Father in law & uncle did NOT rape me. I just went to PS, Police wrote false case, made me sign. Delhi case !

Innocent Woman says one thing in complaint (rape etc.) , repeats that in examination in chief (father in law & husband’s uncle raped me, husband had un unatural sex etc) and then in cross eamination, says the police wrote all the false complaint and she was forced to sign without reading the complaint !! She is protected, her name is withheld by the Hon. court and acused (earlier arrested etc) are acquitted. Of course NO punishment for Poor woman !!

Excerpts

“…Apart from levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry demands in the complaint, the prosecutrix had also stated therein that her husband Himanshu had been committing un-natural sex with her and Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014….”

“….The accused Ashok and Rajesh were arrested after their bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The bail applications of the remaining accused were dismissed by the Sessions court but they were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court later on. ….”

“…In her examination in chief, she reiterated that she had been treated with cruelty by her in laws i.e. accused persons and cash in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs as well as heavy jewellery were being demanded from her. She also reiterated that accused Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. She added that her father-in-law Ashok also committed rape upon her on 18.5.2014. She deposed that her husband used to show blue films to her and then used to have oral sex as well as anal sex with her…..”

“…..9. However, in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons, she took a complete U-turn and deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case ……”, “....She further deposed that somebody had written the complaint in the police station, upon which she was asked to sign without being permitted to go through its contents. …”

“…It is thus evident that all the accused are innocent and none of them had inflicted any kind of cruelty (physical, mental or sexual) upon the prosecutrix. It is also manifest that none of the accused has made any dowry demand from the prosecutrix.

13. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, credible or trust worthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. All the accused are, therefore, liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted….”


IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

SC No.79/15

Unique Case ID No.02405R0080192015.

State

Vs.

  1. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.
    (Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).
  2. Rajesh s/o Sh. Prem Singh
    R/o VPO Siwaha Distt Jind Haryana.

  3. Smt. Pushpa w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

  4. Himanshu s/o Ashok Kumar,
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

  5. Smt. Priyanka w/o Praveen,
    R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
    Haryana.

  6. Praveen
    R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
    Haryana.
    (Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).

Date of Institution :10.07.2015.
FIR No.437/14 dated 15.07.2014.
U/s.376/498A/34 IPC.
P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar.

Date of reserving judgment :16.12.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2015.

JUDGMENT

 

  1.  Accused Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Himanshu, Praveen, Priyanka and Pushpa had been charge sheeted by the prosecution for having committed the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
  2. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix namely ‘P’ (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her identity) had submitted a written complaint in the police station against the above named persons. Accused Himanshu is her husband, accused Ashok and accused Pushpa are her parents in law, accused Priyanka is her sister in law, accused Praveen is Priyanka’s husband and accused Rajesh is the maternal uncle of Himanshu. Apart from levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry demands in the complaint, the prosecutrix had also stated therein that her husband Himanshu had been committing un-natural sex with her and Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3. FIR was registered on the aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix and the investigation was entrusted to SI Suman. She got the medical examination of prosecutrix conducted and seized the exhibits given by the doctor. The prosecutrix was produced before a lady Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The accused Ashok and Rajesh were arrested after their bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The bail applications of the remaining accused were dismissed by the Sessions court but they were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court later on. They joined the investigation and were interrogated by the IO. All the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL by the IO for forensic examination.
  4.  After completion of the investigation, the IO prepared the charge sheet and submitted the same to the court concerned. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, the accused Ashok and accused Praveen were discharged vide order dated 9.11.2015 by this court. However, charge u/s 377 IPC was framed against accused Himanshu, charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Rajesh and charge u/s 498A IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC was framed against three accused Himanshu, Pushpa and Priyanka. Further charge u/s 406 IPC was also framed against accused Pushpa.
  5. All the accused denied the charges and hence trial was held.
  6. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2015 wherein all of them denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
  7. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire record.
  8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW4. In her examination in chief, she reiterated that she had been treated with cruelty by her in laws i.e. accused persons and cash in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs as well as heavy jewellery were being demanded from her. She also reiterated that accused Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. She added that her father-in-law Ashok also committed rape upon her on 18.5.2014. She deposed that her husband used to show blue films to her and then used to have oral sex as well as anal sex with her.
  9. However, in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons, she took a complete U-turn and deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case as well as to her deposition in examination in chief. She admitted that none of the accused had ever beaten her or had ever demanded dowry from her. She admitted that neither her husband nor any of her in laws had inflicted any physical, mental or sexual harassment upon her. She deposed that her parents had told her that her husband has eloped alongwith the wife of his own cousin and upon hearing this she became enraged and in a fit of rage as well as upon their instigation, she went to police station to lodge a complaint. She further deposed that somebody had written the complaint in the police station, upon which she was asked to sign without being permitted to go through its contents. She admitted that the contents of the application were not even read over to her before taking her signatures upon the same. The complaint was read over to her in the court and she stated that its contents are false and incorrect. She deposed that no incident as deposed by her had infact taken place. She stated that she reiterated the contents of the complaint in her statement to the ld. MM and in her examination in chief also on the asking of the police officials including the IO. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  10. She was re-examined by the ld. APP with the permission of the court and in her re-examination, she denied that she had submitted the complaint Ex. PW4/A in the police station voluntarily and not in a fit of rage or upon the instigation of her parents. She also denied that the contents of her complaint Ex. PW4/A and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW4/B were true and correct.
  11. PW5 is the father of prosecutrix and PW6 is her mother. In their examination in chief, they also deposed that their daughter i.e. the prosecutrix was treated with cruelty by her in laws and they had been demanding a car, Rs. 5 lacs in cash and heavy jewellery from her. However, in the cross examination, they also admitted that prosecutrix was never harassed by her in laws or by her husband at any point of time. They expressed ignorance about the contents of the complaint Ex. PW4/A stating that it was neither written by them nor by their daughter. They admitted that when they heard that their son-in-law Himanshu had eloped with the wife of his cousin, they got enraged and pressurised their daughter to file a case against him. PW6 also admitted that her daughter had not told her that Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had raped her.
  12. These were the three star witnesses of the prosecution. All of them have deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case in their cross examination. They have said one thing in the examination in chief and have given totally contrary version in their cross examination. It is thus evident that all the accused are innocent and none of them had inflicted any kind of cruelty (physical, mental or sexual) upon the prosecutrix. It is also manifest that none of the accused has made any dowry demand from the prosecutrix.
  13. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, credible or trust worthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. All the accused are, therefore, liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted.

Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 22.12.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s