Back
High Court of Delhi
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Ram Niwas
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 636 of 1999
Decided on : 22-08-2014
Rape - Criminal Appeals - Section 376/506/120-B IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal of two individuals, Ram Niwas and Pappu, who were convicted for committing rape and other offenses. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the victim, the Prosecutrix 'M', who alleged that both appellants had raped her at her home. The appellants denied their involvement and claimed false implication due to a dispute with the victim's husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the Prosecutrix was unreliable and not worthy of credence. It highlighted material contradictions in her statements, lack of corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's version. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both appellants.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the victim's testimony, presence of material contradictions, lack of corroborating evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the victim's testimony to be trustworthy and unassailable, and highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence. It also stressed the principle that a case of rape must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the victim should be consistent and reliable.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were allowed, and the appellants, Pappu and Ram Niwas, were acquitted of the charges. Their conviction and sentence were set aside, and their bail bonds were cancelled with sureties discharged.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. By filing these two Criminal Appeals bearing No.636/1999 and 255/2000, Appellants Ram Niwas and Pappu are impugning the judgment and order on sentence dated 25.08.1999 & 28.08.1999 respectively passed by learned Addl. Session Judge in Session Case No.18/1997 in FIR No.240/1997 under Section 376/506/34 IPC, PS Gokul Puri.
2. In Criminal Appeal No.255/2000, Appellant Pappu is challenging his conviction for committing the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and 506/34 IPC and sentence awarded to him under Section 376 IPC to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.300/-and further under Section 506/34 IPC to undergo RI for six months.
3. In Criminal Appeal No.636/1999, Appellant Ram Niwas is challenging his conviction for committing the offences punishable under Section 376/120-B IPC and 506/34 IPC and sentence awarded to him under Section 376/120-B IPC to undergo RI for four years with fine of Rs.150/-and further under Section 506/34 IPC to undergo RI for six months.
4. The prosecution case begins with DD No.13 dated 24.03.1997 recorded at 4.55 pm. As per this DD, ASI Rohtas from PCR informed the Police Post that in Prakash Vihar, Karawal Nagar, B-Block adjoining the wall of Tube Well of Mani Ram, rape has been committed with a woman and police be sent. After recording the DD entry, SI Rajesh Sinha was informed through wireless who left for the spot.
5. After making endorsement on the statement Ex.PW1/A which is to the effect that after receiving DD No.13, he reached the spot, recorded the statement of Prosecutrix ‘M’ (name of the Prosecutrix withheld to conceal her identity) that he alongwith Prosecutrix ‘M’, her husband Roshan Lal and Accused Pappu was leaving for GTB Hospital for their medical examination, SI Rajesh Sinha sent the rukka through Ct.Surender for registration of the case.
6. Case FIR No240/97 under Section 376/506/120-B IPC was registered at PS Gokul Puri on 24.03.1997 on the basis of statement Ex.PW6/A made by Smt. ‘M’. In the complaint, she stated that she has been residing alongwith her husband and three children. It was day of Holi festival and her husband had gone to meet his sister residing in Karawal Nagar whereas her children had gone to play in the neighbourhood at about 3.00 pm when she was alone at home. Both the Appellants who had been working in their garments stitching factory and had left the job 4-5 months prior to that day, came home and inquired about her husband and children. She informed them that her husband was away to Karawal Nagar and children were away to play in the neighbourhood. She asked them to sit and offered them tea.
7. After taking tea, both of them started going out and at that stage, Appellant Ram Niwas went out but Appellant Pappu bolted the door from inside. She questioned his act but she was slapped by Appellant Pappu. He (Pappu) also pushed her on the bed and threatened to kill her with a scissor lying there. She further stated that Pappu was in inebriated condition at that time. Pappu pulled her blouse, broken the hooks and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her. Thereafter he again threatened to kill her husband and children, if she would disclose the incident to anyone.
8. After committing the rape, Pappu opened the door and she saw Ram Niwas standing outside. When both of them started going together, she raised alarm and in the meantime, her husband reached home. On seeing her crying, he inquired about the reason. She narrated the incident to him. By that time, there was lot of noise and public persons apprehended Pappu from his house but Ram Niwas managed to escape. After thrashing Pappu, the public persons handed over Pappu to her husband in injured condition. She requested for action against both of them for the reason that both of them in conspiracy with each other had committed rape on her.
9. After registration of the FIR, medical examination of Appellant Pappu as well Prosecutrix was got conducted and statement un
AI
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
