Back
Lawyer and Cop's Dark Plot: Delhi HC Slams False Rape Frame-Up, Boosts Victim Compensation
In a scathing judgment, the upheld the conviction of a lawyer, , and a sub-inspector, Narender Singh, for masterminding a vicious conspiracy to falsely implicate businessman Sushil Gulati (now deceased) in a fabricated gang rape case. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha not only dismissed their appeals but enhanced compensation to Gulati's legal heirs from ₹2 lakh to the full ₹3 lakh fine, condemning the "blatant misuse" of authority by those sworn to uphold the law.
The bench lambasted the duo for offenses under , sentencing them to up to 4 years' .
Roots of Revenge: A Molestation Sparks Malice
The saga began on , when Sushil Gulati (PW12) intervened in a molestation at Dr. Jeevan Prakash Gandhi's home in Rajouri Garden. The aggressor? Chowki-in-charge C.M. Dutta (A3, since deceased), known to Gulati from prior postings. Gulati rescued the victim—Dr. Gandhi's daughter-in-law—leading to FIR No. 579/2000 under against Dutta.
Furious, Dutta threatened retaliation. Enter A1 (lawyer Altaf) and A2 (SI Narender), alongside A4 Sameer Ahmed @ Sonu (deceased). They recruited vulnerable women—PW1 Rajni Gupta (posing as 'Seema Kaur'), PW2 Savita, PW6 Balbir Kaur, and PW7 Najma—for cash. On , they staged a 'rape' drama: PW1 was 'drugged,' assaulted by accomplices (semen later matched Sonu and Babloo Mandal via DNA), and dumped near St. Stephen's Hospital.
A at (Ex. PW10/A), transferred to Rajouri Garden as FIR 852/2000 under , led to Gulati's arrest. He endured beatings, forced signatures, and planted evidence like a tampered visiting card noting his car's number "DL-2-CL-0455."
probe exonerated Gulati (discharged ); charges flipped to the conspirators.
Defense Dodges: 'Accomplices Can't Testify' vs. Prosecution's Corroborated Web
Appellants cried foul: PW1, PW2, PW6, PW7 were "accomplices" whose testimony was inadmissible sans pardon, citing . A2 claimed mere duty discharge; no conspiracy proof. They argued trial court ignored sanctions, lacked independent witnesses, and uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
Prosecution countered with : accomplices are competent. Testimony consistent, corroborated by PW9 (Dr. Gandhi), PW12, DNA (Ex. PW32/B), and records. No prejudice from omission. backed reliability with corroboration.
Judicial Dissection: Accomplice Evidence Stands Firm, Delays Deplored
Justice Sudha dismantled defenses, distinguishing Abdul Razak (co-accused witness)—witnesses here were never arraigned, per Lakshmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 938) and Chandran v. State of Kerala (AIR 2011 SC 1594). protected them; voluntary testimony waived .
The court spotlighted A2's uniform-clad presence at A1's chamber, hospital drop-off, hair plucking for planting. Inconsistencies? Forgivable after 7-year trial delay (2007 framing).
Gulati's ordeal peaked in trial: spanned a year (2011-2012); cross adjourned ~20 times over 3 years despite presence. He died —uncross-examined.
admitted his evidence; defense "
," trial court "not vigilant." An "insensitive" plea—
"no supernatural knowledge he'd die"
—drew ire:
"Nobody need have such insight... clear abuse of law."
As other sources note, Gulati faced custodial torture, reputation ruin—harassment
"to the maximum extent possible."
Court's Razor-Sharp Rebukes
"PW12 seems to have been harassed to the maximum extent possible. Not only was he falsely implicated... even after the matter came up before the trial court, no effective steps are seen taken to protect him."
"This is a fit case in which a more stringent sentence ought to have been imposed so as to send a strong message... Courts would not treat such crimes lightly or turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of their position and authority."
"The trial court ought to have been more vigilant and ought not to have granted adjournments on the mere asking by the defence."
Verdict's Echo: Convictions Stand, Justice for the Wronged
CRL.A. 286/2016 & 326/2016 dismissed ; convictions/sentences affirmed. Victim's appeal (CRL.A. 691/2016) partly allowed: full ₹3 lakh fine as compensation.
This ruling fortifies accomplice evidence sans pardon (if not accused), warns officers of the court against vendettas, and mandates trial efficiency. For future cases, it signals zero tolerance for framing innocents—especially via staged heinous crimes—and prioritizes victim dignity amid delays.
