Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Ramesh @ Pindari & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 1029, 1122 of 2017 & 14 of 2018; Crl. M.B. 15 of 2018
Decided On : 08-10-2018
Rape - Criminal Law - Section 366/34 IPC, Section 376D IPC, Section 376 (2) (l) IPC, Section 506/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of three appellants for the offences of rape and related charges. The victim, a visually challenged woman, alleged that she was raped by the appellants after being lured away from a railway station. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony and the evidence of a witness who claimed to have seen one of the appellants dragging the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's testimony and the witness's account, was not reliable. The court highlighted inconsistencies and improvements in the victim's statements at various stages, as well as the lack of corroborating medical and forensic evidence. The court also noted errors in the trial court's judgment, including the acceptance of witness testimony without considering material improvements and the failure to address the lack of corroborating evidence.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the reliability of the victim's testimony, the credibility of the witness account, and the sufficiency of corroborating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a truthful and reliable victim testimony, consistent with other supporting material, to establish guilt. It also highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence and the careful evaluation of witness testimony. The court's decision was based on the lack of reliability and corroboration in the prosecution's evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their immediate release. The court found it unsafe to hold the appellants guilty based on the unreliable and uncorroborated prosecution evidence.
No, the provided legal document does not address or establish any principle regarding whether a thumb impression alone can be obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
The abbreviation "RTI" in this judgment specifically refers to "Right Thumb Impression" (a form of mark or signature used by the visually challenged victim, PW-1, on legal documents due to her inability to sign), and not the RTI Act. (!) (!) (!) [11000609410001][11000609410017][11000609410018][11000609410023][11000609410031]
Thumb impressions of PW-1 appear repeatedly as evidentiary elements, but always in conjunction with other details, such as endorsements, witness attestations, or contextual statements, rather than "alone": - On the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC), below an explicit endorsement confirming willingness for examination and sample collection. (!) - On police statements under Section 161 CrPC, Section 164 CrPC, and arrest/ disclosure memos, alongside other procedural steps like interrogation or pointing out. (!) (!) [11000609410017][11000609410018] - No instance suggests a thumb impression functions independently without supporting text, witnesses, or procedural context; its validity ties to overall evidence reliability, which the court deemed deficient due to inconsistencies.[11000609410043][11000609410056]
The judgment critiques investigative lapses and evidence quality (e.g., victim testimony, medical/forensic reports) but contains no discussion of information disclosure rights, public authority obligations, or biometric data like thumb impressions under any information regime.[11000609410041][11000609410042][11000609410055]
If the query intends "Right Thumb Impression" validity in criminal proceedings (not RTI Act), the court implies such impressions are routine for illiterate/visually impaired persons but insufficient alone to prove reliability without corroboration. (!) (!) [11000609410043] For RTI Act-specific advice, consult Section 8(1)(j) principles on personal information exemptions, as this document is irrelevant.
S. Muralidhar, J.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18th September 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court-2 (Central) (‘the trial Court’) in SC No. 27600/2016 arising out of FIR No.26/2015 convicting the three Appellants, viz. Beeru (‘A-1’ who has preferred Crl.A. 14/2018), Islam (‘A-2’ who has preferred Crl.A. 1122/2017), and Ramesh @ Pindari (‘A-3’ who has preferred Crl.A. 1029/2017), for the offences under Section 366/34 IPC, Section 376D IPC, Section 376 (2) (l) IPC, and Section 506/34 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 26th September 2017 whereby the Appellants were sentenced as under:-
a. For offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC, to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of convicts’ natural life, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- each, to be paid to the victim and in default whereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 1 year.
b. For offence punishable under Section 366/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for 10 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof, to undergo SI for 1 year.
c. For offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (l) IPC to undergo imprisonment for 7 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof, to undergo SI for 1 year.
d. For offence punishable under Section 506 Part-I/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for 2 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof, to undergo SI for 1 year.
3. The trial Court, noting that the three convicts were from economically weak backgrounds, did not direct them to pay compensation to the victim. It directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the District Legal Services Authority to consider the payment of suitable compensation to PW-1 in terms of Section 357A (2) CrPC.
Call made to the PCR
4. On 24th January 2015, Asif Ahmed (PW-4) was returning home by a bus on Route No.181. The bus was going to the Nizamuddin Railway Station. PW-4 alighted at Bhogal Bus Stand as he had to board another bus going towards his house in Okhla. While he was waiting for that bus at the Bhogal Bus Stand, at around 10:30-11 pm, he noticed a man dragging a blind lady on the road leading to the Nizamuddin Railway Station. He states that the lady was shouting “bachao bachao” and said, “Yeh mujhe pakad ke le jaa raha hai”. According to PW-4, he along with public persons who had gathered at the spot helped the lady apprehend the man. That man was identified in Court by PW-4 to be A-1. He further stated that the victim too revealed her full name to them.
5. The PCR Form (Ex.PW-14/Q) records that a call was made to the police at around 11:02 pm on 24th January 2015. The mobile number of the caller ending ‘9200’ was that of PW-4. What was reported to the police is noted as “Ek ladka ladki ko lekar ja raha hai”. The noting on the PCR form at 11:29 pm reads:-
“______ naam ki ladki aged ____ years blind hai, Madhya Pradesh ki rehni wali hai, SHO moka par hai, ladki ____ jo train se Delhi aayi thi jise Dehradun jaana tha jo Bhogal stand par uske do teen aadmi thei jo uska mouth band karke jabardasti le jaane ki koshish kar rahe thei jo bhag gaye ha ek ladke Beeru aged 36 years ko shak mein pakda hai.”
Arrival of the police
6. The police official who first reached the spot was ASI Karan Singh (PW-8) attached to PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. His PCR van was positioned near Rajdoot Hotel at 11:08 pm when he received the above information. Along with Ct. Pawan Sehrawat (PW-16), PW-8 reached near the Bhogal Bus Stand where public persons were found gathered. One person, viz. PW-4, met him there and informed PW-8 that he was the person who had given information to the PCR. The boy who was taking away the girl had been overpowered and his name was disclosed as A-1.
7. Meanwhile, SI Mahender Kumar (PW-5) and the SHO came to the spot. One Lady Ct. Rekha was als
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
