IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Amit @ Sonu Jaat - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 692, 815, 892, 894, 897, 1053 of 2016
Decided on : 14-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366/34/367(2)(g)/506 - Offence of Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage - Act done by several persons - Rape - Charged - Information was received at Police Control Room that a lady had been raped by many persons in a truck near Gas Plant - On receiving said information, police team reached on spot at Agra Canal Road near Indane Gas Plant - Enquiry was made from Prosecutrix/Complainant and her statement was recorded - In her statement, Prosecutrix/Complainant stated that she was a rag picker and used to come from to JJ Colony, for rag-picking. - Prosecutrix/Complainant boarded vehicle for going to Nehru Place - Vehicle was driven by one co-accused, while other coaccused was helper - After reaching Nehru Place, all passengers got down from Vehicle, took Prosecutrix/Complainant near CNG pump, Place, where Prosecutrix/Complainant was introduced and who shifted Prosecutrix/Complainant into a car forcibly by twisting her arms - Drove car and took her near a cinema hall at Nehru Place where Prosecutrix/Complainant was allegedly raped in car - Whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact.
Finding of the Court:
Fact that there are several contradictions in the version of prosecutrix as well as lack of independent witnesses, there is sufficient material on record in form of medical evidence and forensic report that incriminate appellants named herein - Court is left with no other option but to conclude that offence as alleged has been committed by appellants and same having been substantiated by medical evidence, accused as named above have been rightly convicted and sentenced by Trial Court.
Result: Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 16th March 2016 and order on sentence dated 11th April 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Southeast District, Saket Court, New Delhi wherein the Appellants/Accused persons were convicted and sentenced.
2. Since the criminal appeals bearing number CRL.A.-692/16, CRL.A.-815/16, CRL.A.-892/16, CRL.A.-894/16, CRL.A.-897/16, and CRL.A.-1053/16 have arisen out of the same FIR, pertain to the same set of facts, and have been heard together, therefore the same are being decided by way of this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The brief facts and circumstances that have led to the instant case are as under:
(ii) On 18th May 2012 at about 9:00 P.M., Prosecutrix/Complainant boarded Gramin Sewa vehicle from Jalebi Chowk, Madanpur Khadar for going to Nehru Place. The Gramin Sewa vehicle was driven by one co-accused namely Lucky, while the other co-accused Tehna was the helper.
(iii) After reaching Nehru Place, all the passengers got down from the Vehicle, Tehna took the Prosecutrix/Complainant near CNG pump, Nehru Place, where the Prosecutrix/Complainant was introduced to Vicky @ Vijay and Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte, who shifted the Prosecutrix/Complainant into a car forcibly by twisting her arms. Vicky @ Vijay drove the car and took her near a cinema hall at Nehru Place where the Prosecutrix/Complainant was allegedly raped in the car by Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte.
(iv) Thereafter, the Prosecutrix/Complainant was taken into a room at JJ Colony, Khadar where co-accused Lucky, Vicky @ Vijay, Yasin Khan @ Tehana and Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte allegedly committed rape upon her. Vicky @ Vijay called the co-accused Uma Shankar and the Amit @Sonu Jaat who also committed rape upon the Prosecutrix/Complainant. The Prosecutrix/Complainant also complained about an act of sodomy committed upon her by Vicky @ Vijay.
(v) Thereafter, the Prosecutrix/Complainant was taken in the Gramin Sewa by three of the co-accused. Near the gas plant, Kalindi Kunj, the vehicle went out of order. The co-accused Vicky @ Vijay again committed rape upon the Prosecutrix/Complainant. All the accused persons left the Prosecutrix/Complainant there and threatened her to kill if she disclosed about the alleged incident to anyone. The Prosecutrix/Complainant sought help from a truck driver Abhimanyu @ Bantu. However, Abhimanyu @ Bantu took the Prosecutrix/Complainant into the truck cabin and committed rape upon her.
(vi) On the statement of Prosecutrix/Complainant, the instant FIR bearing No. 166/2012 dated 19th May 2012 was registered in Police Station Jaitpur against the Appellants/Accused persons. The Prosecutrix/Complainant was medically examined in AIIMS Hospital, wherein injuries were found on her body and internal parts.
(vii) On 20th May 2012, Vicky @ Vijay, Lucky, Yasin Khan @ Tehana, Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte, Uma Shanker, Abhimanyu @ Bantu and Amit @ Sonu Jaat were arrested upon the identification by the Prosecutrix/Complainant.
4. After Investigation, Chargesheet dated 15th August 2012 was filed before the Court below against all the Appellants/Accused persons and vide order dated 9th October 2012, th
Jai Krishna Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 14 SCC 534
Raju v. State of M.P. (2008) 15 SCC 133
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra
Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220
Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra
Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 15 SCC 566
Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. (2003) 3 SCC 175
Offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of inno....
Point of Law : Offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial pres....
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the cases where there are serious doubts regarding the sexual intercourse, the benefit of doubt has been provided upon the accused.
Acquittal upheld in rape appeal as prosecutrix testimony unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, unnatural non-resistance, absence of injuries, delayed disclosure, and enmity motive, despite ....
The court established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony must be corroborated by credible evidence, and any significant contradictions or lack of medical evidence can lead to the....
The testimony of the prosecutrix in sexual offense cases requires cautious scrutiny, and conviction cannot be based solely on suspect testimonies without corroborative evidence.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
The court emphasized the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony and highlighted the importance of medical evidence in rape cases. It also stressed the possibility of false accusations ....
The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony was quashed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborated testimony....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.