Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
NEERAJ - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - RESPONDENT
CRL.A. 1646 of 2013
Decided On : 05-12-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Rajni Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of the prosecutrix to inspire confidence and be reliable, along with the significance of medical and scientific evidence in cases of rape.
Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Law - [Sections 376/452 IPC] - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 458/376 IPC. The court scrutinizes the evidence, including the statement of the prosecutrix, and finds infirmities in her version. The court also highlights the scientific evidence, DNA report, which exonerates the appellant. The judgment sets aside the conviction and the sentence awarded under Section 458/376 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 458/376 IPC based on the statement of the prosecutrix alleging rape. The appellant appealed against the judgment, highlighting improbabilities and infirmities in the version of the prosecutrix and the investigating officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found infirmities in the version of the prosecutrix and the investigating officers. It noted discrepancies in the evidence, including the lack of corroboration for the prosecutrix's statement and the scientific evidence, DNA report, which exonerated the appellant. The court held that the conviction and the sentence awarded under Section 458/376 IPC cannot be sustained.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecutrix's statement, the reliability of the investigating officers' evidence, and the scientific evidence, DNA report, in the context of the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 458/376 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the testimony of the prosecutrix, although usually requiring no corroboration, must inspire confidence and be reliable. It highlighted the need for medical evidence and the significance of scientific evidence, such as the DNA report, in cases of rape. The court also stressed the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order on sentence, allowing the appeal and ordering the release of the appellant if not wanted in any other case.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment 18th September, 2013 and order on sentence dated 25th September, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No.150/13 (pertaining to FIR No. 114/2009 under Sections 376/452 IPC, PS Bawana) whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 458/376 IPC and sentenced as under:
(i)
U/s 458 IPC
to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one year.
(ii)
U/s 376 IPC
to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for two years.
2. Process of law was set into motion on recording of DD No.28A dated 22nd May, 2009 at PS Bawana that wireless operator had informed at 11:28 pm about the information received from lady Constable Vimal Kanta, 2629 PCR that ‘Pooth Khurd Ram Singh ka makaan Naresh ke ghar Rajender Joon wali gali ek aadmi ne ijjat lut li. Maine use band kar rakha hai Ph.No.9999615960.’
3. The above DD was assigned to SI Mahender Pratap Singh (PW-14) who along with Ct.Rahul Bedi (PW-11) left for the spot. Case FIR No.114 dated 23rd May, 2009 was recorded on the basis of the statement made by the prosecutrix ‘R’ (name withheld to conceal identity) wherein she alleged that on 22nd May, 2009 the appellant/convict herein entered her house and committed rape on her. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Session.
4. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 458/376 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses to substantiate its case. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He has produced three witnesses in his defence.
5. After discussing the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court found the statement of the prosecutrix to be inspiring confidence and held the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner as stated earlier.
6. Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has filed detailed written submissions highlighting improbabilities and infirmities in the version of PW-1 ‘R’ – the prosecutrix, PW-11 Ct.Rahul Bedi, who accompanied the first Investigating Officer to the spot and PW-14 SI Mahender Pratap – the first Investigating Officer. It has been contended that PW-11 Ct.Rahul Bedi was not even present at the police station as is proved from his CDRs and the MLC of the convict Ex.PW7/B wherein the name of the constable in the Column ‘Brought By’ is mentioned as Ct.Mukesh No. 1228/OD. It has also been contended that the explanation given by PW-11 Ct.Rahul Bedi that he forgot his mobile at his residence on that date is also not acceptable for the reason that mobile was constantly changing location as is proved from his CDRs.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that entire version of the prosecutrix is unbelievable for the reason that as per her, she stepped out of the room at 11.15 pm to check the water motor and she has called PCR at 11.27 pm. Within a period of 12 minutes, as per the prosecutrix, she has checked the motor, she was caught by the appellant, gagged and dragged inside the room and after tearing her clothes, she was raped. Thereafter she had the necessary time to lift her clothes as well lock and key and also pushed the convict and bolted the door from outside as well locked it and this 12 minutes also includes the time that after wearing her clothes, she had gone to the terrace and taken the mobile phone of Sonia – wife of the tenant and at 11.27 pm even call was made to the police station which in itself appears to be highly improbable. Not only that, as per PW-14 SI Mahender Pratap, the crime team consi
