How a married woman, mother of two found a lover ( outside marriage ), filed a rape case on the lover / acquaintance and later conveniently claimed that there was no rape !!!
Court cases speak to us… Many of them tell bizarre tales of deceit of cheating and violence ….
Some like this case, tell us how a woman, motorway from my husband, found a second guy, and officially married him and also filed a fake rape case on him…
In addition to filing this week case she goes on to waste the time of all investigating agencies, and also the time of the court
Finally, for reasons best known to her, ( or probably after forcing the so-called rapist into her second husband ) she turns turtle at the courtroom says that they did not rape !!!
There are thousands of cases like this, where the so-called victim, or the prosecutrix, finally says there is no rape !! After having conveniently married the so-called rapist or after having conveniently taken some other form of satisfaction
Still in India is considered a country of rapists !!
****** case from Indian kanoon website ****
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 52/2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0100992014. State versus
Ashok Kumar Son of Sh. Harlal Singh Resident of L2 Block, Shop No. 64-A, 40 foota road, M/Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Permanent address: Village Dhaka ki Dhani, Post Bhoj Nagar, Distt. Jhujhnu Rajasthan. First Information Report Number : 240/13
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Under sections: 376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 26.02.2014 the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal : 25.04.2014
Arguments concluded on : 22.04.2016.
Date of judgment : 22.04.2016. Appearances: Ms. Madhu Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused on bail.
Ms. Nupur Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel for the accused. *********************************************************************** JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ashok Kumar has been charge sheeted by the Police Station Uttam Nagar , Delhi for the offence under sections 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that accused grew closeness with her taking benefit of the fact that she was having differences with her husband and was living separately from him. She has levelled specific allegations of rape of one date after intoxicating her when she went to his shop for taking medicines. There are allegations of marriage under pressure and blackmailing as well.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against accused was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.02.2014 and after its committal, the case was assigned to this Court on 25.04.2014.
3. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 17.10.2014, charge for offences under section 376/328/506/363/366/496/120-B of the IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1 and her mother as PW2.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in criminal matters, as approved by the "Committee to monitor proper implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual offences and child witnesses" have been followed.
6 The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that she was married with one Pankaj Vaid and out of wedlock, two children were born. After some time, her husband started beating her after taking liquor and abused her. She filed a complaint under domestic violence against her husband and also for maintenance. She deposed that she has been residing at her matrimonial house with her children till date. She further deposed that accused was having the chemist shop in the same locality from where she used to take medicine of her kids. She says that while the divorce case with her husband was still pending, she married the accused on 12.11.2013. There were quarrels between them on small issues due to temperamental differences. She deposed that the complaint filed by her was typed by a typist of which the contents were not read over to her. She identified her signatures in the complaint. She denied that she was taken for medical examination. She admitted her photographs with the accused and stated categorically that she did not want to say anything against the accused.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for State, she has denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/A her typed complaint had been read over to her before being filed. She denied that on 02.07.2014, the accused had administered some intoxicating substance to her with intent to commit rape and had raped her thereafter. She denied that after the commission of rape, the accused had shown her an obscene video of her prepared by him and had threatened to kill her and her children, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She denied that after 02.07.14, the accused raped her several times after threatening her that he would upload her video on the Internet. She denied that on 15.11.12, the accused threatened to kidnap her children and to show the video to his family members, if she did not agree to marry her. She denied that she was forced to marry the accused or that her signatures were obtained forcibly or that she was taken to Sikar, Rajasthan. She denied that on 17.11.12, her children were kidnapped by accused or that she was forced to marry the accused on 18.11.12 and to sign the affidavit dated 20.11.2012. She denied that on 11.05.13, she had called her parents and had asked them to follow the directions of accused, they followed the directions as her children were with the accused who had promised to return them afterwards. She denied that accused had given the photographs of her marriage with him to her first husband and was blackmailing her. She admitted that a petition had been filed by the accused for declaration of her marriage with accused as null and void.
9. The mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 who stated that the marriage of her daughter with her first husband was not going well. She deposed that her daughter had married the accused out of free will in her presence and presence of her husband at Sikar, Rajasthan. After marriage, the prosecutrix and accused had resided at Uttam Nagar. She deposed that she did not want to depose anything against the accused. She was cross- examined by ld. Add. Prosecutor. In her cross examination, she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police as told by her. She stated that she did not tell the police that her daughter had married the accused in Arya Samaj Mandir on 18.11.12. She deposed that she did not say to the police that she had told the accused that her daughter could not marry him as she had not obtained divorce from her earlier husband. She denied having asked her daughter about her children at the time of solemnization of marriage and accused having told her not to worry about her children. She denied that children of her daughter were kidnapped by the accused or the accused had married her after kidnapping her children on 17.11.2012. She denied giving the statement in the court after being won over by the accused.
10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being raped by the accused. She has deposed that accused has not committed any offence against her and nor deposed anything incriminating against the accused. She has deposed that she had married with the accused out of her free consent. Her mother also did not speak anything against the accused. In fact, the mother stated that marriage between the prosecutrix and accused was voluntary and was attended by her and her husband.
11. In these circumstances, as both prosecution witnesses the prosecutrix and her mother, who are the main witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case and more importantly have not assigned any criminal role to the accused not deposing anything incriminating against the accused, the precious Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself, the most material witness, as well as the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and is hostile.
12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused is dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.
13. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the prosecutrix, PW1 & PW-2 her mother, who happen to be the material witnesses, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
14. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
15. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilt of an accused, particularly in cases where the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty of the charged offences. There is no material on record to show that pros- ecutrix had gone to the shop of the accused on 02.07.12 as she had high fever or that the accused had asked her to stay there and had given her some medicines. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused had stopped her under pretext that she may fall down on way. There is nothing in the evidence to show that prosecutrix had fallen unconscious and on regaining consciousness had found the accused committed rape upon her. There is nothing to suggest that at that time, the accused had told her to marry her and to keep her children and to threaten her that in case she made a complaint to the police, he would highlight her video which he had made in the phone. There is nothing in the evidence to show that she was living away from her husband and that accused threatened her that he would tell everything to her husband. The prosecutrix has not uttered that the accused had threatened her that his brother in law was head constable in Delhi Police and that he would manage everything and make her life hell. The prosecutrix has not deposed that accused called her several times thereafter and made physical relations with her after threatening her that he would put her video on the Internet. She has not deposed that being a helpless woman, she for the sake of honour and safety of her minor children agreed to the demands of the accused. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that on 15.01.12, the accused went to the house of prosecutrix and told her that he wanted to marry her and that if she didn’t agree, he would get her children kidnapped. She has also not deposed that accused threatened that he will upload her video because of which she would commit suicide or that he asked her to prepare her parents for the marriage without telling them anything. She has not stated that the accused had kidnapped her son on 17.11.12 and had taken her to the temple where he married her against her will on 18.11.12 or that later, he got prepared an affidavit from the court on 20.11.12 and obtained her forcible signature. She has denied having been taken to Sikar for marriage and her parents being called there. She has not deposed that the accused gave the documents to her husband or that her husband and accused were in conspiracy with each other and had talked with each other.
17. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape, kidnapping, intoxication, threatening, forcible obtaining of signatures. There is no evidence of conspiracy between Pankaj and the accused absolutely. The evidence of the prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took place. She has categorically deposed that she had married the accused out of her free will in presence of her parents.
18. Consequently, accused is hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against him
19. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
20. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
21. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
22. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 22nd day of April, 2016.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ)
Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.