Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 1155
High Court Of Delhi
SONI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 978 of 2001
Decided On : 12/08/2004
Anil Soni, Sachin Chopra
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 365, 366, 376 r/w Section 120-B-Abduction and rape-Character of prosecutrix-Prosecutrix abandoned by her• husband-Discrepancy in evidence- Contradiction in testimony of prosecutrix and her daughter-Pregnancy cannot be a result of sexual intercourse with accused because pregnancy was prior to the date of her alleged enticement-Entire prosecution version is full of concoction, lies and deceipt-Prosecutrix appears to be a woman of easy virtue-Neither abduction nor rape nor attempt to sell the prosecutrix-Prosecutrix clearly wanted to black-mail the appellants taking• advantage of her pregnancy-Accused acquitted-Appeal allowed.
Held: Entire prosecution version is full of concoction, lies and deceipt. The prosecutrix appears to be a woman of easy virtue. Her husband had left her. She was pregnant. Accused knew her. She had lived with them in the village. Her daughter and son were with her. Families of the accused were in the house. There is neither abduction nor rape nor attempt to sell the prosecutrix. She has clearly blackmailed the accused.
It is rather unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not even bothered to note the inherent contradiction in the testimony of the prosecutrix. He has failed to note the evidence of her daughter. He has• failed to note that on 4.11.1997, a month prior 10 5.12.1997, the prosecutrix was moving freely. He has failed to note that her pregnancy was prior to the date of her alleged enticement.
Decisions are not nursery rhymes; to be recited like a parrot. Judgments have a meaning. They have to be understood and then applied. Like a parrot, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has picked lip a few judgments and has opined that testimony of a rape victim needs no corroboration and it is safe to render conviction solely on the basis of testimony of a rape victim. He forgot that the law is that a rape victim is not an accomplice. There is no reason to disbelieve her, provided her testimony is such that it inspires confidence and is not controverted by other evidence on record.
The warm and vigilant hands of a Judge are the best safety net at any criminal trial. At a criminal trial, the first victim of judicial laxity is Article 21 of the Constitution. The present case is one of such hind.
Appeals allowed.
( 1 ) APPELLANTS were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376 and Section 120-B, IPC. Appellants Rajan, Gomti, Soni and Udal suffered a conviction under Section 376, IPC. Appellant Kalyan suffered a conviction under Section 366, IPC, vide judgment dated 3. 12. 2001 in Sessions Case No. 104/98.
( 2 ) VIDE order dated 4. 12. 2001, Rajan, Soni, Gomti and Udal were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo S. I for 3 months. Kalyan was imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default to undergo s. I. for 3 months.
( 3 ) IN a nutshell, case of the prosecution against the accused was that prosecutrix r was abandoned by her husband. Kalyan met her during navratras in 1997 and told her that her husband had been admitted in a hospital at Mathura. She, along with her two children accompanied Kalyan, who took her to Patrawal, District Mathura. She was kept there for 1-2 days and from there was taken to Rudawal, a place in District Bharatpur. She was handed over to Rajan. Rajan snatched her jewellery. She was confined there for 2 months. Rajan, Udal, Gomati and Soni, all brothers, repeatedly raped her. After about 2 months they took her, to be sold to some other place. She managed to escape and reached P. S. Deeg. The police at Deeg helped her to be dropped at Mathura from where she reached Delhi and lodged a complaint at the police post Nehru Place on 5. 12. 1997, pursuant whereto FIR was registered. Daughter of the prosecutrix, Pramodi was recovered from Rajan on 28. 12. 1997. Prosecutrix r was found to be pregnant when medically examined on 6. 12. 1997.
( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has believed the testimony of the prosecutrix while convicting the appellants. It may be noted that there were no eyewitnesses.
( 5 ) MR. Sachin Chopra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants took me through the entire record very meticulously and brought out the broad features of the case of the prosecution and urged that the learned Additional sessions Judge has totally misappreciated the evidence. Learned Counsel urged that the prosecutrix was a totally unbelievable witness. Counsel urged that in view of the testimony of the daughter of the prosecutrix, the story set up by the prosecutrix had to be thrown in the dust-bin. Counsel urged that it appears to be a case of a lady with dubious character, falsely implicating the appellants. Medical record establishes that she was pregnant much before the navratras. She was known to the accused. She lived with the family voluntarily. She wanted to blackmail the appellants taking advantage of her pregnancy.
( 6 ) LET me begin with the testimony of the prosecutrix and test its veracity in the light of the testimony of her daughter, Pramodi, PW-4; medical record and other evidence and see whether the prosecutrix stands falsified or whether she comes out clean.
( 7 ) PROSECUTRIX was examined as PW-5. She deposed that accused Kalyan used to often come to her house. Whereabouts of her husband were not known. She was residing in a Jhuggi in Nehru Place. (Though, in the statement to the police, pursuant whereto FIR was registered she stated that Kalyan told her during Navratras that her husband was admitted in a hospital at Mathura), in her deposition in Court she merely stated that Kalyan represented that her husband was admitted in a hospital at Mathura. She accordingly went with kalyan to Mathura. From there he took her to Rudawal, a place in Rajasthan. At Rudawal, accused Rajan snatched her jewellery. Rajan kept her daughter at some other place. Rajan, Udal, Gomati and Soni threatened her with knife and pistol. They raped her. She managed to escape one day and reached police station at Rudawal. Police brought her to Shergarh from where she reached delhi. She lodged a complaint with the police post at Nehru Place. Her daughte
