are referred to as PW1, PW2 and PW3). 

2.                   It was alleged that complainant (PW1) got recorded her

statement Ex.PW1/B wherein she alleged that on July 03, 2013 at about 8

PM, she along with her two sisters, namely, PW2 and PW3 was going to

doctor's clinic as her sister PW3 had sustained burn injury on July 02,

2013. It was alleged that when they reached near Temple opposite to gali

No. 6, accused Karnail Singh, who resided in their neighbourhood came

there and started teasing her and passed indecent gestures and when

complainant protested, accused Karnail Sinigh scratched her mouth and

when her sister (PW2) raised objection, accused Karnail Singh had torn her

salwar. It was alleged that when her another sister (PW3) raised objection,

accused Karnail Singh hit on her chest and torn her suit from front side. It

was further alleged that in the meantime Deepa wife of Karnail Singh also

came there and both of them started beating complainant and her sisters. It

was alleged that accused Karnail Singh had threatened if report be lodged

to the police, he would kill complainant and her sisters. It was further

alleged that earlier also Karnail Singh had made several attempts to tease

her. Complainant and her sisters were got medically examined.

Complainant was found sustaining blunt injury whereas no fresh injury was

found on the person of PW2. On her statement, an FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 323/354/354A/354B/509/34 Indian Penal Code

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 2of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

(IPC in short) was got registered. During investigation, statement of PW2

and PW3 was also got recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr. P.C. in short). Their torn clothes were seized. During

investigation, statement of all the victims were got recorded under Section

164 Cr. P.C. It was alleged that since PW2 was found minor, provisions of

Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO in

short) was also added. 

3.                   It was alleged that accused Deepa w/o Karnail Singh was

granted anticipatory bail on July 15, 2013. On October 21, 2013, accused

Karnail Singh was arrested. He was found involved in numerous other

cases. 

4.                   After investigation, challan was filed against accusd Karnail

Singh for the offence punishable under Section 323/354/354B/509/506/34

Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offence Act whereas accused Deepa was challaned for the offence

punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 

5.                   Aftercomplying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of

Criminal Procedure, a charge for the offence punishable under Section

354/354A/354B/324/506 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act was

framed against the accused Karnail Singh whereas a separate charge

against both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section

323/34 IPC was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

6.                   In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has

examined as many as following 10 witnesses. 

PW1          Complainant, material witness but turned hostile.

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 3of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

PW2          Sister of complainant, material witness but turned 

hostile.

PW3          Sister of complainant, material witness but turned 

hostile.

PW4          Geeta, neighbour, material witness but turned 

hostile.

PW5          SI Vimal Dutt, second investigating officer.

PW6          Kamlesh, material witness but turned hostile.

PW7          Uncle of complainant (in order to conceal the 

identity of victim, his identity is also withheld )

PW8          Father of victims (in order to conceal the 

identity of victims, his identity is also withheld )

PW9          Smt. Siksha Devi, neighbour, material witness but 

turned hostile.

PW10        SI Vijay Investigating officer.

7.                   Inview of the testimony of material witnesses, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence on May 09,

2014. 

8.                   Since, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused

persons, their examination under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was dispensed

with.

9.                   Learnedcounsel appearing for the accused persons

sagaciously contended that though prosecution has examined all the

material witnesses, yet none of the witnesses has uttered even a single

word against the accused persons. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor

fairly conceded that the testimony of material witnesses examined by

prosecution are not sufficient to prove the culpability of accused persons as

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 4of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

all the material witnesses turned hostile. However, he submitted that

suitable action should be taken against the complainant and her sisters

who have resiled from their previous statements made on oath under

Section 164 Cr. P.C. 

10.                 I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both

the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful

consideration to their contentions. 

11.                 Prosecutionhas set up a case against the accused persons

that when complainant along with her sisters was going to doctor's clinic on

July 03, 2013, accused Karnail Singh met them on the way near Temple

opposite to gali No. 6 and thereafter he passed indecent gestures towards

complainant and when she raised objection, he scratched on her mouth

and when her sister PW2 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh torn her

salwar and when her another sister PW3 raised objection, accused Karnail

Singh torn her kamiz from front side. In the meantime, Deepa wife of

accused Karnail Singh also joined him and thereafter they gave beating to

the complainant and her sisters. However, when complainant PW1 and her

sisters PW2 and PW3 graced the witness box, they all turned hostile

completely and did not support the prosecution case in any manner.

Though, complainant and her sisters were examined at length by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, yet during their cross-examination nothing

could be extracted which may help the prosecution to prove the culpability

of accused persons. Thus, the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not

helpful to the prosecution to prove the culpability of accused persons. 

12.                 Prosecutionhas also set up a case that PW4, PW6 and

PW9 also reached the spot after hue and cry and they also witnessed the

said incident but all the said witnesses also turned hostile completely and

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 5of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Admittedly, PW7 and

PW8 were not the eye witnesses and they came to know about the incident

later on. Thus, their testimony is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the

culpability of accused persons. Moreover, both the witnesses also turned

hostile completely and did not support the prosecution case in manner. 

13.                 Remainingwitnesses are PW5 SI Vimal Dutt to whom further

investigation was assigned and PW10 who conducted the investigation. In

view of the fact that material witnesses turned hostile completely and they

did not support the prosecution in any manner, their testimony is also not

helpful to prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons.

14.                 Fromthe aforesaid discussion, it becomes abundantly clear

that there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons, thus,

prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused

persons, thus, I acquit both the accused persons from all the charges. 

15.                 Now, coming to the next contention raised by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor as to whether it is a fit case to take legal

action against the complainant and her sisters. 

16.                 Itis undisputed fact that during investigation complainant and

her sisters made statement on oath under Section 164 Code of Criminal

Procedure and their statements are Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/C

respectively. 

17.                 PW1complainant lodged an FIR against the accused

persons by making her statement Ex.PW1/B that when she along with her

sisters, namely, PW2 and PW3 reached near Temple opposite to gali No.

6, accused Karnail Singh S/o Suraj Pal, R/o 10613, Gali No. 5, Pratap

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 6of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

Nagar, Delhi who resided in her neighbourhood came in front of her and

started teasing her and passed indecent gestures and when she raised

objection, accused Karnail Singh scratched her mouth and when her sister

PW2 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh torn her salwar and when her

another sister PW3 raised objection, accused Karnail Singh hit on her

chest and torn her suit (shirt) from front side. In the meantime, Deepa wife

of accused Karnail Singh also came there and she also started beating

them. It was further alleged that accused Karnail Singh had threatened

them, if complaint was made to the police, he would kill the complainant

and her sisters and further alleged that previously also accused Karnail

Singh had made several attempts to tease her. Thus, from her complaint

Ex.PW1/B, it becomes clear that complainant and her sisters knew

accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa previously. Similarly,

complainant in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW1/A) made

specific allegations against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa.

Similarly her sisters i.e.PW2 and PW3 in their statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr. P.C., which are exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/C

respectively made specific allegations against both the accused persons. 

18.                 Frombare perusal of the FIR and the statement of witnesses

recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., it can be culled-out that they knew

the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa previously. However, when

complainant appeared in the witness box, she turned hostile completely by

deposing that when they reached near Mandir outside their gali, there was

no light in the area and some boys came there along with 2-3 girls and they

were abusing them and when they raised objection, they started scuffling

with her, consequently, she sustained injury on her cheek. She further

deposed that when scuffling took ugly turn, they had also started scuffling

with her sisters (PW2 and PW3) and in the said scuffling, shirt and salwar

of her sisters (PW2 and PW3) were torn. She further deposed that since

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 7of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

there is no electricity in the area, she could not see the face of that persons

and females and further deposed that she was not sure whether she could

identify anyone of them or not. She further deposed that they did not inform

the police; rather someone from public made a call to police and further

deposed that she did not go to the police station along with her sisters and

further deposed that on the next day they went to police station and at that

time she was accompanied with her Bua and her sisters. She further

deposed that someone from crowd told her that probably Karnail Singh and

his wife Deepa were among the assailants and further deposed that she

did not give any statement to the police. She further testified that no one

had given any threat either to her or to her sisters. During crossexamination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she

deposed that she did not know Karnail Sinigh. However, stated that she

knew his wife Deepa and admitted that she is residing in her

neighbourhood. She failed to identify the accused Karnail Singh. She

categorically denied the prosecution version that accused Karnail Singh

and his wife Deepa were the assailants. She admitted that none had given

any threat her either today or previously and she was not under any

pressure. She further deposed that she did not know whether on the basis

of her complaint Ex.PW1/B and statement made under Section 164 Code

of Criminal Procedure (Ex.PW1/A), accused Karnail Singh and his wife

Deepa were arrested and further deposed that she did not know whether

any other person was arrested on basis of her above said complaint and

statement. She further deposed that police did not inform her about the

action taken on her complaint. 

19.                 Fromthe deposition of PW1, it becomes clear that she had

completely resiled from her complaint Ex.PW1/B and the statement made

under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW1/A). On the contrary, she tried to set

up new case that she had disclosed the name of accused Karnail Singh

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 8of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

and his wife Deepa because some unknown person told her that probably

they were the assailants but she could not see the face of assailants due

to darkness in the area. Similarly, PW2 also turned hostile stating that

there was no electricity in the area and scuffled had taken place with 2-3

boys and her salwar was torn during the scuffle. Similarly, shirt of her sister

(PW3) was also torn during the scuffle and further deposed that none had

torn their clothes. She admitted that no threat was given to her and also

admitted that she had made a statement Ex.PW2/A under Section 164 Cr.

P.C. During cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, she stated that she did not know any person by the name of

Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and she failed to identify both the

accused persons. Though she admitted that she had made allegations

against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement

under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but stated that she had made allegations

against them at the instance of police because police advised them to

make allegations against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa

because public persons told the police that assailants might be Karnail

Singh and his wife Deepa. When a court question was put to her, she

admitted that she had made false allegations against the accused Karnail

Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C.

(Ex.PW2/A) but took the plea that she did so as she could not see

assailants and public persons told her that assailants were Karnail Singh

and his wife Deepa. However, when a question was put to her whether she

could tell the name of public persons who told her about the same, she

replied that she cannot tell their name. She also stated that she did not

inform learned Metropolitan Magistrate that she had made allegations

against accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of

unknown public persons or police officials. She deposed that she did not

know whether police had arrested Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa on the

basis of her statement and statement of her sisters made to the police.

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 9of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

However, she admitted that no threat was given to her. 

20.                 Fromher testimony, it becomes clear that she had impleaded

accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of some

unknown persons and none had torn their clothes but the same were torn

during scuffle with some unknown persons. It is also clear that accused

Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa were not responsible for the alleged

incident. 

21.                 Similarly, PW3 turned hostile completely by deposing that

the quarrel had taken place with 6-7 persons and 2-3 ladies and in that

process someone had pushed complainant and scratched on her face. In

the meantime, some ladies assaulted her and her sisters (PW1 and PW2)

and in that process her shirt and salwar of her sister was torn. Police also

came there and she also admitted that she had made a statement under

Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW3/A). During cross-examination conducted by

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she stated that she did not know the

accused Karnail Singh and failed to recognise him. She also denied the

suggestions that accused Karnail Singh had torn her shirt or salwar of her

sister or he also scratched the mouth of complainant. She also denied that

Deepa was was involved in the incident. She admitted that she was not

under any threat from any corner. She admitted that she had named

Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement Ex.PW3/C and admitted

that she had made false allegations against them in her statement under

Section 164 Cr. P.C. but took the plea that she did so because public

persons told her that assailants were Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and

further admitted that she made allegations against them before police at

the instance of said public persons but stated that she cannot tell their

name. She further stated that she did not know whether accused Karnail

Singh and his wife Deepa were arrested by the police on the basis of her

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 10of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

statement and on the statement of her sisters. She further stated that she

told the police that she had disclosed the name of Karnail Singh and his

wife Deepa at the instance of unknown person but she did not disclose this

fact before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 

22.                 Asper statement of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the alleged

incident had taken place on July 03, 2013 at about 8 PM. DD No. 21A

(Ex.PW10/C) was got recorded by complainant at 9.06 PM wherein

complainant had categorically named the accused Karnail Singh and his

wife Deepa. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by Constable Anjela

and in her statement Ex.PW1/B, she had made specifically allegations

against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa and further alleged

that accused Karnail Singh was residing in her neighbourhood. Similarly,

PW2 and PW3 also made specific allegations against the accused Karnail

Singh and his wife Deepa. But when they entered the witness box, PW1,

PW2 and PW3 took the plea that they made allegations against the

accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa at the instance of unknown

public person as they could not see the face of assailants as there was

darkness in the area and public persons told them that probably the

assailants were Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa. Admittedly, this fact was

not disclosed by any of them either before police or before learned

Metropolitan Magistrate. If they had not seen the assailants, it was their

duty to inform the police that though they had not seen the assailants, yet

public persons told them the assailants might be Karnail Singh and his wife

Deepa. But complainant and her sisters failed to state so. Rather they

made specific allegations against the accused persons. Thus, it become

clear that either PW1, PW2 and PW3 have made a false statement before

this Court or they have made a false statement on oath before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. 

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 11of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

23.                 Falseevidence is defined under Section 191 Indian Penal

Code whereas fabricating false evidence is defined under Section 192

Indian Penal Code. Both are reproduced as under:

191. Giving false evidence– Whoever, being

legally bound by an oath or by an express

provision of law to state the truth, or being bound

by law to make a declaration upon any subject,

makes any statement which is false, and which

he either knows or believes to be false or does

not believe to be true, is said to give false

evidence.

Explanation 1.- A statement is within the

meaning of this section, whether it is made

verbally or otherwise. 

Explanation 2. - A false statement as to the

belief of the person attesting is within the

meaning of this section, and a person may be

guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he

believes a thing which he does not believe, as

well as by stating that he knows a thing which he

does not know.

192. Fabricating false evidence– Whoever

causes any circumstances to exist or [makes any

false entry in any book or record, or electronic

record or makes any document or electronic

record containing a false statement], intending

that such circumstances, false entry or false

statement may appear in evidence in a judicial

proceeding, orin a proceeding taken by law

before a public servantas such, or before an

arbitrator, an that such circumstances, false entry

or false statement, so appearing in evidence may

cause any person who in such proceeding is to

form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain

an erroneous opinion touching any point material

to the result of such proceeding, is said “to

fabricate false evidence”. 

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 12of 15State Vs Karnail Singh & another

24. As already stated that PW1, PW2 and PW3 either made false evidence before this Court or before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on oath under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Prima-facie their act amounts giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence as defined under Section 191 and 192 IPC. Indisputably, statements before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and the complaint Ex.PW1/B were made within an intention that the same shall be used during judicial proceeding against the accused persons, thus prima-facie complainant and her sisters (PW2 and PW3) have committed an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.

25.                 Nowquestion arises as to whether proceeding can be

initiated against the PW2 who was 17 years 9 months and 6 days old at the

time of alleged incident. As per record, her date of birth is October 28,

1995. Thus, she was minor a the time of incident but she was major when

she appeared in the witness box on April 24, 2014. Since, the offence was

committed on April 24, 2014 when she resiled from her previous statement,

thus, to my mind, there is no bar under law to proceed against her.

26. Nodoubt, under Section 22 of POCSO Act, no action can be taken against a child if child makes a false complaint or provides false information. To my mind, police cannot take any action against any child, if during investigation, it is revealed that the child had made a false complaint or information provided by him/her is false. But this does not empowers a child to make a false deposition in judicial proceeding. This further clears from Section 22 (1) of POCSO Act because the maximum sentence to furnish false information is up to six months or with a fine or both whereas to make a false statement on oath before the Court and to give false evidence or fabricate false evidence is punishable for imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years. This further makes it clear that Section 22 of POCSO Act does not empowers a child witness to make a false statement in judicial proceeding. Thus, I am of the view that Section 22 of the POCSO Act does not prevent the Court in any manner from proceeding even against the child witness, if there are sufficient reasons to believe that the child witness has made a false evidence or created a false or fabricated circumstance. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that in instant case PW2 was not a child at the time when she graced the witness box on April 24, 2014. 

27.                 Itis pertinent to mention here that accused Karnail Singh was

arrested by the police on October 21, 2013 and he was released on bail on

December 21, 2013, thus, he remained in jail for two months on the basis

of allegations made by complainant and her sisters and now they very

easily stated they had made allegations against him at the instance of

some unknown persons. Thus, it becomes clear that accused Karnail Singh

has been deprived from his personal liberty for about two months on the

basis of allegations levelled by the complainant and her sisters. 

28. Needlessto say that witnesses play a significant role in the administration of criminal justice. If witnesses be permitted to behave in such a irresponsible manner, it will become just impossible for courts to impart justice. If they (PW1 to PW3) have settled their dispute with accused persons out of the Court, they should have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in accordance with law for quashing of proceedings instead of making a false statement before the Court. It is pertinent to state that witnesses did not depose that they have settled the dispute with the accused persons. If witnesses like PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not checked or dealt with sternly wrong message would disseminate among public at large that witnesses can take somersault during trial at any point of time as per their whims and fancies without facing any consequences, thus, I am of the considered opinion that PW1, PW2 and PW3 deserve to face the consequences of their wrongful act. 

29. Inview the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prima-facie there are sufficient material on record to show that PW1, PW2 and PW3 had committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. Since, a complaint under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code, this Court authorises Reader of the Court  i.e.Sh. Amit Sharma to file a complaint against PW1 (Renu), PW2 (Barkha) and PW3 (Kiran) on behalf of this Court for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He is further directed to submit the compliance report within three weeks from the date of judgment.

Conclusion :-30.                 Inthe light of the above discussion, I hereby, acquit both the

accused persons, namely, Karnail Singh and Deepafrom all the charges.

Sh. Amit Sharma, Reader of this Court is authorised and directed to file a

complaint against the complainant PW1 (Renu) and her sisters PW2

(Barkha) and PW3 (Kiran) before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 193 of Indian Penal

Code and submit the compliance report within three weeks.

31.                 Filebe consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court 

on this 19th day of May, 2014 

(PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) 

Additional Sessions Judge-01

Central district, Tis Hazari, Delhi/sm

SC No. 194/13 Page No. 15of 15

Source - http://judis.nic.in/

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/

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