IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Virender @ Billu & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.A.1209 of 2014
Decided On : 02-04-2024
RAPE - Criminal Law - Sections 395/376G/412 IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC. The court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC due to the prosecution's failure to prove its case. The court also highlighted the importance of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the need for it to be unassailable and reliable. The court emphasized the need for the victim's testimony to be consistent and trustworthy, and observed that the victim's testimony did not inspire confidence and was not unblemished. The court also noted the lacunae in the victim's evidence, which led to the acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC. The court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC due to the prosecution's failure to prove its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the importance of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the need for it to be unassailable and reliable. The court observed that the victim's testimony did not inspire confidence and was not unblemished. The court also noted the lacunae in the victim's evidence, which led to the acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC.
Issues: The prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of the testimony of the prosecutrix and the need for it to be unassailable and reliable. The court emphasized the need for the victim's testimony to be consistent and trustworthy, and observed that the victim's testimony did not inspire confidence and was not unblemished. The court also noted the lacunae in the victim's evidence, which led to the acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC due to the prosecution's failure to prove its case.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant-State against impugned order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the learned Court of Sessions, whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 395/376G/412 IPC in FIR No.97/2005, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2005 at about 12:45 a.m. at Sankat Mochan Siddh Hanuman Mandir, Barwala Road, the respondents alongwith other co-accused, committed gang rape upon the prosecutrix/victim and also committed dacaoity at the point of deadly weapons. In respect of the alleged incident, DD No. 5A was recorded at Police Station Bawana, Delhi by Inspector Babu Lal, who alongwith Head Constable Dharam Pal and Operator Shankar went to the spot of the crime, where they came to know that the wife of Pandit was already taken to MB Hospital by the PCR.
3. After recording statement of one Ram Prasad Adhikari, who was present at the spot, Inspector Babu Lal prepared the rukka which culminated into registration of the FIR in question.
4. Ram Prasad Adhikari, in his statement, before the police stated that he has been residing in Sankat Mochan Hanuman Mandir, Begumpur since 2003 alongwith his children. In 2004, he also brought his wife i.e. the prosecutrix, who had given birth to a daughter two months ago. On the day of the incident, while he alongwith his wife and both his children were sleeping in the room of mandir which was locked from outside, however, at midnight 5-6 persons entered into the mandir and pulled up his `choti' while he was sleeping and then awakened him. The persons were carrying pistols and guns and they threatened him by saying that if he would shout or made any noise they will fire a shot. The robbers asked him about the galla containing Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, they broke the lock of the mandir gate with the help of an iron saria, tied his hands and legs, took the keys of the room and went where his wife was sleeping.
5. As those four five persons entered the room where his wife was sleeping, upon hearing the noises, his wife and children got up and started crying. Those persons remained in the room for a considerable time, and after sometime, they came out and untied him and thereafter, they locked him alongwith his wife and children inside the said room and flee from the spot.
6. Ram Prasad Adhikari further stated that upon asking his wife, she disclosed that four persons on the point of pistols and guns removed her clothes and one by one committed rape upon her. They also forcibly removed her ear rings, gold nose pin and silver pajebs. Apart from this, they also took away three sarees and one dhoti kurta. According to the prosecutrix/victim, the age of the accused persons was about 30 to 40 years and they were all wearing turbans. Till morning, Ram Prasad Adhikari, alongwith his wife and children, remained locked in the said room. However, in the morning they shouted and then one bicycle rider stopped and opened the door of this room. Thereafter, he disclosed the whole incident to the nephew of the owner of the mandir, who called the police.
7. During the investigation, site plan of the crime spot was prepared, one broken lock, one button of shirt and woollen shawl of the prosecutrix were taken into possession and sent for FSL. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and her statement and that of other witnesses was also recorded. Besides, a plastic sheet on the takhat, a quilt cover was also seized and sent for FSL opinion. The investigation of the case was thereafter handed over to Inspector Gurmeet Singh.
8. On 14.04.2005, accused Sunil Kumar was arrested in another case being FIR No. 135/2005 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Alipur, Delhi and accused Virender @ Billu was arrested for the same offences in FIR No. 136/2005. Both the accused persons in their respective disclosure statements, ac
The judgment establishes that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case must be credible and consistent; otherwise, it cannot be relied upon for conviction, especially in the absence of corr....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape, and the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and corroborated with medical and o....
The conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is full of contradictions and lacks corroborative evidence.
The importance of corroborative evidence and consistency in the prosecutrix's statement in cases of serious allegations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence in rape cases and the principle that serious infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosec....
Testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the....
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....
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.