The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for evidence to prove the offence of rape, the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case individually, and the absence of corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix.

G.P. Mittal J.

Oral:

1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal for offences under Sections 452/342/376 (2) (g) /377/511/506/34 IPC by a victim brings to the fore a classic case where false allegations of rape and attempt to carnal intercourse against the order of nature have been levelled by a lady to settle a personal score with her neighbour without caring for the disrepute it brings to a lady and the harassment a person is put to because of all such serious allegations. Such case when is included in the rapes allegedly committed in this capital brings shame to the city as also to the residents who have to hear of this city being termed as the rape capital of the country. There are numerous cases filed in this Court for quashing the FIRs for an offence under Section 376 IPC; the story put forth in some of these cases is so illogical and a blatant lie that the society will have to ponder as to what should be the moral punishment to the lady indulging in a false accusation of this nature.

2. Respondent Puran Chand Kaushal who is alleged to have caught hold of the hands of the prosecutrix (a young lady of 38 years weighing about 100 kg.) to facilitate his co-accused in raping her, was aged 62 years at the time of alleged incident (and over 68 years now). He had happily retired from his service with the Govt. of India. Respondent Onkar Nath Tiwari was working as a Customs Officers in Government of India and was in mid 50s. Both of them remained in prison; Onkar Nath Tiwari for 27 months and Puran Chand Kaushal for almost 2 months before their applications for grant of bail were allowed by this court.

3. Facts of the case as noted by the trial court are extracted from Para 2 of the impugned judgment hereunder:-

“2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 16-06-07 three calls were received in the PCR within a period of about 12 minutes. PCR van reached the spot where the complainant was found who alleged that their neighbour O.L. Tiwari came there along with two other boys and ran away after beating her. PCR van took her for her medical examination. FIR was registered on 18-06-07 on her statement wherein the complainant alleged that on 16-06-07 her children had gone to their grandmother’s house and her husband had gone to Gurgaon. At around 1.30 pm when she was alone at home both accused who were also her neighbours entered her house and bolted the door from inside. They both pushed her to the ground. While accused Puran Chand Kaushal caught hold of her hands, the other accused Onkar Nath Tiwari raped her against her wishes. They also tore her clothes and threatened to eliminate her and her family. FIR u/s 376/506/34 IPC was registered. The torn clothes of the victim worn at the time of the incident were seized. Site plan was prepared. Accused Puran Chand was arrested. Proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC were initiated against Onkar Nath Tiwari. Statement of the complaint u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she had given the details of the manner in which she was raped by the accused persons. In her statement she made further allegations of attempt of sodomy (which was not stated by her before the doctor who examined her on 16-06-07 and she was not examined for the act of sodomy on her). Sections 377/511, 342, 452 IPC were also added.”

4. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The prosecutrix (PW-2) is the star witness of the prosecution as in such cases the fate of the case hinges upon her credibility and trustworthiness. She deposed about the manner of assault committed on her.

5. In order to afford an opportunity to the respondents to explain the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Respondent Puran Chand stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case by the prosecutrix and her husband as he was a stumbling block to the illegal land grabbing committed by the pro