Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 192/13
Unique Case ID No.02405R0257982013
State Vs.
offences u/s 328 IPC, u/s 376 IPC, u/s 506 IPC & u/s 354 IPC.
2.
namely 'S' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her
identity) was having love affair with accused's brother Pradeep. As
the prosecutrix was into the business of real estate, the accused
requested her in the month of July, 2012 to help her in finding a
100 sq. mtrs. Flat on Tonk Road, Jaipur. Accordingly, accused took
her to Jaipur in his car. Accused has offered a cold drink to her in
the car, upon taking which the prosecutrix felt drowsy and kept on
sleeping all the way up to Jaipur. On reaching Jaipur late at night,
they checked into the hotel and spent the night in the same room.
In the morning, the accused ordered some beer and forced the
SCNo.192/13
Page1of20
prosecutrix
to
DDU
Hospital
for
medical
examination.
SCNo.192/13
Page2of20
charges u/s. 328, u/s. 376 IPC, u/s. 506 IPC & u/s. 354 IPC were
framed against the accused on 24.01.2014. Accused denied the
charges and accordingly trial was held.
6.
home the guilt of the accused. The accused was examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2014 wherein he denied the prosecution case and
claimed false implication. He admitted that he had accompanied
prosecutrix to Jaipur on 4.8.2012 in his Santro Car but denied that
he had offered her coke as soon as she boarded the car or that
she had felt drowsy or that he committed rape upon her in the
hotel room at Jaipur. He also denied that he committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix at her home twice after return
from jaipur. He admitted that prosecutrix got married to his
brother Pradeep on 10.8.2012 but denied that he had told his
parents that the prosecutrix does not possess a good character
and is having a bad eye upon him. He also denied that he has
been harassing prosecutrix after the marriage. He further stated
that the prosecutrix had demanded a loan of Rs. 8 to 10 lacs from
him and he expressed his inability to lend her such huge amount.
He also refused to arrange the loan amount for her from his
parents.
SCNo.192/13
Page3of20
8.
I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for the accused and
the accused got acquainted with each other in the year 2011
during stay in each others neighbourhood in Sainik Nagar, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi. There was only one house between the
prosecutrix's house and accused's house. After some time, her
family shifted to another house in the same area i.e. Sainik Nagar
but their relations with the family of the accused continued. Both
used to visit each other and invite each other for dinner. Rajiv's
wife Monika told her that Rajiv's brother Pradeep likes her and
wants to marry her. She refused the marriage proposal as she was
pursuing MBA Course and Pradeep was only matriculate. Her
parents also rejected the said marriage proposal. However, after
SCNo.192/13
Page4of20
SCNo.192/13
Page5of20
SCNo.192/13
Page6of20
me
inappropriately.
Then
he
started
SCNo.192/13
Page7of20
SCNo.192/13
Page8of20
SCNo.192/13
Page9of20
her whenever he met her. He and his friend used to pass lewid
comments on her on the road and wherever they saw her. She had
made a complaint at telephone No.181 regarding this. Thereafter
she alongwith her mother visited Police Station on 12.2.2013 and
submitted a written complaint which she proved as Ex. PW6/A. She
also deposed that in March, 2013 she alongwith Nirmal Sharma
reached at the hotel and showed her the hotel in which she and
Rajiv had stayed. SI Nirmal Sharma made inquiries from the
Manager and the waiters of the Hotel and also seized the hotel
register. She also visited the room in which they had stayed and
prepared its site plan.
12.
in
day
or
twice
or
thrice
depending
upon
the
SCNo.192/13
Page10of20
they had reached there by climbing the stairs. They did not talk to
each other in the hotel room as she was not feeling well and
straightaway slept.
13.
alcohol but added that she drinks only occasionally with her
friends and when there used to be any function etc. and on one or
two occasions, she had consumed excessive liquor and became
intoxicated but could not tell the date when it happened. She had
started consuming liquor since 2006. She deposed that accused
woke her up next morning at about 8.30 am and ordered four beer
bottles at about 10 am. She did not complain to the hotel staff
regarding the incident of rape. They checked out from the hotel at
about 11 pm. She deposed that during the day on 5.8.2012, she
had received a call from her mother but she did not tell her that
she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused. She had received this call
after the rape incident. According to her, the accused committed
rape upon her between 12 noon and 1.30 pm. She did not take
anything other than water from 1.30 pm till 11 pm. She had made
a call to her parents at about 3 pm and told them that she is fine.
She did not tell them at that time also that she is in Jaipur at Hotel
at that time also. She made call to her parents again twice on that
day and told them that she is fine. She did not disclose the rape
incident to them. She did not make any call to her brothers or her
friends. She received a call from Pradeep in the evening but did
not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused or
that the accused has committed rape upon her. She deposed that
upon return to Delhi, she did not disclose the incident of rape to
her family members. She told them that she was in Mumbai
alongwith her friends and did not tell them that she had gone to
SCNo.192/13
Page11of20
accused that she would not stay back at home and would
accompany her parents to his house for dinner but the accused
insisted that she should stay back and upon his insistence, she
stayed back at her house. She told her parents on phone that she
is feeling highly depressed and hence would not go for dinner.
When her parents did not find the accused in his house, who had
invited them for dinner, they did not make any call tot he accused
as to where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's
house and returned home. She deposed that neither her family
members nor the family members of Pradeep were present at the
time of their mariage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 12.8.2012. It was a
love marriage. She stated that there was a dispute between her
SCNo.192/13
Page12of20
and her in laws within two days of the marriage and they wanted
to throw her out of the house as they did not like her. She left the
matrimonial home after two days and later on returned to her
parental house. She admitted having filed a complaint against her
husband and in-laws regarding the aforesaid harassment. She was
shown photocopy of complaint dated 7.9.12 by the ld. Cross
examining counsel and she admitted that it is in her handwriting
and bears her signatures and she had submitted the same in PS
Chhawla. The complaint is Ex. PW6/D2. She admitted that she had
filed a complaint before the ACP CAW Cell Sec. 9, Dwarka on
17.9.2012. She was shown photocopy of the said complaint and
she admitted that it is in her handwriting and bears her signatures.
The complaint is Ex.PW6/D3. She admitted that she has not
mentioned in any of these complaint that the accused Rajiv had
committed rape upon her on various occasions. She further
admitted that she had filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence
Act against her in laws including her sister in law and her husband
but she did not level allegations against accused Rajiv in that
petition.
15.
SCNo.192/13
Page13of20
and he was around 59-60 years of age at that time. She admitted
that Manu Gurbakshini had lodged an FIR No. 235/10 u/s 448 IPC
against her in PS Fatehpuri Beri. She admitted that she told police
officials later on that she had submitted a false complaint against
Manu Gurbakshini in a state of depression and on the basis of her
statement, cancellation report was filed by the police in that FIR.
She admitted that during the year 2010 to 2012 she made calls at
telephone No.100 about 100 times. She admitted that she had
made a call at telephone No.100 on 16.1.2013 saying that a boy
has committed rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide
and when the police officials reached the spot, she was not there.
16.
SCNo.192/13
Page14of20
floor of the hotel. They stayed in the room for the night and
checked out at abut 11.30 pm on 5.8.2012. He stated that Rajiv
had made entry in this regard in the hotel register at sl. No.2003
and proved its photocopy as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that
after about 5 or 6 months, police officials had come to their hotel
and seized the photocopy of their register vide seizure memo Ex.
PW2/B. He had detained a photocopy of the driving licence of Rajiv
as proof of his identity which he proved as Ex. PW2/C. There is
nothing worth mentioning in his cross examination.
18.
SCNo.192/13
Page15of20
20.
that the accused committed rape upon her between 12 noon and
1.30 p.m. and thereafter they remained in the hotel room till they
checked out at about 11 p.m. It seems that she remained peaceful
with the accused in the hotel room during this period of more than
nine hours. She did not try to leave the hotel room. She did not
complain to any hotel staff or the hotel Manager about the incident
of rape. She did not make a call at telephone no.100. She made a
call to her parents at 3 p.m. and told them that she is fine. She did
not tell them that she is with the accused in a hotel at Jaipur or
SCNo.192/13
Page16of20
that the accused has raped her. She received a call from her
mother also but did not tell her that she is with the accused in
Jaipur. She deposed that she had made calls to her parents again
twice on the date of incident i.e. 05.8.2012 from the hotel room
and every time she told them that she is fine. She did not disclose
the rape incident to them. She did not make any call to her brother
or her friends. She admits having received a call from Pradeep in
the evening but did not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur
alongwith accused or that accused has committed rape upon her.
Upon return to Delhi also, she did not disclose the incident of rape
to her family members. She did not even tell them that she was at
Jaipur with the accused and told a lie to them that she was in
Mumbai alongwith her friend. The prosecutrix admits having talked
to the accused three or four times during the day on 06.8.2012.
She again talked to him on 07.8.2012 and 08.8.2012. The said
conduct of the prosecutrix does not give any slightest indication
that she had been subjected to rape by the accused in the hotel
room at Jaipur. Her conduct is indicative of the fact that either no
act of sexual intercourse had taken place between her and the
accused in the hotel room at Jaipur or she was a consenting party
to the sexual act between the two.
22.
again raped her at her house after two days of the aforesaid
incident i.e. on 07.8.2012 and the subsequent day i.e. 08.8.2012.
She has deposed that on both these dates, accused invited her
parents for dinner to his house and asked her to stay back at her
home. When her parents reached the accused's house for dinner,
accused came to their house where she was present alone and
raped her. In the cross examination, she deposed that in fact,
SCNo.192/13
Page17of20
accused had invited her whole family for dinner including her
brother. She did not accompany her parents to the accused's
house for dinner and told them that she would join them later on.
She did not tell them that the accused had asked her to stay back
in the house as he would be coming there. She further deposed
that on 08.8.2012 also when the accused asked her to stay back at
her house, she told him that she would not stay back at her home
and would accompany her parents to his house for dinner but
upon insistence of the accused, she stayed back at her house. She
told her parents on phone that she is feeling highly depressed and
hence would not come for dinner. She also deposed that when her
parents did not find the accused in his house, who had invited
them for dinner, they did not make any call to the accused as to
where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's house
and returned home.
23.
SCNo.192/13
Page18of20
accused in the hotel at Jaipur in the month of July, 2012 and then
at her own house on 07.8.2012 as well as on 08.8.2012. The
prosecutrix filed the complaint of rape on 12.2.2013. It has come
in her testimony that she had filed a complaint Ex.PW6/D2 against
her in-laws on 07.9.2012 in P.S. Chhawla and another complaint
Ex.PW6/D3 in CAW Cell, Sector-9, Dwarka, on 17.9.2012. In both
these complaints, she has nowhere mentioned that she has been
raped by accused Rajeev. She also admitted that she had filed a
petition u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act against her in-laws and in
that petition, she did not level any allegation against accused
Rajeev. This too suggests that the allegations of rape against
accused Rajeev are concocted and fabricated.
25.
SCNo.192/13
Page19of20
cancellation report was filed by the police. She has also admitted
that during the year 2010 to 2012, she has made about 100 calls
to telephone no.100. She also admitted that on 16.7.2013 she
made a call at telephone no.100 saying that a boy has committed
rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide but when the
police officials reached the spot, she was not there.
26.
the present case, this court would be failing in its duty if the
prosecutrix is let off without punishment for giving false evidence
before this court. She is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of
perjury which is being done by way of a separate order.
Announced in open
Court on 14.11.2014.
SCNo.192/13
(VIRENDER BHAT)
Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Page20of20