Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2002
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukta Gupta, J.
Rajender Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of N.C.T.of Delhi - Resopndent
Crl. A. 936 of 2008
Decided On : 03-04-2013
For the Appellant:Mr. Ajay Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of corroborative evidence, medical findings, and the lack of consent in cases of sexual assault and violence against women.
Headnote:
Rape - Conviction under IPC Sections 342/376/325/506 - [IPC Sections 342, 376, 325, 506] - The court upheld the conviction of the Appellant for offences punishable under IPC Sections 342, 376, 325, and 506. The court rejected the Appellant's contention of the prosecutrix being a consenting party, emphasizing the multiple injuries and medical evidence supporting the lack of consent. The court also dismissed the argument regarding the absence of semen in the FSL report, considering the prosecutrix's menstrual cycle at the time of the incident. The court distinguished the present case from the precedent of Dinesh Jaiswal (2010) 3 SCC 232, highlighting the corroborative evidence in the form of multiple injuries suffered by the prosecutrix.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a widow with two children, was allegedly raped, assaulted, and threatened by the Appellant on multiple occasions. The incidents involved confinement, assault, and rape, resulting in grievous injuries to the prosecutrix. The Appellant was convicted under various IPC sections and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Appellant guilty of the charges based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative statements. The court rejected the defense's argument of the prosecutrix being a consenting party and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the consent of the prosecutrix, the presence of corroborative evidence, and the interpretation of medical and forensic reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecutrix's living arrangements and past complaints did not imply consent, highlighting the significance of medical evidence and the nature of injuries. The court also distinguished the present case from a precedent, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence were upheld.
Mukta Gupta, J.—
1. By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 3rd October, 2008 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 342/376/325 and 506 IPC and the order on sentence dated 6th October, 2008 whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment. The Appellant was further directed to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 342 and 506 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that from the testimony of PW2, the son of the prosecutrix and PW5 the brother of the prosecutrix it is apparent that the prosecutrix PW1 was staying separately and did not stay with her children or the brother. PW3, the doctor has clearly stated that she did not notice any internal injuries and she could not state on examination of PW1 as to whether rape was committed or not. Further the FSL report gave negative of semen. There are material improvements in the statement of PW1 the prosecutrix. In the detailed statement the prosecutrix has alleged that the Appellant raped her earlier as well, however no complaint was made regarding those incidents. It is thus clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The site plan has not been proved by the prosecution. There is no medical evidence on record to suggest that rape was committed on PW1. The Appellant be thus acquitted of the charges framed. In the alternative it is prayed that the Appellant has already undergone more than 9 years of rigorous imprisonment which is more than the minimum prescribed and hence he be released on the period already undergone. Reliance is placed on Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 232.
3. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the multiple injuries on the prosecutrix show that there was no consent. The alleged incident took place on 31st May, 2005 where after she was bolted in the house and some unknown persons hearing her cries opened the bolt and called for the TSR wherefrom she reached her house and thereafter she was medically examined. The clothes of the prosecutrix were stained with blood. The testimony of the doctor cannot be read in isolation. The doctor PW3 stated that since PW1 was a married woman and had given birth to two children, on examination it could not be opined whether rape was committed or not. The Appellant not only raped PW1 but also confined, badly assaulted resulting in grievous injury and threatened the complainant. In view of the gravity of offence committed by the Appellant the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court is justified. Proving of the site plan is not a necessary condition to prove the offence the Appellant has been charged with. There is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the case of the prosecution based on the complaint of PW1, the prosecutrix is that the husband of the prosecutrix died in 1983 and she had two children who were residing with her parents. The prosecutrix knew the Appellant as she has purchased a shop from him. When the prosecutrix purchased the shop from the Appellant, he was not doing anything and had come out from the jail at that time. The Appellant used to sympathize with her at that time and sometimes came to her shop for tea. One day the Appellant came to the shop of the prosecutrix and asked her to accompany as he wanted to talk to her for two minutes. When the prosecutrix told that he could talk over there itself, the Appellant asked the TSR driver to bring the knife and on the point of knife, he forced her to sit in the TSR. The TSR was taken towards Kacha road outside power house of Badarpur. The prosecutrix raised an alarm and two persons came forward. However, on seeing the accused those two people also ran away. He then took her to Kalkaji M
