Dismissed

State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajendra and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Sept 2018CRL.L.P./524/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition challenging the acquittal of accused persons. Upholding the trial court's view, it held that material inconsistencies in the victim's statement and unexplained delay, unsupported by medical evidence, made the conviction unsafe.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rajendra and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

The criminal justice process was activated when a Women SI (PW-24) attached to PS Rohini received information and went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. There, she received the MLC of the victim PW-17 in which the doctor mentioned an alleged history of kidnapping and rape. The WSI recorded the statement of PW-17 under Section161 Cr PC. Accordingto her, her marriagewithone Babloo@ Kishan Pal was a love marriageprior to 2005, Thereafter,he eloped with a girl named Madhu (Respondent No.3). According to her, thereafter, Babloo and his brother once came to her house and tried to forciblyadministerpoisonto her and in that regard she lodgedan FIR against Babloo and his brother. According to PW-17, the father of Respondent No.3 had also registered an FIR against Babloo. After about 10 months, Babloo was apprehended along with Respondent No.3 by the police and at the time of filing of complaint in the present case, Babloo was in judicial custody.

¶3

Accordingto PW-17, at around 4 pm on 26^^ May 2006, she was going to Burari to meet her sister. When she reached near Budh Vihar Post, Respondent No.3 met her,and asked her to withdraw her case against Babloo. When she reached near Rithala Bus Stand, she noticed a white Tata Sumo car parked there. Thereafter, three persons, viz. Respondent Nos.l, 4, and 5, forcibly dragged PW-17 inside the car which was being driven by one Chunnu. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 also sat in the said vehicle. PW-17 was taken away in the vehicle with her face covered with a cloth. They took her to the first floor of a

¶4

Crl L.P. 524/2018

¶5

Page 2 of 6

¶6

residential house at Burari, where one more person (since expired) and Respondent No.2 were present. Respondent No.2 is supposed to have raped her in the presence of Respondent No.l, Respondent No.4, and the aforementioned Chunnu. She further alleged that the husband of Respondent No.4 also had oral sex with her. She states that when she became unconscious, the accused threw her near a drain in Burari. Thereafter, someone called the police and she was brought to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital.

¶7

The statement of PW-17 under Section 164 CrPC was recorded more than three years later on 15^*^ January2010. Initially, a cancellation report was filed by the Investigating Officer ('10'). However, the prosecution agency raised an objection to it. Thereafter, the 10 filed the charge sheet against the aforementioned accused. During the investigation, the husband of Respondent No.4 died. Supplementary charge sheet was filed along with the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The aforementioned Chunnu could not be traced and was therefore not sent up for trial. Charges were framed againstthe accusedon 30^^ April 2012.

¶8

As already noticed, Respondent No.l expired during the trial and proceedingsagainst him stood abated as of 2"^ September2016. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The plea of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated. The plea of Respondent No.3 was that she was not even present at the scene but with her sister and

¶9

Crl L.P. 524/2018

¶10

Page 3 of 6

¶11

mother at their house. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 took a similar plea as did Respondent No.2. Five DWs were examined.

¶12

The trial Court has discussed the evidence prepared and noticed that there were material inconsistencies between the initial statement given by PW-17 to the poHce, her statementunder Section 164 CrPC, and her depositionin the trial. These have been set out in para 22 of the impugnedjudgment.

¶13

In the status report initiallyfiled beforethe concernedMetropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), it was mentioned by the police that after registrationof the FIR, PW-17 remainedmissingand did not join the investigation. More than three years later, on 21'^ January2010, PW-17 herself came to the PS and thereafter,an applicationwas filed in Rohini Courts for recordingher statementunder Section164 Cr PC. This delay in recordingher statementadded to the doubts about the truth of her version of events.

¶14

The trial Court also found that the version of PW-17 was not corroboratedby the medical evidence. Her MLC did not reveal any internalor externalinjurieswhich would bearouther continuousrape by three personsas statedby her. Even as regardsthe bum injurieson her back, it was noticed that when PW-17 was first taken to the hospital on 27^ May 2006, the examining doctor (PW-18) did not notice any such injuries. It was only on the following day, i.e. 28^^ May 2006, when the forensic expert (PW15) noticed two

¶15

Crl LP. 524/2018

¶16

Page 4 of 6

¶17

superficial bum marks on the back of the prosecutrix. This also created a doubt as to her version of events.The trial Court noticedthat in her initial statementto the police, PW-17 did not mention about such bum injuries and a separate opinion had to be taken of the forensic expert on such injuries. Even the photographs placed on record with regard to such injuries did not show the face of PW-17. Negatives of such photographs have not been placed on record. . Therefore,it was doubtful whether such photographswere in fact of PW-17.

¶18

The trial Court, after discussingthe evidenceofPW-17, concluded that she had not put forth all the material facts and in fact, withheld evidence for reasons best known to her. The defence evidence in the presentcase appearsprobable.

¶19

This Court has agam examinedthe entire record with the help of the leamed APP and has not been persuadedto come to a different conclusionas regardsthe truthfulnessand reliabilityof the deposition of PW-17. There has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in PW-17 following up her own complaint with the police and inconsistenciesin whathas been spokentobyherat differentpointsof time which is uncorroboratedby the medical evidence, making it unsafe to base any finding of the guilt of the Respondentson such evidence.

Crl. L.P. 524/2018

^"8^ 5 of 6

No grounds have been made out for interference with the impugnedjudgment of the trial court.

¶24

13.The petition is accordinglydismissed.

¶25

S. MURALEDHAR, J.

¶26

VINOD GOEL, J.

¶27

SEPTEMBER 19,2018 sandeep/"shailendra "

¶28

Crl L.P. 524/2018

¶29

Page 6 of 6

State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajendra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of NCT of Delhi v. Rajendra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Babu Vs State of Delhi

Sampti Chatarjee Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sumit Sharma Vs State

Mrs. Tara Vs State & Others

Subhash Chand Gupta Vs State

Nikhil Borwankar Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.