Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
Sunil Chand Gupta & Others
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 28 of 2002
Decided On : 05-02-2014
498A IPC - Dowry Harassment - Section 498A IPC, Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC - The court discussed the testimony of the prosecutrix, the corroborative witnesses, and the medical evidence. It highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecutrix's version, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the failure to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also emphasized the legal principle that false charges of rape are not uncommon and the need to protect the rights of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged dowry harassment and rape by her husband and mother-in-law. She stated that her mother-in-law abetted the rape by pushing the perpetrator into her room. The corroborative witnesses supported her version.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and failure to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized the need to protect the rights of the accused and acquitted them of all charges.
Issues: Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and the need to protect the rights of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principle that false charges of rape are not uncommon and the need to protect the rights of the accused. It also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were cancelled with sureties discharged.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. Appellants before this Court are Sunil Chand and Bimla Devi. They are aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.12.2001 and 13.12.2001 respectively wherein accused Sunil Chand had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC; co-accused Bimla Devi had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC as also for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the IPC. Accused Sunil Chand had been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months. Accused Bimla Devi had also been sentenced for the same period with the same amount of fine for the offence under Section 498A IPC; for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC Bimla Devi had been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months. These sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. had been accrued to the appellants.
2. The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1). As per her statement she married Sunil Chand on 29.4.1999; for the first six months of their marriage she was treated well; thereafter demands of dowry were made both by her husband and her mother-in-law Bimla Devi. The demands were in the nature of T.V., fridge and washing machine. The parents of the victim were unable to meet these demands. The accused persons started beating her and treated her with cruelty. On 22.9.2000 a son was born to PW-1 but unfortunately he died within two weeks of his birth. On 30.10.2000 (which the date of the fateful incident) at about midnight when the victim was in her room her mother-in-law came and after opening the door she pushed Narender (tenant of Bimla Devi) in the room of the victim where Narender committed rape upon her and then fled away. When PW-1 narrated this incident to her husband; he stated that these things happen in their family. When PW-1 complained about this to her mother-in-law, she was rebuked by saying that PW-1 being a woman of bad character; she would be turned out of the house. In this incident she had sustained injuries on her arms. After 3-4 days of the incident, her younger brother and sister came to meet her and she narrated the incident to them. Her brother and sister informed their parents who in turn informed to the police. Statement of prosecutrix (Ex.PW-11/B) was thereafter recorded. This statement was recorded on 11.11.2000.
3. The corroborative witnesses to the version of PW-1 were PW-3 Renu Gupta, the sister of the victim and PW-4 Ajay, brother of the victim. The father of the victim Rameshwar Dayal was examined as PW-2.
4. The victim was medically examined on 11.11.2000 at about 7.45 p.m. in the evening; injury marks were not noted but an old healed superficial abrasion was noted on her left arm. The MLC was proved through Dr.Suman Lal (PW-8) as Ex. PW-8/A.
5. In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they had pleaded innocence. Both of them had stated that they have been falsely implicated and it was only to tarnish their reputation that the prosecutrix has built up this false version; the witnesses are interested. No evidence was led in defence.
6. On behalf of the appellants arguments have been addressed in detail. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are material improvements in the version of PW-1 and in her complaint Ex.PW-11/B she has only narrated that her mother-in-law was present at the time when she pushed Narender inside her room but in her version on oath in court she had roped in her husband and brother-in-law also stating that they were also in the room when the rape was committed upon her. Attention has been drawn to her examination-in-chief as also cross-examination so also to the versions of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. Submission being that PW-3 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
