Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Shalu Raghav – Petitioner
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 83 of 2016 & CRL.M.A.No.1902 of 2016, CRL.REV.P. 58 of 2016
Decided On : 30-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP. Mr. Kedar Yadav
The credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the significance of corroborative evidence in rape cases.
Headnote:
Rape - Discharge of Accused - Sections 376/328/506 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 328/376 IPC - The court discussed the relevance of the victim's statement and the Call Detail Records in framing charges against the accused. The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony and the need for corroborative evidence during trial. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law regarding the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the significance of corroborative evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the accused, along with another individual, administered stupefying substances and committed rape on multiple occasions. The Trial Court charged one accused but acquitted the other based on the victim's statement and Call Detail Records.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's approach in exonerating one accused based on the victim's statement and Call Detail Records was deemed unjustified by the High Court.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the victim's statement and the significance of Call Detail Records in framing charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony and the need for corroborative evidence during trial. The decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law regarding the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the significance of corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order discharging the accused and directed the respondent to appear before the Trial Court to face trial.
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Aggrieved by an order dated 07.10.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.29/2015 arising out of FIR No.135/2014 PS Chanakya Puri whereby the respondent No.2 – Monil Yadav (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’) was discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 376/328/506 IPC, State and the victim have preferred the present petitions which are contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. On 18.06.2014, the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name) lodged a written complaint at PS Chankya Puri disclosing that Bal Mukund Sharma @ Panchal (hereinafter referred to ‘A-I’) and his associate–the respondent, resident of Kaushambi Indrapuram, Ghaziabad were known to her for about a year. A-I often used to talk on her mobile No.9711578279 to provide her a job. ‘The respondent’ also used to talk to her on A-I’s mobile. The prosecutrix further alleged that on 25.04.2014 both A-1 and the respondent took her to Delhi in the parking of Ashoka Hotel at about 12.00 noon; administered stupefying substance in the cold drink and committed rape upon her in the car. Again, on 03.06.2014 in similar manner they both committed rape upon her in the parking lot near ISBT Kashmiri Gate, Delhi in the car. They had also committed rape upon her several times in Hindon Vihar (Ghaziabad) as well. She was criminally intimidated not to disclose the incident.
3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. ‘X’ when taken for medical examination, declined to undergo internal medical examination. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. A-I was arrested. Call Detail Records of the mobiles belonging to various individuals were collected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for commission of offences punishable under Sections 328/506/376 IPC was filed against A-I in the Court. ‘The respondent’ was kept in column No.12 claiming lack of evidence against him.
4. By an order dated 04.08.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance against the respondent to face trial in the criminal proceedings. By an order dated 14.11.2014, the Revisional Court in Crl.Rev.No.77/2014 dismissed the revision petition and directed the respondent to appear before the Trial Court. Seemingly, the said order has attained finality.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court charged A-I for commission of offences punishable under Sections 328/376 IPC. The respondent, however, was acquitted of all the charges.
6. In her complaint dated 18.06.2014 ‘X’ had implicated both A-I and ‘the respondent’ to have committed rape upon her on various occasions. She specifically disclosed the dates 25.04.2014 and 03.06.2014 when both A-I and the respondent had sexually assaulted her in the car, firstly in the parking of Ashoka Hotel and thereafter in the parking of ISBT. The prosecutrix also disclosed that A-I used to remain in touch with her on his mobile No.9810016616. She further informed that the respondent had a mobile No. 9899797332; her own mobile number was 9711578279.
7. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 20.06.2014, ‘X’ reiterated her version disclosed to the police and gave graphic detail as to how A-I and the respondent used to commit rape upon her on the allurement to provide her a job.
8. The Trial Court in the impugned order placed reliance upon the ‘X’s statement to frame charge under Sections 376/328 IPC against A-I. However, victim’s statement was considered unreliable or deficient qua the respondent and he was exonerated of all the charges. This approach of the Trial Court cannot be justified. There were specific allegations against the respondent by the complainant in her initial complaint dated 18.06.2014 as well as in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The respondent was specifically named in the FIR. Nothing has emerged to infer that the respondent had no acquaintance with A-I or that ‘X’
