SPS Rathore Vs.

CBI

IN THE COURT OF SH. GURBIR SINGH,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANDIGARH.

Computer I.D. No: 36014R0004172010.

Criminal Appeal No: 5 of 12.1.2010.
Date of Decision: 25.5.2010.

S.P.S. Rathore son of late Sh. K.S. Rathore, resident

of House No. 469, Sector-6, Panchkula.

.........Appellant.

Versus

C.B.I. ........Respondent.

Appeal against the judgment and

sentence order dated 21.12.2009
of Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. SPS Rathore appellant on bail with

counsel Sh. N.D. Sharma, Sh. Ajit Kumar
Singh and Ms. Abha Rathore.
Sh. CS Sharma,Spl. Prosecutor for CBI,
Asstt. by Sh. R.V. Sharma and Sh. Chandra
Dutta public prosecutors.
Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj and Anju Sharma,
Advocate alongwith complainant.

***

Computer I.D. No: 36014R0021052010.

Criminal Appeal No: 26 of 12.1.2010.
Date of Decision: 25.5.2010.

State through C.B.I. .........Appellant.

Versus

S.P.S. Rathore son of late Sh. K.S. Rathore, resident

of House No. 469, Sector-6, Panchkula.

........Respondent.

1
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Appeal against the judgment and

sentence order dated 21.12.2009
of Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. CS Sharma,Spl. Prosecutor for CBI,

Asstt. by Sh. R.V. Sharma and Sh. Chandra
Dutta public prosecutors.
Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj and Anju Sharma,
Advocate alongwith complainant.
Sh. SPS Rathore appellant on bail with
counsel Sh. N.D. Sharma, Sh. Ajit Kumar
Singh and Ms. Abha Rathore.

***

Computer I.D. No: 36014R0021042010.

Crl. Revision No: 22 of 5.2.2010.
Date of Decision: 25.5.2010.

Madhu Parkash aged: 60 years, wife of Sh. Anand

Parkash, resident of House NO. 210, Sector-6,
Panchkula.
.........Appellant.

Versus

S.P.S. Rathore son of late Sh. K.S. Rathore, resident

of House No. 469, Sector-6, Panchkula.

........Respondent.

Revision against the judgment and

sentence order dated 21.12.2009
of Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj and Anju Sharma,

Advocate alongwith revisionist.
Sh. CS Sharma,Spl. Prosecutor for CBI,
Asstt. by Sh. R.V. Sharma and Sh. Chandra
Dutta public prosecutors.
Sh. SPS Rathore with counsel respondent Sh.
N.D. Sharma, Sh. Ajit Kumar Singh and Ms.
Abha Rathore.

2
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

J U D G M E N T

1. SPS Ratore has filed the appeal against the

judgment dated: 21.12.2009 passed by Sh.Jasbir Singh
Sidhu, Learned CJM, Chandigarh in challan No.
3/17.11.2000, 12T 19.4.2006, RBT 191/17.11.2009
whereby SPS Rathore was convicted under Section 354
IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo
imprisonment for one month. The State through
Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called
CBI) has filed appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C for
enhancement of the sentence. Complainant Smt.Madhu
Parkash has filed revision against the said judgment
with a prayer for enhancement of the sentence. All
these three cases are being disposed off in this
judgment.

2. The case in question, FIR No. 516 dated:

29.12.1999 under Section 354,509 IPC, PS Panchkula
(Haryana), was registered as per the orders dated:
21.8.1999 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab &
Haryana Chandigarh in Crl.Writ petition No. 1694/97
filed by Smt. Madhu Parkash wife of Sh. Anand Parkash
resident of House NO. 210, Sector- 6, Panchkula
(hereinafter called the complainant) and upheld by
Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated: 14.12.1999.
After registration of the case, investigation of the
case was conducted by CBI. The FIR was registered on
the basis of memorandum dated: 16.8.1990 submitted
with the signatures of Ms.Ruchika and others
addressed to Financial Commissioner and Secretary,
Home Department, Government of Haryana. In the
memorandum allegations were levelled that Sh. SPS
Rathore, President, Haryana Lawn Tennis Association,
a police officer of rank of IG had molested Ms.
Ruchika in the office of Haryana Lawn Tennis

3
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Association after securing her presence on the

pretext of discussion for making arrangements for
extra facilities to promote Ruchika's promising
career in lawn tennis. During investigation, it was
found that in the year 1989-91 Sh.SPS Rathore was on
deputation with Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB)
as Director Vigilance and Security. During the year
1988-89 Sh. SPS Rathore formed the Haryana Lawn
Tennis Association (hereinafter called HLTA) and
got the same registered on 29.11.1988 with the
Registrar of Firms & Societies, Haryana with its
address House NO. 469, Sector-6, Panchkula. The
office of the association was established in the
garage of House NO. 469, Sector-6, Panchkula owned
by Sh.SPS Rathore which was under construction.
S/Sh. T. Thomas, Kuldip Singh and Paltoo Mehto were
engaged as Lawn Tennis Coach, Manager and Ball Picker
respectively in the said association. The garage of
under construction building was divided into three
portions and front portion of the same was being used
as the office of HLTA. Sh. T. Thomas coach and Sh.
Kuldip Singh Manager, were using other two portions
for residential purpose. All the three portions were
interconnected with doors. HLTA had enrolled 60-70
member players on payment of monthly subscription
comprising young boys and girls who were mostly
residents of Sector-6 and Officers colony Panchkula.
They were being imparted training in tennis courts by
Sh. T. Thomas coach. Ms.Ruchika aged about 15 years
daughter of Sh. S.C. Girhotra resident of House NO.
363, Sector-6, Panchkula and a student of Sacred
Heart School, Sector-26, Chandigarh and Ms.Aradhna @
Reemu aged 15 years daughter of Sh.Anant Parkash,
resident of House NO. 210, Sector-6, Panchkula also
got themselves enrolled as members of the association
by paying the requisite fee and joint coaching in
lawn tennis. Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu were friends

4
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

and both usually went together for practice. The

other members who played lawn tennis included Manish
Arora, Vipul Chanana and Pushpinder etc. The accused
SPS Rathore used to visit lawn tennis court in the
evening. Ms. Ruchika was to go to Canada for a few
months as decided by her father and she had informed
about the same to the accused.

3. On 11.8.1990, at about 12.00 (noon) accused

SPS Rathore visited the house of Sh.S.C. Girhotra and
told him that he should not send his daughter Ms.
Ruchika abroad as she was a very promising player and
accused would arrange special coaching for her.
Accused SPS Rathore also asked Sh S.C. Girhotra to
send Ms. Ruchika to his office on 12.8.1990 at 12.00
noon in connection with the same. Sh. S.C.Girhotra
agreed to the same. On 11.8.1990, Sh. S.C.Girhotra
informed his daughter Ms. Ruchika about the visit of
accused Rathore and also desire of Mr. Rathore to
meet her at 12.00 noon on 12.8.1990 for making
arrangements for special coaching for her. Sh. S.C.
Girhotra specifically instructed Ms. Ruchika to meet
Sh. Rathore on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 noon in his office.
Ms. Ruchika on 12.8.1990 visited the house of Ms.
Aradhana @ Reemu and told her excitedly about the
visit of the accused to her house on the previous day
i.e. 11.8.1990. She further told that Sh. Rathore
had advised her father not to send her to Canada and
had promised also that he would arrange extra
coaching for her since she was a promising player.
Ms. Ruchika further told to Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu that
Sh. Rathore had called her to his office on 12.8.1990
at 12.00 noon. Thereafter, both Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu
and Ms. Ruchika went to play at the lawn tennis
court. While both were playing, Mr. Paltoo-ball
picker came there and told Ms. Ruchika that Sh.
Rathore had called her in his office at 12.00 noon.

5
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Accordingly, Ms.Ruchika accompanied by Ms. Aradhana @

Reemu went to meet Sh. Rathore in his office and
found him standing outside the office. Ms. Ruchika
requested him to talk to her outside the office but
Sh. Rathore insisted on their coming inside the
office. On the insistence of Sh. Rathore both Ms.
Aradhana @ Reemu and Ms. Ruchika went inside the
office. Sh. Rathore got fetched one chair which was
occupied by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. Sh. Rathore sat in
his chair which was on the other side of the table.
Ms. Ruchika kept standing in the right side of Ms.
Aradhana @ Reemu. Thereafter, accused SPS Rathore
asked Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu to go out and fetch Sh.
T.Thomas coach. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu accordingly
left leaving Sh. Rathore and Ms. Ruchika in the
office. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu went towards the rear
of the house where she found Mr. T. Thomas standing
on the Southern side of the house across the road.
Between her and the coach, she also found the same
person standing who had brought the chair in the
office for her. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu asked the said
person to go to Mr. Thomas and tell him to come to
the office of Sh. Rathore. Accordingly, the said
person went to Mr. Thomas and told him whatever was
conveyed to him by Ms. Reemu. However, Mr. Thomas
waived his hand indicating that he would not come.
Immediately thereon, Ms. Reemu returned to the
office. On entering the office, Mr.Aradhana @ Reemu
found that the accused was holding one hand of Ms.
Ruchika while his other hand was around her waist and
Ms. Ruchika was trying to get herself released but
pushing the accused with her other hand which was not
held by the accused. On seeing Ms.Reemu, the accused
got nervous, released Ms. Ruchika and fell back in
his chair. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu told the accused
that Mr. T. Thomas, coach had refused to come
whereupon, the accused again ordered Mr. Reemu to go

6
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

and bring the coach personally. In the mean time,

Ms. Ruchika started leaving the room but the accused
asked her to stay and again told Ms. Reemu to go and
fetch the coach. However, Ms. Ruchika reached near
Ms. Reemu and then ran out of the office. The
accused then told Ms. Reemu, Ask her to cool down, I
will do whatever she says. Thereafter, Ms. Reemu
also ran out of the office of the accused and tried
to catch up with Ms. Ruchika who was then running
towards her house and was also weeping. With some
efforts, Ms.Reemu could catch up Ms. Ruchika. On
seeing Ms. Reemu, Ms. Ruchika who was already
weeping, started crying loudly. According to Ms.
Reemu, Ms. Ruchika informed her that as soon as she
left to fetch the coach the accused had caught hold
of her hand which was got released by her with lot of
difficulty. The accused then got up from the chair
and caught her hand again and with his other hand,
had also encircled Ms. Ruchika waist, dragged her
towards himself and had embarrassed her. Ms. Ruchika
also informed Ms. Reemu that she had struggled to
push the accused away with her other hand which was
not held by the accused. Thereafter, Ms. Aradhana @
Reemu consoled Ms. Ruchika upon which she stopped
weeping and enquired if it would be proper to inform
her father and the parents of Ms. Reemu about the
incident. After discussion, they both decided not to
inform their parents as they apprehended that Sh.
Rathore being an IG of Police could involve and
harass the girls and their parents. Both the girls,
thereafter, went to the house of Ms. Aradhana @
Reemu, from where Ms. Ruchika left for her house. On
13.8.1990, as it was holiday at the lawn tennis
court, neither Ms. Reemu nor Ms. Ruchika went to play
tennis.

4. On 14.8.1990 at about 4.30 pm, Ms. Reemu

7
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

alongwith Ms. Ruchika went to the lawn tennis court.

They also wanted to avoid Sh. Rathore who used to
usually visit the lawn tennis court in the evening.
At about 6.30 pm, on 14.8.1990 while Ms. Reemu and
Ms. Ruchika were about to return after practice, Mr.
Paltoo, ball picker came out of the lawn tennis court
and told Ms. Ruchika that accused had called her to
his office immediately. However, Ms. Ruchika refused
to go and pointed out to Ms. Reemu that since they
had not informed their parents about the misbehaviour
committed by Sh. Rathore on 12.8.1990, the accused
was feeling emboldened and had again called Ms.
Ruchika to his office with a view to molest her.
Thereupon, both Ms. Reemu and Ms. Ruchika decided
that it would be proper to inform the father of Ms.
Ruchika and parents of Ms. Reemu about the said
incident of molestation at the hands of Sh.Rathore.
Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika accompanied by Ms. Reemu
went to Ms. Ruchika's house. There they met Sh.S.C.
Girhotra and started narrating the incident further
and broke down whereupon Sh. S.C. Girhotra told Ms.
Reemu to take Ms. Ruchika to Ms. Reemu's mother
promising that he would also reach there.
Thereafter, Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika to her house.
On seeing Smt. Madhu Parkash, Ms. Ruchika started
crying. After being consoled by Smt. Madhu Parkash,
Ms. Ruchika cooled down and narrated the entire
incident of her molestation at the hands of the
accused. Smt. Madhu Parkash also called her husband,
Sh. Anand Parkash who was present in the house and
both the girls narrated the incident to him as well.
On being asked by Sh. Anand Parkash about the
whereabouts of the accused both Ms. Ruchika and Ms.
Reemu informed that the accused would be available at
the lawn tennis court. On 14.8.1990 itself, Sh.
Anand Parkash, Smt. Madhu Parkash accompanied by Ms.
Ruchika and Ms.Reemu proceeded to lawn tennis court

8
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

and on the way Sh. S.C. Girhotra and some of his

neighbours including Ms. Veenu Mittal, Mrs. Sangeet
Virk also joined them. On reaching the lawn tennis
court, they found S/Sh. Manish Arora, Vipul Chanana,
Pushpinder and other player playing tennis. The
enquiries made from them about the whereabouts of Sh.
Rathore revealed that accused had already left for
the office of association. The said persons
thereafter, proceeded to the office of the accused
where chowkidar Piare Lal informed them that accused
had already left for Chandigarh.

5. On 15.8.1990, 10-15 other persons who were

mostly parents of boys and girls and member of HLTA
collected at the residence of Sh. Anand Parkash, then
resident of House No. 407, Sector-6, Panchkula and
decided that some strong action should be taken by
way of taking up the matter with higher authorities
of the Haryana Government. It was decided that a
deputation of citizens including the players would
meet the Chief Minister and Home Minister with a
request to order an enquiry into the incident.
Accordingly, a petition/memorandum was prepared in
Hindi addressed to Chief Minister, Home Minister,
Governor, Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary
(Home), Government of Haryana, SDM Panchkula and SHO
Panchkula. On 16.8.1990, the parents of Ms. Ruchika
and Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu and with
other residents of Panchkula went to the Civil
Secretariat to see the Chief Minister and the Home
Minister but they could not contact any of the two.
Accordingly, they met Sh. J.K. Duggal, Home Secretary
(Home), Haryana and submitted a memorandum asking for
an enquiry into the molestation of Ms. Ruchika. Sh.
J.K. Duggal, in addition to bringing the matter to
the notice of the Principal Secretary to the CM, the
Chief Secretary and the Home Minister, discussed the

9
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

matter with the Home Minister on 17.8.1990. It was

then decided to send the memorandum to the then DGP,
Haryana asking him to enquire into the matter and
submit enquiry report within one week. An office
note was, accordingly, marked to the Home Minister
for passing the aforesaid orders. After the approval
of the note by the Home Minister, the same was
forwarded to Sh. R.R. Singh, the then DGP, Haryana
vide No. 18/34/90 2HG1, dated: 20.8.1990. During
investigation, it was further revealed that on
16.8.1990, Sh. J.K. Duggal had assured the parents of
Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu and others that he would
also depute Sh. S.K. Joshi,SDM to reach the lawn
tennis court at 5.00 pm on that day to hear the
grievances of the parents and the member players. On
16.8.1990, at about 5.00 pm, Sh. Anand Parkash
alongwith Smt. Madhu Parkash and others went to the
lawn tennis court where other parents alongwith their
wards were also present. These persons however found
a notice dated: 15.8.1990 declaring suspension of Ms.
Ruchika w.e.f. 13.8.1990 displayed there. This
agitated the persons/players present there as Ms.
Ruchika had been suspended without any fault on her
part and they started raising slogans against Sh. SPS
Rathore. Sh. Anil Dhawan, SHO PS Panchkula who was
on patrolling duty in the area received information
around 5.30 pm that some boys and girls were raising
slogans at the tennis court of Sector-6, Panchkula.
On reaching there he found the member players
including boys and girls shouting slogans against Sh.
SPS Rathore, President HLTA. S/Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
Manager, T. Thomas, Coach and Paltoo were also
present there. Sh. S.K. Joshi, SDM had also reached
the lawn tennis court and declared that the tennis
court had no connection with HLTA and that he had
taken over the same under orders of the Home
Secretary. Sh. S.K. Joshi also made enquiries from

10
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Sh.Kuldeep Singh, Manager and Sh. T. Thomas, Coach

about the indiscipline on the part of Ms. Ruchika
whereupon both wrote on the suspension order itself
that they were not aware of any act of indiscipline
on the part of Ms. Ruchika. Sh. Joshi also declared
that the lawn tennis court will be open to everybody
and that no fee will be charged from any person for
playing over there. During investigation it was
further revealed that no act of indiscipline was
officially recorded and enquired into against Ms.
Ruchika.

6. On 21.8.1990, Sh. R.R. Singh who was the

then DGP, Haryana received the order dated: 17.8.1990
for making an enquiry into the matter. Sh. R.R.
Singh conducted the enquiry into the incident of
molestation of Ms. Ruchika and recorded the
statements of Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Reemu, Sh. S.C.
Girhotra, Smt. Madhu Anand, Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh.
Anil Dhawan, SHO, PS Panchkula. After conducting the
enquiry into the incident, Sh. R.R. Singh concluded
that whatever Ms. Ruchika had stated about her
molestation by Sh. SPS Rathore was based on true
facts and that he was of the considered opinion that
a cognizable offence was made out. Sh. R.R. Singh,
therefore, had recommended registration of case under
appropriate sections of Indian Penal Code and had
forwarded his enquiry report dated: 3.9.1990 to the
Home Secretary, Government of Haryana. During
investigation it was also revealed that after the
incident of molestation of Ms. Ruchika remained
confined her to her house and remained depressed
Later, Ms. Ruchika committed suicide by consuming
poison on 28.12.1993 and died on 29.12.1993. On the
basis of evidence collected during investigation CBI
found that Sh. SPS Rathore IPS while working as
President of HLTA molested Ms. Ruchika on 12.8.1990

11
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

knowing that his act was likely to outrage the

modesty of Ms. Ruchika so he had committed offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC. The challan was
filed by CBI in the court of learned Special Judicial
Magistrate, CBI Ambala on 17.11.2000 to summon and to
try the accused in accordance with the law.

7. Alongwith challan an application was also

moved by the CBI for condonation of delay in filing
the challan. Notice of the application was given to
the accused. Vide order dated: 5.12.2000 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class the application
under Section 473 Cr.P.C was allowed and delay in
filing the challan was condoned. An application was
moved by Smt. Madhu Parkash complainant for adding
offence of Section 306 IPC. The learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala allowed the application.
Vide order dated: 12.2.2002, the said order of
addition of Section 306 IPC was set aside by Hon'ble
High Court.

8. Notice of accusation under Section 354 IPC

was served upon the accused on 17.3.2003 to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove the case, the prosecution

examined Sh. Anand Parkash husband of the complainant
as PW.1, Smt. Madhu Parkash complainant as PW.2,
Sh.Manish Arora member of HLTA as PW.3, Sh. Vipul
Chanana member of HLTA as PW.4, Dr. Naresh Mittal as
PW.5, Sh. R.R. Singh, Ex. DGP, Haryana as PW.6,
Sh.S.K. Joshi then SDM Panchkula as PW.7, Sh. Som Lal
Kajal, Asstt. Engineer as PW.8, Sh. Sunil Malik
Executive Engineer as PW.9, Sh. Anil Kumar then SHO
Panchkula as PW.10, Sh. Rattan Singh SHO Panchkula at
the time of registration of FIR as PW.11, Sh. J.K.
Duggal Ex- Secretary Home, Haryana as PW.12, Ms.

12
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Aradhana @ Reemu daughter of the complainant as

PW.13, Sh. B.S. Ojha Ex-Financial Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Govt. of Haryana as PW.14, Sh.S.C.
Girhotra father of Ms. Ruchika as PW.15, Sh. Rajesh
Ranjan IG, CBI, Investigating officer of this case as
PW.16. The prosecution has also tendered documents
Ex.P1 to P10, Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/2, Ex.PW8/A,
Ex.PW10/A, EX.PW11/A to PW11/B, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A,
Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW16/1 to PW16/6 and prosecution closed
the evidence.

10. The statement of the accused under Section

313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The incriminating evidence
appearing against the accused was put to him which
was denied by him. The accused also admitted that
during the period 1990 he was President of HLTA and
the garage of his under construction house No. 469,
Sector-6, Panchkula was being used as office of HLTA.
S/Sh.T. Thomas, Kuldeep Singh and Paltoo were
employed as tennis coach, Manager and ball-picker
respectively by HLTA. The courts of the HLTA were
situated in Sector-6, Panchkula. Sh. Manish Arora,
PW.3, Sh. Vipul Chanana PW.4, Ms. Aradhana PW.13 and
Ms. Ruchika Girhotra were the members of the said
association and they used to play tennis in the
courts of association in the year 1990. He admitted
that he used to visit lawn tennis court to play and
for general supervision but sometimes he did not go
to lawn tennis court in the evening when he was busy
in supervision of the construction of his house.
Accused denied that Ms. Ruchika and Sh.S.C.Girhotra
were living in House No. 303, Sector-6, Panchkula and
Ms Aradhana and her parents were close door
neighbourers. The accused denied visiting the house
of Ms.Ruchika on 11.8.1990 and any conversation with
Sh. S.C. Girhotra father of Ms. Ruchika. The accused
specifically denied that on 12.8.1990 he caught the

13
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Ruchika's one hand tightly and put his another hand

around her waist and embraced her with his chest and
Ms. Ruchika was trying to get herself released by
pushing him away. The accused denied the presence of
Aradhana @ Reemu at that time. The accused denied
that he organized any procession which raised slogans
against Ms. Ruchika and Sh. S.C. Girhotra and in
favour of the accused. The accused admitted the
registration of case in pursuance of the order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The accused pleaded
that recording of statement of witnesses by CBI
during investigation of the case was doubtful.
Unfair investigation was conducted. Memorandum Ex.P1
is false and fabricated document. The witnesses of
prosecution are not credible. The accused pleaded
that he was staying in his official residence at
Chandigarh during the month of August, 1990. He
often used to go to House NO. 469, Sector-6,
Panchkula to supervise the construction. A gunman
always remained with him whenever he went out and
held meeting outside his residence. He had employed
a chowkidar at Panchkula house which was under
construction. On 12.8.1990 he met Ms. Ruchika in
the HLTA office in presence of his guman Ved Parkash
and chowkidar servant Ram Piara @ Piare Lal. The
HLTA office had all the plain glass windows at the
entrance and was adjoining the stair-case for the
first floor and main entrance gallery of the house.
Plastering work on the first floor and flooring in
the dinning-cum-drawing and lounge was in progress.
This was attached to the main entrance gallery.
Behind the dinning-cum-lounge on the ground floor and
in the rear lawn boring of tubewell was in progress.
At the time of alleged visit of Ms. Ruchika 15-16
labourers and mistries were moving around the house
and HLTA office since it was peak working hour. Ms.
Ruchika complained against the coach T. Thomas that

14
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

he was not allowing her to play. He told her that

coach was annoyed because of her indiscipline conduct
of coming late and talking frivolously with boys in
the coaching class and she was entering and playing
in the courts at her own Will when the same were
closed. He asked her to submit written apology to
the coach but she refused. He warned her that she
would be suspended if she did not improve her conduct
and told her to leave the office. She went away in
presence of the gunman and chowkidar from the house.
On 13.8.1990 the coach again reported that she had
opened the fencing of the court and played and
spoiled the wet courts. He then signed on the
suspension and issued the same copy of which is
Mark-D5. On 14.8.1990 he received a phone call late
in the evening from chowkidar Piare Lal at Chandigarh
that Sh. S.C. Girhotra and Sh. Anand Parkash had come
to his Panchkula residence and wanted to see him in
connection with suspension of Ms. Ruchika. He told
him that they could see him tomorrow at HLTA office
i.e. on 15.8.1990 and they could speak to him on
phone if they like. No phone call was received from
them. Thereafter, on 15.8.1990 he reached Panchkula
residence in the morning where he was told by Paltoo
ball-picker of the tennis court that he tried to stop
Ruchika from playing on the previous day telling her
that she had been suspended by Sahib. Ruchika and
Ms. Reemu who were playing together flared up and
told him angerly that they would see and his Sahib.
Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika went away alongwith Ms. Reemu
to Sh. Anand Parkash residence. He then asked Sh.
Kuldeep Singh Manager as to how he allowed Ms.
Ruchika to enter the tennis courts. Sh. Kuldeep
Singh explained that he was unaware and could
therefore not notified about the suspension of Ms.
Ruchika on the notice board and he will do the same
on next day and ensure that she did not enter the

15
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

coaching centre. Thereafter, he sent a notice to Sh.

S.C. Girhotra calling him to meet him alongwith
orders passed by him on account of her indiscipline
through Kuldeep Singh and chowkidar. However, Sh.
S.C. Girhotra did not turn up to meet him. He was
told that Mr. Girhotra on the advise of Sh. Anand
Parkash had refused to come. On 16.8.1990 in the
evening he was informed by Sh. Kuldeep Singh on phone
at Chandigarh that he and other officials namely,
coach and ball-picker of HLTA are beaten up by Sh.
Anand Parkash, Sh. Naresh Mittal, Sh. Manish Arora
and Sh. Vipul Chanana etc. He reached HLTA office
late in the evening and saw that Sh. Kuldeep Singh
Manger's ear was bleeding and articles in the HLTA
office were lying scattered. He informed the SHO to
visit the site. SHO Sh. Anil Dhawan visited the site
and admitted in prosecution evidence that he too saw
the articles broken and lock of box broken. No case
was registered. SHO Panchkula also told him that he
had received a telephone call from DGP R.R. Singh
that he had to help SDM to take over HLTA coaching
centre. Sh. Anand Parkash was hailing from Ladwa
Kurukshetra district. He entertained serious grudge
since his posting in Kurukshetra district as SP of
Kurukshetra in 1973-75. Sh. B.S. Ojha IAS, Principal
Secretary and Sport Secretary became hostile to him
as he did not accommodate his request to step down
from Presidentship of HLTA. In the emergency meeting
of Executive of HLTA held on 24.8.1989 the proposal
of Mr. Ojha was rejected and the same was conveyed
through S.K. Saxena Treasurer who told that Ojha
threatened that he would not let HLTA function and
Rathore would have to face the consequences. After
sometime parallel lawn tennis association of the name
of Haryana Tennis Association (HTA) was formed. Sh.
J.K. Duggal IAS who was close to Mr. Ojha was made
President. He challenged the proposed registration

16
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

but it was registered since it was supported by

senior IAS officer. Later on he filed a civil suit
against Sh. J.K. Duggal against the affiliation to
the All India Tennis Body vide Ex.D12. The entire
controversy between HLTA and HTA was generated into
IAS Vs. IPS. Sh. Anand Parkash being senior Haryana
Government officer and his daughter being member of
HLTA were having full knowledge of the on going
tussle. He therefore moved with vengeance to exploit
the suspension of Ms. Ruchika who earned the favour
of Sh. J.K. Duggal and Sh. B.S. Ojha who were running
the government. He with his own motive fabricated a
false memorandum Ex.P1 alleging vague allegations and
helped to take control of the coaching centre. Sh.
Anand Parkash within four months despite his adverse
record reports of corruption and pending vigilance
enquiries was promoted as Chief Engineer. A false
and fabricated memorandum Ex.P1 was prepared at the
residence of Sh. Anand Parkash on 15.8.1990 with
elaborate consultation with officers working directly
under Sh. B.S. Ojha and Sh. J.K. Duggal. The lacuna
of delay was filled up by concocting story by Smt.
Madhu an advocate by profession. The memorandum was
neither signed by Sh. S.C. Girhotra nor by his son
Ashu. The signatures of the Ruchika on the memorandum
appeared to be forged if compared with the statement
of Ruchika recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh. Sh. J.K.
Duggal immediately on receipt of memorandum deputed
SDM to take over the centre. On 17.8.1990 defamatory
material was published in the newspaper so accused
filed defamation case under Section 500 IPC against
Sh. Anand Parkash, Smt. Madhu, Sh. S.C. Girhotra,
Reemu etc and press people. The accused were
summoned in the said case. Sh. R.R. Singh was having
animosity with him over the issue of harvesting of
crop in Government land attached with SSP residence
when he succeeded him. In the report Sh. R.R. Singh

17
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

made Aradhana and Reemu as two different girls.

Aradhana @ Reemu is the one girl. The same was done
to make Ms. Reemu as saathi girl as written in Ex.P1
and thereby made Reemu as eye witness. Sh. R.R.
Singh sent the report to Sh. J.K. Duggal under
pressure. Sh. Anand Parkash, Smt. Madhu and Ms.
Aradhana had got bail in the defamation case in
March/January 1997. The leading press people had
also to seek bail from the court. A new relationship
of partnership between Sh.Anand Parkash and media
people came into existence with common objective to
take retaliatory measures against him. Smt. Madhu
and Sh. Anand Parkash succeeded in getting the order
of registration of FIR against him. Media commenced
its onslaught against him. He himself requested for
CBI investigation. 4-5 D.O. letters were exchanged
between CBI and Chief Secretary. He was transferred
from the post of DGP on the pressure of CBI. CBI
conducted biased investigation. Ultimately, it was
pleaded that it is a case of no evidence and
prosecution has failed to prove the case against him.
The accused opted to lead defence evidence.

11. The accused examined Sh. Ved Parkash who

remained his gunman as DW.1, Ram Piara labourer as
DW.2, Sh Surinder Kumar as DW.3, Sh. Chander Pal
Manager of HLTA as DW.4, Sh. Gobind Ram Sharma DW.5,
Shadi Lal Malik who was working as Asstt. Reader with
the accused in the year 1973 DW.6, Sh. Jog Dhian SI
as DW.7, EHC Bhagwan Dass as DW.8, Sh. Karan Singh as
DW.9 , Sh. Devinder Parsad, document and handwriting
expert DW.10, Sh. Abhilaksh Likhi PS to Raksha Rajya
Utpadan Mantry, Ministry of defence as DW.11, Sh.D.S.
Rao as DW.12, Sh. Bihari Lal as DW.13, Sh.S.S.
Dhahiya Retd. Chief Engineer as DW.13/A, Sh.Rajiv
Prohit clerk CRC, Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh as DW.14, Smt. Neelam Kashni IAS,

18
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Director, Social Welfare Haryana as DW.15, Sh. Om

Parkash Kathuria, then Secretary HLTA as DW.16, Sh.
Madhulesh Kumar Shishodia as DW.17. Sh. Vipin Pabbi,
Radhye Sham and record keeper Ambala were not
examined in defence and were given up. Documents
Ex.D1 to Ex.D20, Ex.DW5/A, Ex.D8, Ex.D9, Ex.D10,
Ex.DW8/A, Ex.DW11/A, Ex.DW12/A, Ex.DW14/1 and
Ex.DW16/1 were tendered in defence evidence. The
accused closed defence evidence.

12. After hearing the arguments of learned PP

for CBI and learned defence counsel for the accused
the learned trial court convicted the accused under
Section 354 IPC and accused was ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo imprisonment
for one month for committing offence under Section
354 IPC.

13. Aggrieved against the said judgment and

order of sentence the accused has filed appeal
against conviction and sentence. The prosecution has
filed appeal against the inadequacy of order of
sentence and for enhancement of the sentence of
imprisonment. The complainant has filed a revision
against the inadequacy of the sentence . All these
cases are being disposed off.

14. I have heard the submissions of the learned

counsel for the convict, learned counsel for the CBI
and learned counsel for the complainant and I have
gone through the record carefully with their able
assistance.

15. The counsel for the appellant has argued

that learned trial court has recorded the conviction
on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of Aradhana,

19
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

the sole, interested alleged eye witness, despite the

fact that prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt
that she was present at the spot at the time of
alleged occurrence and without noticing the
contradictions and improvements made by her in her
testimony. The learned trial court failed to
appreciate evidence regarding unreliability,
contradictions and large scale improvements made by
her. The learned trial court misread the oral and
documentary evidence and gave the findings on
surmises and conjectures. It dismissed major lacunas
as minor lacunas. The learned trial court failed to
appreciate effective delay in lodging complaint/
memorandum and exhibiting forged memorandum and
manipulated documents by the prosecution. The
probable story contended by the accused was not
considered. The defence evidence and defence version
were neither examined nor considered. So no reason
has been given for ignoring/rejecting the defence
evidence and defence version in totality. Equal
treatment is required to be given to the defence
witnesses and evidence of defence. The learned
defence counsel relied on case Anil Sharma and other
Vs. State of Jharkhand 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1706 and case
Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(1) RCR (Crl.) 726.
The written arguments in rebuttal were submitted by
CBI after the close of arguments. Same were also not
supplied to the accused which had caused prejudiced
to the accused.

16. The defence has proved by leading cogent

evidence that there was rivalry between two tennis
associations, one headed by appellant and one formed
later on by IAS Group which Sh. J.K. Duggal, Home
Secretary as its President, with the patronage of Sh.
B.S. Ojha. Earlier the accused did not step down
from the presidentship of HLTA in favour of Sh. B.S.

20
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Ojha. Mr. Ojha was annoyed so he has strong reasons

for ordering the enquiry by Sh. R.R. Singh, then DGP
(Haryana). The police officers working against him
had organized the drafting of the memorandum against
the accused. Sh. J.K. Duggal had ordered for the
taking over of the coaching centre. From the cross-
examination of Sh. J.K. Duggal PW.12, Sh. B.S. Ojha
PW.14, Sh. R.R. Singh PW.6 and from the statements of
DW.8 and DW.16 and documents Ex.DW12, Ex.DW14 and
Ex.DW16/A, it is proved that abovesaid officers were
hostile towards the accused. Ms. Ruchika was a
trainee of HLTA coaching centre which is under the
over all control of the appellant who was the
president of HLTA. The defence witnesses have proved
that Ms. Ruchika had committed an act of indiscipline
in the coaching centre on 10.8.1990 by coming late
and talking frivolously with a fellow player. Her
act angered the coach who did not allow her to attend
the coaching class on that day. Thereafter, coach
had verbally apprised the appellant about her
misconduct on the next day. On 12.8.1990 Ms. Ruchika
came to HLTA office between 11.45 to 12.00 hours
which was situated in the garage of the under
construction house of the appellant. At that time
15/16 labourers, masons, tubewell borers were engaged
in construction work i.e. flooring and plastering
work in the main bedroom, dinning hall on the ground
floor and on the first floor and boring of tubewell
on the back of the house. Ms. Ruchika met the
appellant in the HLTA office for 2-3 minutes. She
complained against the coach that he was unfair and
did not allow her to play in the training centre.
The appellant told her that coach had already
informed him about her misconduct and she should
tender a written apology to the coach but she refuse
to tender written apology to the coach whereupon the
appellants scolded her and asked her to maintain

21
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

discipline in the centre and to leave the HLTA

office. Thereafter on 13.8.1990 the coach again
noticed her playing around 11.00 am in the court of
coaching centre after having opened the plastic
netting surrounding the court. The coach then
submitted a written report about the misconduct of
Ms. Ruchika on 13th evening and she was suspended
from playing for 15 days w.e.f 13.8.1990. Ms.
Ruchika again came to play on 14.8.1990 in the
coaching centre. Upon noticing her playing with
Aradhana, Paltoo ball-picker stopped her from playing
and told Ruchika that she was not allowed to play as
she had been suspended by the president. Thereafter,
Ruchika and Aradhana left the court and threatened to
see him with his sahib for stopping her from playing
and went away. Said incident was blown up by Sh.
Anand Parkash and his family who had past enmity with
the appellant. Sh. Anand Parkash exploited
appellant's hostile relations with Sh. J.K. Duggal
IAS, and Sh. B.S. Ojha IAS, PS to CM of the rival
tennis association and also his bad relations with
then DGP R.R. Singh and other police officers. Sh.
Anand Parkash and his advocate wife Smt. Madhu
Parkash with the help of senior police officers Sh.
C.P. Bansal, IPS DIG and Sh.S.L. Goyal DSP who were
working directly under the Home Secretary, Sh.
J.K.Duggal and Sh. B.S. Ojha and were close to Sh.
Anand Parkash got drafted a memorandum on 16.8.1990
at his residence alleging chedh char with Ruchika
by the appellant. The signatures of Ruchika were
forged on the memorandum which was signed by Sh.Anand
Parkash, his close relatives and his neighbours
family. Even Sh. S.C. Girhotra did not sign the
memorandum. The appellant had called Sh. S.C.
Girhotra on 15th August to meet him in HLTA office
but he did not come. The subsequent developments
indicated that greed for money had entered Girhotra's

22
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

mind on 15.8.1990 which motivated him to decline

meeting with him when he was called. Sh.Anand
Parkash and Sh. Naresh Mittal exploited Girhotra's
weakness. They persuaded him to join them later on
for lure of money. The memorandum was prepared after
detailed deliberations and was submitted to Sh. J.K.
Duggal IAS on 16.8.1990 who deputed the SDM to take
over the coaching centre and allow everyone including
Ruchika to play in the centre. Sh. J.K. Duggal got
an enquiry ordered and marked to DGP R.R. Singh by
the PS to CM on 17.8.1990. Sh.R.R. Singh thereafter
submitted a one sided adverse report to the
government on 3.9.1990. In the mean while, the
appellant's intention to take legal action against
makers and publishers of the false and fabricated
memorandum was reported in the morning newspaper on
18.8.1990. The appellant filed a criminal complaint
under Section 500 IPC in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sh. Dharamvir at
Ambala against Sh. Anand Parkash, Smt. Madhu,
Aradhana, Sh. SC Girhotra, Ruchika, Dr. Naresh Mittal
and the press people etc. The order of suspension of
Ruchika dated: 13.8.1990 was attached with the
criminal complaint. The statement of the coach was
also recorded in the court at Ambala. Sh. Anand
Parkash who was keeping watch on the appellant's
movement was also present in the Ambala court. The
summons in the said criminal defamation case was
effected on Dr. Naresh Mittal, Sh. Anand Parkash,
Smt. Madhu, Aradhana only on March, 1997 whereafter,
Smt. Madhu Parkash filed a criminal writ petition
1694/1997 with forged documents and got directions
for the instant FIR under Section 354 IPC. The
appellants examined four witnesses i.e. DW.1, DW.2,
DW.3 and DW.4 who were present in and around HLTA
office when appellant had met Ruchika in HLTA office.
They were duly cross-examined. They have proved that

23
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Ruchika alone had met appellant in HLTA office on

12.8.1990 and she was scolded and was asked to get
out of the office by the accused on her refusal to
submit apology to the coach. She went away in
presence of DW.1, DW.2 and DW.3 without any fuss.
They also proved more than 12 persons were working in
the house at that time and garage was open from the
front and had wooden doors and windows fitted with
transparent glass. DW.5 has proved the suspension
order of Ruchika Ex. Mark-5 which was typed and
issued on 13.8.1990. DW.1, DW.5, DW16 and document
Mark-D5 also corroborated the fact of suspension of
Ruchika on 13.8.1990 for her misbehaviour. The
Ruchika's suspension w.e.f. 13.8.1990 is also
mentioned in Ex.P2. DW.1, DW.4 also proved that
Ruchika was prevented from playing in the evening of
14.8.1990 by Paltoo, ball-picker due to her
suspension whereupon both the girls left the court
angrily and threatened to teach him and his master a
lesson. DW.1, DW.2 and DW.4 also proved that coach
and Manager were beaten and terrorised by Sh. Anand
Parkash and Dr. Naresh Mittal in the coaching centre
of 16.8.1990 around 4.00 pm. DW.4 proved that SDM
asked the coach to bring the notice of suspension of
Ruchika and thereafter Manager Kuldip Singh brought
the notice on the notice board and then SDM in his
presence and in presence of crowd where PW.1, PW.2,
PW.5 etc were shouting slogans got recorded on the
notice by coach and manger that Ruchika did not
commit any act of indiscipline. DW.1 and DW.2 proved
that Sh. Manish Arora PW.3 and Vipul Chanana PW.4 and
some more people came in the afternoon on 16.8.1990
and took away the register and other articles of HLTA
and breaking open of the lock of the suitcase and
pitcher was also broken by hooligans. PW.10 also
admitted the said fact. Pws have themselves proved
that Sh. S.K. Joshi took over the control of coaching

24
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

centre of HLTA and deputed players PW.3 and PW.4 to

bring registers of HLTA which was a registered body
and latter took away the record without issuing any
receipt to Manager. Sh. Anil Dhawan PW.10 stated
that when he reached at lawn tennis court on
16.8.1990 then Sh. S.K. Joshi SDM told him that
tennis court was being taken over on the instructions
of Home Secretary, Haryana. This fact point to the
strong probability that SDM got the note regarding
the innocence of Ruchika recorded on Ex.P2 by the
coach and Manager on the instructions from PW.12 Sh.
J.K. Duggal IAS.

17. It is further argued that there was

conspiracy to malign the appellant. Neither Sh. S.S.
Girhotra nor his son Ashu participated in drafting of
memorandum Ex.P1. Ms. Ruchika's signatures Ex.P1
were forged. It was got typed by senior police
officers. As per version of the prosecution Ex.P1
was prepared on 16.8.1990 at the residence of Sh.
Anand Parkash in which complete incident was
mentioned. Ex.P1 is of five pages. Sh. Anand
Parkash, his wife Smt. Madhu and Aradhana signed on
Ex.P1 after reading the understanding the contents
carefully. They stated that whole incident was
mentioned in Ex.P1 correctly. Ms. Aradhana PW.13
stated that she had carefully checked contents
regarding misbehaviour of Ruchika in Ex.P1, whereas,
Ex.P1 mentions vague insinuation, chedh char but
not the alleged act of molestation as is being proved
by the prosecution. All the persons who were present
at Sh. Anand Parkash's house signed the memorandum.
Had there been any truth in the allegation then Sh.
S.C. Girhotra and his son Ashu would have definitely
participated. Ruchika's signatures on Ex.P1 are
forged which are apparent to the naked eye if
compared with Ex.P3. Sh. S.C. Girhotra had signed

25
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Ex.P3 and had testified regarding Ruchika's

signatures on Ex.P3. Sh. Devinder Parsad DW.10,
handwriting expert gave the opinion in his report
Ex.DW10/1 that signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 were not
made by one and the same person. Even investigating
officer admitted in reply to suggestion in the cross-
examination that it is correct that signatures of
Ruchika on memorandum Ex.P1 were forged. Ex.P1 was
signed by three minors namely, Aradhana, Anirudh and
Veenu. It was signed by Sh. Anand Parkash, Smt.
Madhu, Meenu, Dr. Naresh Mittal, Sh. I.D. Mittal and
Sh. C.S. Gupta, all relatives of Sh. Anand Parkash
who belong to one community. It was also signed by
Sangeet next door neighbour of Sh. Anand Parkash.
Smt. Madhu Parkash PW.2 stated that first rough draft
of memorandum was prepared at her residence then it
was got typed. Sh. Anand Parkash and Sh. S.C.
Girhotra stated that they did not dictate the
memorandum so it was not got typed before him. Smt.
Madhu Parkash PW.2 is an advocate and member of Bar
Council of India. She stated that she did not know
who got the memorandum typed or who wrote the
material/text of the memorandum. Dr. Naresh Gupta
PW.5 stated that when he reached at the residence of
Sh. Anand Parkash around 2.00 pm there were only 10-
15 persons present. Some of them signed on the
memorandum in his presence. He also did not dictate
it. Thus, it is proved that none of the signatories
to Ex.P1 dictated or got the same typed. Question
arises that who was pursuing the matter and who was
left out from them. The answer is obviously DIG Sh.
C.P. Bansal and DSP Shayam Lal Goyal. Thus, it is
proved that Sh. C.P. Bansal and DSP Shayam Lal Goyal
dictated, and got Ex.P1 typed whereafter persons
present at the residence of Sh.Anand Parkash appended
their signatures thereon. The direct participation
of Sh. C.P. Bansal DIG and Sh S.L. Goyal in drafting

26
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

the memorandum is proved from the fact that on the

previous day i.e. on 14.8.1990 they had all around
remained with Sh. Anand Parkash etc and Sh. C.P.
Bansal had directed them to disperse from House NO.
469, Sector-6, Panchkula in the evening and advised
them to meet next day for further action in the
matter. The IO stated that decision to prepare the
memorandum was taken on 14.8.1990 which was a time
when abovesaid Sh. C.P. Bansal and Sh. S.L. Goyal
were present. They, Sh. Anand Parkash, Dr. Naresh
Mittal and DGP Sh. R.R. Singh were living within a
radius of one furlong in the same sector. They both
were close to Sh. Anand Parkash. They were patients
of Dr. Naresh Mittal. The language of Ex.P1 is very
colourful and allegations fanciful indicative of
involvement of minds of police officers and
advocates. Sh. C.P. Bansal and Sh. S.L. Goyal were
working directly under Sh. B.S. Ojha IAS and Sh. J.K.
Duggal IAS who were at daggers drawn with the accused
because of rivalry between two parallel tennis
associations. PW.1 and investigating officer
testified that only memorandum Ex.P1 was prepared and
was addressed to Home Secretary. It is well known
prior appointment is required to be sought from
senior officers through their PS on phone before
passes are issued. PW.5 stated that a pass in his
name and six others were made. Sh. S.C. Girhotra
testified that no pass in his name for entry to
Secretariat was made so it is proved that Sh. S.C.
Girhotra did not go to complained to Home Secretary
on 16.8.1990, therefore, Ex.P1 addressed to Home
Secretary was taken by Sh.Anand Parkash and Dr.
Naresh Mittal from Panchkula for handing the same
over to Sh. J.K. Duggal who on receipt of the same
advised those people to assemble at tennis court at
5.00 pm and ordered Sh. S.K. Joshi SDM who was
neighbour of PW.1 Sh. Anand Parkash, to go and take

27
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

over the centre and take in custody records of HLTA.

Accordingly he took over the office of HLTA and some
of its record and got recorded from coach and Manager
in their hands about the innocence of Ruchika. It
proved the planned conspiracy to take over the HLTA.
Ex.P1 does not bear receipt and dispatch number of
the office of Home Secretary. It does not bear the
receipt and dispatch number of the office of PS, CM.
It does not bear the receipt and dispatch number of
CMO office. It is not written on the same that CM
had seen the memorandum. PW.6 testified that he had
received X2 and X3 together on 21.8.1990. X3 bears
dispatch date as 20.8.1990. Sh. R.R. Singh signed X2
on 21.8.1990. X3 proves that process of obtaining
orders of the government started on 17.8.1990 regular
orders were sent on 20.8.1990 for holding enquiry for
recording statements of all signatories and
appellant. The same was acknowledged by the DGP on
21.8.1990. In fact, Ex.P1 was handed over by hand on
16.8.1990 by Sh J.K. Duggal in person to Sh. B.S.
Ojha IAS who wrote the orders of holding enquiry by
DGP and sent the same to DGP in a cover and thereby
procedure to issue such orders of enquiry by the Home
Department. They knew that the appellant was on
deputation with BBMB and enquiry would only be
ordered by the Government of India and not by State
Government. The normal prescribed procedure was not
followed which proves the malafides of Sh. B.S. Ojha
and Sh. J.K. Duggal. It is further argued that
learned trial court had wrongly held that Sh. C.P.
Bansal DIG and Sh. Shyam Lal Goyal DSP did not
participate in the drafting of the memorandum and
memorandum was written by layman. The use of the
word 'Darinda' in Ex.P1 proved that it was not
written by a layman. A layman writes simple
complaint. He may exaggerate the incident but never
minimise the offence. A layman always writes the

28
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

name of the eye witnesses. Sometimes due to enmity

he may include more names as accused persons. The
fanciful language and wording of Ex.P1 proves that
it was the handy work of police officers and
advocate. It is further argued that Aradhana made
the statement that Ruchika told the entire story to
Sh. S.C. Girhotra on 14.8.1990. Later Aradhana and
Ruchika went and told all the facts to PW.1 and PW.2.
PW.1, PW.2 and PW.13 signed Ex.P1 dated: 16.8.1990
after reading and understanding the contents thereof
carefully. But in Ex.P1 alleged molestation of
catching one hand of Ruchika, putting another around
her waist and embracing her, are not mentioned. The
concocted story was developed by PW.1, PW.2, PW.13
after nine days on 21.8.1990 before Sh. R.R. Singh
due to old enmity and with immediate provocation and
hostility on account of criminal defamation case
under Section 500 IPC instituted on 18.8.1990 against
Sh. Anand Parkash and his family.

18. It is further argued that Sh. S.C. Girhotra

was lured with money to sign on Ex.P3 on 18.8.1990.
Ex.P3 can be treated as first complaint of Sh. S.C.
Girhotra and Ruchika to police which was given to SHO
PW.10 on 18.8.1990 at about 12.00 hours but in Ex.P3
there is no allegation of molestation and
misbehaviour against the appellant. PW.10 Sh. Anil
Dhawan, SHO Panchkula went to enquire into the
complaint in the evening of 18.8.1990 but Sh. S.C.
Girhotra refused to give any statement to him. Ex.P4
which was annexure of Ex.P3 was photocopy. It was
wrongly exhibited so it cannot be read in evidence.
PW.1 proved that Ex.P3 was prepared on 18.8.1990.
PW.15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra made the statement that Ex.P3
was written before him and he had signed on extra
sheet Ex.P4. DW.9 proved that Sh. Girhotra had told
him that Sh. Anand Parkash had come to him to get his

29
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

signatures on the complaint which he refused but

later on his offering money and assurance that his
daughter would be reinstated he had signed on the
complaint and the memorandum. That is the reason Sh.
S.C. Girhotra signed on extra sheet of memorandum
Ex.P4 on 18.8.1990 and went to appear before Sh. R.R.
Singh on 21.8.1990. It is relevant that Sh. S.C.
Girhotra only made statement in the court about the
'abhadra vyohar' but he did not make any statement
regarding alleged molestation. From the evidence on
the file, it is proved that the accused was falsely
implicated in this case by Sh. Anand Parkash and his
family who were nursing grudge against the accused.
Sh. Anand Parkash acted as a front man and was
rewarded by way of his restoration to the rank of
Superintending Engineer and elevation to the rank of
Chief Engineer on 5.12.1990. He also satiated his
old vendetta by celebrating victory function in Ladwa
on 24.12.2000 and appeared on Zee TV and Star TV
where he had witnessed his father premises being
raided by police for satta gambling about 16 years
ago. No reasons were mentioned in Ex.P1 as to why
girls did not disclose to anyone for two days about
the incident. There is unexplained delay of 45 hours
on the part of Smt. Madhu Parkash and Sh. Anand
Parkash and her relatives and police officers from
6.30 pm on 14.8.1990 till 4.00 pm on 16.8.1990 during
which time they prepared the memorandum after full
consultation with their relatives and police
officers. The delay itself is sufficient to
discredit the prosecution story. Sh. S.C. Girhotra
did not report the matter to the police post which
was about 200-250 yards away from his house. He
asked Aradhana to take Ruchika to Smt. Madhu Parkash
instead of sending his daughter to real, Nani-Nana,
Mami-Mama. Her Nana was DSP CBI. Sh. S.C. Girhotra
did not come to meet the appellant when he was

30
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

invited through the letter delivered by chowkidar.

19. It is further argued that learned trial

court failed to take into account that Sh. S.C.
Girhotra and Sh. Anand Parkash etc conspired to
implicate the appellant in the false case at the
instance of very senior and ambitious police officer
and with the willing support of Sh. J.K. Duggal IAS
and Sh. B.S. Ojha IAS. The hostile media willingly
joined hands and orchestrated media campaign by
publishing false stories and half truth. DW.9 and
DW.17 proved the extortion by Sh. S.C. Girhotra.
The demand of alleged money by Sh. S.C. Girhotra was
not constant and differ from time to time. The
learned trial court contradicted its own view that
over a period of time memory lapses can happen and
actual figure may vary. DW.9 and DW.7 were
categorical and consistent during cross-examination
that money was demanded and demand was brought down
by Sh. Girhotra because appellant was not accepting
his proposal. Two cases of corruption were registered
against Sh. S.C. Girhotra. He was also convicted in
one of the cases which was with regard to fraud,
cheating and corruption. Copy of the judgment is
Ex.D15. During cross-examination, Sh. S.C. Girhotra,
his tape recorded conversation was played to him in
full. Sh. S.C. Girhotra spoke to DW.9 Karan Singh
that demanding and settling money was like a business
for him. On being asked by defence counsel, he
refused to get his voice compared with the voice in
the tape record before the trial court. Adverse
inference has to be drawn against him for his refusal
to give voice sample and conclusion drawn that it was
his voice in the tape record. Sh. Girhotra's
intention was to extort maximum amount of money from
appellant that is why he went to varying his demand
and also used DW.17 to prevail upon the appellant to

31
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

agree to part with the reduced amount of money. If

he had reduced the figure of Rs. 10 lacs from his
original demand of the value of a plot, the factum of
extortion is still proved. A specific suggestion was
given to him that he did not come to meet the
appellant on 15.8.1990 because he was intending to
extort money from the appellant. Greed for money
made him joined the conspiracy against the appellant
It is also indicated by his threatening response to
DW.2 when he handed over letter to him on 15.8.1990
that is why he joined Sh. Anand Parkash and became
active after news report about the proposed legal
action by the appellant. Sh. S.C. Girhotra's son
also joined the extortion bid after commencement of
CBI enquiry under Section 354 of IPC with the threat
that they would involve the appellant in Section 306
IPC. Sh. S.C. Girhotra first demanded cost of a plot
through a common friend Chaudhary Karan Singh on
8.5.2001 which was refused by answering respondent.
Thereafter, Sh. S.C. Girhotra inducted another common
friend Sh. M.K. Sisodia. After scaling down his
demand of Rs. 10 lacs there was conversation to
openly discuss about the figures of the amount with
the answering respondent and that he had stopped them
(Anand Parkash etc.) to file the petition in the High
Court meanwhile was tape recorded on 13.9.2001. The
appellant rejected his demand.

20. It is further argued that there was clear

motivation and grudge of Sh. Anand Parkash and his
family members and his relatives to falsely implicate
the appellant. Smt. Madhu Parkash is the wife and
Aradhana is the daughter of Sh. Anand Parkash. Dr.
Naresh Mittal is the son-in-law of sister of Sh.
Anand Parkash. There is history of old enmity of Sh.
Anand Parkash and his family with the appellant.
There were complaints of satta gambling against

32
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

father of Dr. Naresh Mittal who lived in Ladwa

District Kurushetra in 1973 where appellant was
posted as Superintendent of Police. Police raid was
conducted in the house of father of Sh. Anand Parkash
on the directions of appellants despite intervention
of the local MLA Sh. Shadi Lal Malik DW.6 has proved
the said fact. The appellant had already instituted
criminal defamation case against them and others and
they were summoned as accused. Sh. Anand Parkash was
SDO in PWD Haryana in 1973. He had to leave the
department because he was caught indulging in corrupt
practices and causing loss to Government. An enquiry
was ordered against him by the government. Sh. Anand
Parkash in his deposition blamed the appellant for
the said charge-sheet. It indicates his inimical
mind set against the appellant. Sh. Anand Parkash
was placed under suspension in 1979 for grave
misconduct/corruption etc. He was reverted to the
rank of XEN in 1980 . He was dismissed from service
in 1982. He was again reverted in 1985. His conduct
as reported in his ACRs for 1987-88 read his
reputation for integrity remained poor. He brought
all type of pressure to get personal favour from his
seniors. In the ACR for 1988-89 his seniors
recorded that he is intriguer number No.1 in the
board, and epitome of all ills in the engineering
side. His reputation for integrity remained poor
Same is Ex.DW14/1. In 1990 Sh. Anand Parkash became
the front man for various police officers who were
working under Sh. B.S. Ojha PS to CM and other
service rivals of the appellant. He helped those
senior police and IAS officers in revengeful manner
for advancing his own service career in fabricating
the false memorandum Ex.P1 and thereby he earned the
reward by way of promotion to the rank of Chief
Engineer within four months despite his adverse
record and reports of corruption. In the year 1997

33
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Sh. Anand Parkash was under Vigilance scanner. A

notice was issued to him in enquiry pertaining to
acceptance of higher rates of tender beyond his
financial powers and departmental action was
recommended against him. At that time, he alongwith
his family members and relatives had to appear in the
court and to seek bail in a defamation case. At that
time, DGP Haryana was of the same batch as the
appellant. It was expected that appellant would be
appointed as next DGP. Therefore, Sh. Anand Parkash
deliberately enlisted the help of ambitious police
officers who did not want the appellant to become DGP
and together with money and support of Dr. Naresh
Mittal a criminal Writ Petition 1694/1997 was filed
through Smt. Madhu Parkash wife of Sh. Anand Parkash
for registration of the appeal against the appellant
by annexing forged documents when Hon'ble High Court
ordered registration of FIR against the appellant,
the Vigilance enquiry and notice pending against Sh.
Anand Parkash were also dropped. Smt. Madhu Parkash
PW.2 and Aradhana PW.3 wife and daughter of Sh.
Anand Parkash have same degree of vindictiveness and
enmity towards the appellant. She is advocate but
signed Ex.P3 which starts with the words that they
did not have knowledge of law. She annexed forged
documents with the criminal Writ petition. She is
not member any NGO. She claimed to be like Ruchika's
mother but in the cross-examination she admitted that
she did not visit Ruchika during her illness in PGI
nor she attended her cremation. She also made
interpolation in document Ex.D6 attached with the
challan. Her statement is full of improvements and
contradictions. Dr. Naresh Mittal PW.5 is an
influential man of Panchkula who has money power and
clout with politicians. He is known for having
access to influential and powerful people in his
capacity as a doctor and distributor of Ayurvedic

34
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

medicines . He is leader of Aggarwal community. He

has been involved in five police cases pertaining to
cheating, forgery, fabrication of record, 306 IPC etc
and assault of police. He is son-in-law of sister of
Sh. Anand Parkash so he became enimical towards the
appellant. He also threatened that he would have the
appellant and his family eliminated. PW.3 and PW.4
were summoned in a criminal defamation case so they
stood against the appellant. Sh. B.S. Ojha IAS,
PW.14 was the Principal Secretary to CM in 1989-90.
He had sent message through Sh. S.K. Saxena IAS the
then treasurer of HLTA that the appellant should step
down for the Presidentship of HLTA. Whereupon
meeting of the executive body was held under the
Chairmanship of appellant and Sh. Ojha's proposal was
rejected. The proceedings are Ex.D16/1. He was
upset and he conveyed verbal warning through Sh S.K.
Saxena IAS that he would not left Mr. Rathore
function and Mr. Rathore would have faced the
consequences. Then Governor of Haryana HE Sh. Brari
who was Chief Patron of HLTA was apprised of the said
happenings. DW.16 proved that Sh. B.S. Ojha got the
parallel tennis body HTA registered in 1989-90 and
installed Sh. J.K. Duggal IAS Home Secretary as its
President. There was total hostility between
appellant and Sh. J.K. Duggal DW.12 in 1990 since
they were heading rival tennis bodies in the State.
The appellant had also challenged the registration of
HLTA before the Registrar Cooperative Societies at
the time of registration. There was litigation
against HTA, the appellant also got amended civil
suit No. 230/1989 on 2.9.1990 wherein, Sh. J.K.
Duggal was arraigned as defendant. The memorandum
Ex.P1 was presented at 3.30 pm on 16.8.1990 on Sh.
J.K. Duggal's directions, SDM reached at the coaching
centre of HLTA at 5.00 pm and took over the coaching
centre and took into possession the record. The

35
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

malafides of SDM's action is reflected by the fact

that he forced the coach and Manager to write on the
notice that Ruchika had not committed any act of
indiscipline and handed over the said document to Sh.
Anand Parkash. It also proves that Sh. Anand Parkash
was acting as leader and front man and Sh. S.K. Joshi
was also neighbour of Sh. Anand Parkash and was
residing two house away from house of Sh. Anand
Parkash. Sh. C.P. Bansal, IPS, DIG was working as
CM, Flying Squad and Sh. S.L. Goyal DSP were
directly working under Sh. J.K. Duggal and Sh. B.S.
Ojha. Sh. C.P. Bansal had in service jealously with
the appellant and in order to please his most
powerful boss in the government, he enthusiastically
participated and guided the drafting of the false
memorandum to make out a complaint of moral turpitude
against the appellant. Both of them remained
associated with PW.1 from 14.8.1990. Sh. R.R. Sngh
was living in the same area where Sh. Anand Parkash
was residing. He was interested and was hostile
towards the appellant. The appellant was his
successor in Rohtak district as senior Superintendent
of Police. The appellant had refused to allow
harvesting of the crop in the SP's residence by Sh.
R.R. Singh which had caused great annoyance to him.
Sh. R.R. Singh PW.6 admitted in the cross-examination
that he told CBI that he might have asked Smt.
Rathore to accommodate him to harvest the crop at
Rohtak at his residence but Mr. Rathore refused to do
so. The appellant was sent on deputation to BBMB
after Sh.R.R. Singh had taken over as DGP Haryana.
Sh. R.R. Singh created incriminating evidence and
sent one sided motivated report in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The other name of
Aradhana is Reemu but Sh. R.R. Singh made Aradhana
and Reemu as two different persons while summing up
allegations in his enquiry report since this was the

36
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

only way to make Reemu as sathi khiladi as mentioned

in Ex.P1. It was in the knowledge of Sh. R.R. Singh
that there had never been any complaint of
misbehaviour by Sh. Rathore against any lady prior to
12.8.1990. He also admitted the said fact. He also
admitted that he had received a memorandum on
26.8.1990 in which it was stated that Sh. Rathore was
victim of high level conspiracy and Sh. Anand Parkash
and Dr. Naresh Mittal were touts. He ignored those
crucial facts and did not ascertain the incidents of
Sh. Anand Parkash, Dr. Naresh Mittal and Sh. S.C.
Girhotra. The government had directed Sh. R.R. Singh
to examine all the signatories to the memorandum and
also the appellant but he examined only five out of
the 11 persons who had signed Ex.P1. He did not
examine the appellant and also refused to examine
coach, Manager, Paltoo and other spot witnesses who
had been produced before him on 26.8.1990 at the
place of enquiry. He also turned down the appellant's
request for spot inspection of the scene of alleged
occurrence. It is further argued that media became
enimical against the appellant due to filing of
criminal defamation case against the media people
also for publishing defamatory reports in the press
on 17.8.1990 and 18.8.1990 they joined hands with Sh.
Anand Parkash etc. When trial under Section 354 IPC
commenced in December, 2000, Sh. Anand Parkash and
Smt. Madhu Parkash started spreading concocted
stories with the help of media which was seriously
prejudicing the trial of the appellant. The appellant
had to approach the Hon'ble High Court through CROCP
NO. 38 of 2001 and contempt notices were issued to
Smt. Madhu Parkash and Sh. Anand Parkash etc. The
petition was admitted and is pending for regular
hearing. The media alongwith Sh. Anand Parkash,
Aradhana and Sh. S.C. Girhotra built up a formidable
hype by launching organised and malicious hate

37
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

campaign against the appellant after pronouncement of

orders on 21.12.2009 which ultimately led to
murderous assault on the appellant outside the court
premises.

21. It is further argued that the prosecution

failed to prove the alleged visit of appellant to
Ruchika's house on 11.8.1990. Sh S.C. Girhotra PW.15
ws confronted with his statement and Ex.D17 where he
only deposed that accused never came to his house.
So version of the prosecution that alleged act was
pre mediated as appellant visited Ruchika's house on
11.8.1990 is proved false.

22. It is further argued that in memorandum

Ex.P1 the name of Aradhana as Saathi khiladi is not
written. Aradhana is not proved to be eye witness.
She was introduced afterwards. PW.1 deposed that
Aradhana had read and understood the contents of the
memorandum carefully and thereafter she signed the
memorandum. Had she been the sathi khiladi then she
would have insisted upon writing her name in Ex.P1
before signing. Paltoo and coach are the two persons
who could tell about the sathi khiladi since Aradhana
admitted their presence in/around HLTA office/ House
No. 469/6, Panchkula. The prosecution did not bring
the coach Thomas in the witness box. Although
statement of the coach was recorded by CBI as
admitted in the admission/denial statement. Another
player Ruchi Girotra had signed at point H of Ex.P3.
At point-I signatures of her mother K. Girotra are
there. Ruchi also signed at page-7 of Ex.P4. At the
bottom of her signatures address is noted as 641,
Sector-6. Sh. S.C. Girhotra admitted her as sathi
khiladi. DW.16 also deposed that one Ruchi Girotra
her cousin was the closest friend of Ruchika
Girhotra. Prosecution did not cross-examine him on

38
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

this point. The investigating officer stated that he

did not examine Ruchi. The aforesaid circumstances
lead to strong probability that this Ruchi might have
been sathi khiladi mentioned in the memorandum. When
two views are possible, then one favouring the
accused is to be accepted.

23. It is further argued that the story

propounded by the prosecution itself disprove
intention. The prosecution story that Ruchika came
to meet the appellant at 12.00 hours in HLTA office
on asking of the accused and accused insisted
Aradhana and Ruchika to come inside the HLTA office
where accused sat down in his chair and Aradhana sat
down in another chair across the table and Ruchika
stood next to her. Thereafter, accused asked
Aradhana to call the coach who should be in the back
yard. The document Ex.PW8/A itself ruled out any
alleged intention to misbehave with Ruchika.
Ex.PW8/A shows that back yard is only 29.5 ft. away
from the point where Aradhana was sitted. The normal
and shortest route to backyard is through the gallery
running alongwith the adjoining rooms which were
being used by the coach and the Manager as per
charge-sheets. If the accused had any intention of
misbehaving with Ruchika he would never had called
Ruchika at 12.00 hours in a house which was under
construction and labour was moving all around as the
construction activity was at full swing at that time.
If there were any ill intention the accused would
have called her to HLTA office after 5.00 pm when
construction work gets over and local labour goes
away. The HLTA staff was in the tennis coaching
centre providing more privacy in the house at that
time. He would have sent away Aradhana to call the
coach from the coaching centre which was more than
one furlong away from the house or he would have

39
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

taken both the girls to any other room in the

building. The appellant was aware of the
availability of time of one minute before Aradhana
and coach would return to HLTA office. PW.3 Manish
Arora also stated that distance between tennis courts
and HLTA office was 800-900 metres. Learned trial
court committed error in fact, by considering that
Aradhana was asked to go to the tennis court in the
centre (which was more than one furlong away). As
per version of the prosecution the girls remained
quite for more than two days. Ruchika did not show
any reaction in HLTA office. She did not mention
about the alleged incident to coach or Paltoo or any
other worker in the house in question.

24. It is further argued that allegation of act

of molestation by the accused is totally false. It
was improbable to commit the offence at that very
moment and at that very spot. PW.2 stated that HLTA
office was opened with no door and connecting gallery
in the rear was open without doors. In Ex.P1 it is
written that appellant told Aradhana while directing
her to call the coach that 'coach kahi peeche honge',
therefore, Aradhana will naturally go from the
gallery to the backyard from point-B and she will
check on the way to backyard about presence of coach
in his living room on the way. When she does not
find the coach in the adjoining room then she proceed
to the backyard of the house and then reach point-E
from where she will return from the same route which
is the shortest and natural route. While returning
she will first enter the HLTA office before reaching
point-G in Ex.PW8/A. If Aradhana was present in HLTA
office and her version were true then she would have
seen the alleged incident on entering HLTA office
itself much before reaching point-G. A pond is shown
in the basement of the under construction house, in

40
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Ex.PW8/A it is a major hurdle for choosing any other

route for reaching point-E. Besides house being
under construction, workers were moving around
dinning hall and main bedroom about whom Aradhana is
totally silent. Only garage area, housing HLTA
office and its officials was the neatest. The
prosecution has not proved the route/path Aradhana
followed in going to call the coach from Point-B to
E. The story made by Aradhana is totally concocted
and she is lying and was not present in the HLTA
office when Ruchika arrived to meet appellant.
Ex.PW8/A and its legend is prepared only pointing to
Aradhana and proved by her in the court. Initially,
the appellant is shown sitting in his chair at Point-
A and Aradhana in the chair at Point-B and Ruchika
stood near Aradhana at Point-C. On Aradhana's return
(after calling the coach) the appellant was at Point-
I and Ruchika was point-H as per statement of PW.8,
AEE, PWD Sh. Sompal. The distance between A and I is
2 to 2 ft. The accused cannot fall down in his
chair on seeing Aradhana. There is an office table
between Point-A and B. The size of the office table
is not mentioned in Ex.PW8/A. The map is also not as
per scale. The DW.1 testified the size of table as
4'x 3' ft which stands proved because he was not
cross-examined at that point. As per Ex.PW8/A the
width of HLTA office is only 6 ft. The space between
table and the common wall of the adjoining room is
less than 2 ft because some space has also to be left
between office table and the glass doors/windows of
HLTA office. The Point-H where Ruchika has been
shown to be standing is situated in this narrow
space, therefore, story of Ruchika being embraced at
Point-H and she was struggling to release herself in
this narrow space is improbable and concocted. The
prosecution has not explained, nor Ruchika in her
alleged narration to Aradhana after coming out of

41
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

HLTA office on 12.8.1990 has explained how and why

she went from Point-C to Point-H. The learned trial
court committed error while dealing with the issue of
falling down of the accused in the chair on surmises
and conjectures. That distance of 2-3 ft is not such
a big distance and same can be covered in one or two
steps. It is not the case of the prosecution that
accused moved back and then sat in the chair. The
learned trial court failed to take into consideration
that in criminal law strict proof is required for
proving a fact. PW.1 testified that there were
glazing (transparent glass widows) in the front
portion of HLTA office . Many labourers were working
there and were moving all around. Gun man Ved
Parkash was present with the accused in HLTA office.
Sh. Ram Piare chowkidar-cum-servant was also present
and was working at a distance of 7-8 ft from the HLTA
office. The HLTA office was approachable from both
front and rear side. Aradhana covered distance of
approximately 88 ft. in reaching Point-E. If she had
gone to Point-F where coach was standing. She had to
cover another 20 ft approximately. Aradhana young 13
years old tennis trainee would not have taken more
than a minute or so in going and returning to HLTA
office. The appellant also knows the consequences of
criminal act of molestation on his service career and
his social embarrassment if anyone including
Aradhana and coach enter HLTA office from either side
of the house. Even a person of average intelligence
would not remotely think of acting in the manner as
alleged. Sh. R.S. Chauhan OSD to CM Haryana was
living with his family right in front of the HLTA
office. Sh. Anand Parkash was SE in Haryana
Government. He alongwith his son was with Sh. Anand
Parkash etc on the evening of 14.8.1990 showing his
closeness with Aradhana's parents. If any act of
misdemeanour had taken place in HLTA office on

42
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

12.8.1990 it would have been immediately reported by

Aradhana and Ruchika to Sh. R.S. Chauhan after
leaving HLTA office. The learned trial court
wrongly concluded that incident is not improbable and
failed to appreciate evidence as to whether there was
time/opportunity for commission of alleged act.
Learned trial court proceeded with the assumption of
presence of Aradhana in the HLTA office when Ruchika
met the appellant but prosecution failed to prove the
said fact beyond reasonable doubt.

25. It is further argued that the witnesses of

the prosecution themselves proved the flawless and
high reputation of the appellant regarding integrity
and high moral character. DW.8 testified that the
appellant was awarded president's matter and other
decorations which are only awarded if officer's
integrity and high moral character is certified.
Learned trial court failed to appreciate said fact.
In case Bhagwan Sarup Lal Bishan Lal Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others AIR 1965, Supreme Court 682, it
was held that evidence of good reputation and general
good disposition is relevant in criminal proceedings.
It may be useful in doubtful cases to tilt the
balance in favour of the accused. Ruchika was of the
age of appellant's daughter and her school mate too.
The appellant was senior IPS officer, 48 years old,
happily living with his family consisting of his wife
and three grown up children. DW.16 has proved that
appellant's wife was Vice President of HLTA. She
used to play tennis with the appellant and remained
present in all HLTA tournaments but no complaint was
made by any of these girls to her. The Ruchika was
about 15 1/2 years old and convent educated. Her
grandfather had been DSP CBI of Ambala. She would
have shown violent reaction or raised any protest or
alarm knowing that her friend was around if any such

43
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

occurrence had taken place. Similarly, conduct of

Aradhana as alleged eye witness as per prosecution
case in remaining silent spectator and not even
uttering a single word prove that no alleged act of
molestation had taken place. Aradhana who is 13
years old girl had no cause of any personal
embarrassment in sharing the information regarding
alleged offence with her parents. The argument that
informing parents would have involved the parents of
the girls into false cases at the behest of the
appellant is not tenable since parents are the best
friends to keep secrecy and decided about the future
prospectus. Both Ruchika and Aradhana went to play
tennis again on 14.8.1990 at the usual time knowing
fully well that tennis coaching centre was still
under over all control of the appellant who used to
visit the courts in the evening. Their conduct after
the alleged incident is very unnatural and constitute
a major infirmity in the prosecution case. The
father and brother of Ruchika and parents of Aradhana
did not file any report with the police or in the
court for two days though the police post is very
close to the house of Ruchika. The subsequent moves
by the parents of Aradhana and senior police officer
is very relevant. The complaint was drafted after
five days which was got dictated and typed by Sh.
C.P. Bansal, DIG and Sh. S.L. Goyal DSP with the
assistance of Advocate Madhu.

26. The counsel for the appellant further argued

that learned trial court failed to appreciate the
evidence that Aradhana is a highly interested and
unreliable witness whose evidence is full of
infirmities. There was old enmity between Aradhana's
family and appellant. The immediate cause of
vindictiveness had arisen because the accused had
filed the criminal defamation case under Section 500

44
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

IPC on 18.8.1990 against Aradhana and her family.

Aradhana had signed Ex.P1 which is FIR but name of
the Aradhana as eye witness is not mentioned.
Aradhana became eye witness on 21.8.1990 after filing
of criminal defamation case. The prosecution has
failed to prove that Aradhana was present in HLTA
office on 12.8.1990. Total six statements of
Aradhana were recorded. In Ex.P1 the description of
alleged incident is described as Chedh char. In
the letter written to SHO Ex.P3 alleged incident is
not mentioned. In the statement dated: 21.8.1990
Ex.PW13/A recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh her statement is
that the accused caught the hand of Ruchika and put
one arm around her waist. In the statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C by IO, CBI she improved the
story by saying that after putting arm around the
waist, the accused hugged her. The legend of sketch
plan Ex.PW8/A dated: 27.1.2000 prove that incident is
improbable. In 2005 her statement was recorded in
CBI court at Ambala. She tried to colour her story
by using words that appellant had tied one hand of
Ruchika and was embracing her tightly with his chest.
At the time of deposition in the court her conduct
was not straight forward. She avoided giving answer
about the name of the person written at Point-I of
Ex.P1. Learned trial court noted her conduct that
after waiting for 3-4 minutes she stated that she
could not recognise. Aradhana invented a new witness
Paltoo in HLTA office before learned trial court in
2005. Prior to that her consistent stand was that
there was one person in HLTA office on 12.8.1990 who
she also claimed to have gone and got the chair in
HLTA office. But she obviously did not know his
name. As per prosecution story Aradhana later sent
the same person to call the coach. The substitution
of Paltoo in place of one person is a material
improvement and was made with an ulterior motive.

45
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

The said person is the only admitted spot witness who

could clarify as to two specific chain of events i.e.
Aradhana was on the spot with Ruchika and Aradhana
left Ruchika alone with the appellant and went to
call the coach. Clever action of the Aradhana in
substituting Paltoo in place of one person knowing
that Paltoo was not examined under Section 161
Cr.P.C., is to prejudice the defence and prevent the
court from knowing the real truth. DW.1, DW.2 and
DW.3 who withstood the length cross-examination have
proved that Aradhana was not in HLTA office when
Ruchika met the appellant. The learned trial court
failed to appreciate the improvement made by
Aradhana. The story of the prosecution of avoiding
accused in coaching centre on 14.8.1990 is wrong.
According to prosecution story the girls went to play
tennis on 14.8.1990 at 4.30 pm in order to avoid Sh.
Rathore who used to come to play at 6.30 pm.
Aradhana admitted her signatures on Ex.DW13 in which
it is mentioned her playing time as 4.30 to 5.30 pm,
Group-A. DW.5 and DW.16 have also proved the
grouping timings. In the cross-examination Aradhana
admitted that she and Ruchika met Paltoo at 6.30 pm
on 14.8.1990. She has spoken a lie in the court and
gave false statement regarding avoidance of Sh.
Rathore on 14.8.1990. She also made false deposition
regarding time of departure of Ruchika from her house
for HLTA office. Sh. S.C. Girhotra made statement
that Ruchika had gone from their house around 15-20
minutes before 12.00 O'clock whereas, Aradhana made
statement that she met Ruchika at 11.00 O'clock on
12.8.1990 is incorrect. She deposed that Ruchika met
and talked about appellant's visit, then they went to
coaching centre and played tennis in the centre,
whereafter, they both went to HLTA office. But
Ruchika would take about 15 minutes in reaching
Aradhana's house, 15-20 minutes staying and talking

46
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

with Aradhana, 10-15 minutes in reaching coaching

centre and then half an hour in playing tennis in the
coaching centre and 10-15 minutes reaching the HLTA
office from there. Then Ruchika and Aradhana would
reach HLTA office around 1.30 pm instead of 12.00
hours. Learned trial court dismissed the said major
contradictions. Sh. S.C. Girhotra who had seen
Ruchika going from his house made statement that
Ruchika used to go to play in the evening and never
in the morning. Ruchika had gone empty handed on
12.8.1990. Ruchika had her own tennis Racquet which
she used to take with her. So statement of Aradhana
that she went with Ruchika to play tennis is wrong.
Aradhana made statement that original of Ex.P4 was
given to SHO but her father made statement that
photocopy was given to SHO. In Ex.PW8/A Aradhana
wrongly got the front portion of the HLTA office at X
shown as cement wall on 27.1.2000. She falsely
deposed that she was having close friendship with
Ruchika. In the cross-examination she admitted that
she did not know household name of Ruchika which was
Ruby. She wrongly mentioned the address house number
of Ruchika. She did not know that Ruchika's father
was bank Manager. She admitted that she did not
visit her when she was admitted in the hospital. She
also did not attend her cremation. Evidence of being
close friend was given in order to prove that she was
sathi khiladi. She made false deposition regarding
acquaintance with Sh. S.C. Girhotra. PW.15 who
stated that he came to know Sh. Anand Parkash only
after the incident. She made false statement
regarding meeting Sh. J.K. Duggal IAS on 16.8.1990.
Sh. J.K. Duggal PW.12 stated that some persons had
come to meet him on 16.8.1990 but there were no
ladies. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
she stated that Ruchika told her that sarcastic
remarks were made against her. Aradhana had improved

47
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

her statement in the court that sarcastic remarks

were passed against Ruchika in her presence.
Aradhana stated that Ruchika went to Sh R.R. Singh on
21.8.1990 with her and her mother, whereas Sh. S.C.
Girhotra says Ruchika went to Sh. R.R. Singh with
him. She did not make statement before Sh. R.R. Singh
that her mother consoled Ruchika but in the court she
made improvement that her mother consoled Ruchika.
She made wrong statement regarding signatures of
Ruchika on Ex.P1 and her presence in her house on
15.8.1990/16.8.1990. She did not mention about the
notes written by Sh. Kuldip Singh Manager and coach
on Ex.P2 on the asking of SDM in Ex.P3 and her
statement Ex.PW13/A before Sh. R.R. Singh and under
Section 161 Cr.P.C before IO. Ex.P2 was is in
unauthorised custody of his father. Counsel for the
appellant also pointed out that she made further
improvements over all earlier two statements i.e.
Ex.P1 dated: 16.8.1990 and Ex.P3/P4 dated: 18.8.1990,
as under :

Jab main va Ruchika HLTA ke office main pahunche to

Doshi bahar Khade thee hamen deckhkar office main jane
ke liye kaha jis par Ruchika ne kaha bahar khade hokar
baat kar lete hai unhone jor dekar ander aane ko kaha
hum unke pichhe office ke liye chal diye.
Office main pahunchne par unhone kursi mangwai jis par
main baith gai vo pahle se ak table va ak kursi rakhi hui
thee va us samai Ruchika mere sath khadi thee va unhone
dusri kursi lane ke lye mana kar diya.
Uske baad mujhe SPS Rathore ne Mr. R. Thamus coach
ko Bulane ke liye Kaha.
Main Ruchika ko vahin chhodkar coach ko bulane chali
gayee.
Maine uneh bataya ki coach ne aane se mana kar diya
hai, Unhone jor se rudely kaha ke jao or uneh personally
bula kar lao or kaho ki unhone use bulaya hai.

48
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Yeh sunkar main bhi Ruchika ke peechhe bhag gai.

Voh roti ja rahi three va bhagti ja rahi thee.
Mai bhag kar uske paas pahunchi to voh muje dekh jor
jor se rone lagi.
Maine use puchha ki kya hua to usne muje bataya kijab
main coach ko bulane gaye thee to Rathore Sahib ne uska
hath pakda jo usne bahut muskil se chudaya phihr dosi
apni kursi se utha va uska ak hath jor se pakda to dusra
hath uski kammar main dala or use khinch kar apni chest
se chipka liya or vah lagatar dosi ko apne se door
dhakelene ki koshis karti rahi va unhone uske sath
misbehave kiya itne main, main aa gaye va mere aane
par unhone usko chhod diya.
Ruchika ne muje puchha ki ye baat apne parents ko
batani chaiya, hum dono mai kuchh der baat hui or
humne decide kiya ki hum apne parent ko kuchh na
batayen kyonki vo hamari family ko kisi trah ka nuksan
pahuncha sakte hai.
Iske bad hum done mere ghar gaye jahan se Ruchka apne
ghar gaye.
Iske baad hum dono Ruchika ke ghar gaye.
Phir Ruchika ne muje kaha ki Sh. Rathore ne use khud
bulaya hai or uske irade theek nahi lagte jo use molesta
karane ke liye bulaya hai, par hamne apne parents ko
batane ka faisla kiya va Ruchika ne yah kaha ke hamne
abhi tak apne parents ko na bataya jiski vajah se Mr.
Rathore encourage feel kar rahe hain.
Ruchika ne apne pita ko incident batana shuru kiya aur
vah beech main he ro padi.
Ruchika ke pita ne muje Ruchika ko apni mother ke pass
le jane ko kaha kyonki unki mata na hai or vah meri mata
se khulkar baat kah payagi our unhone yah bhi kaha ki
vah thodi dher main pichhe-pichhe hamare gar aa
jayangi.
Jab hum ghar pahunche meri mother ghar par hi thee va
unhe dekh khar Ruchika rone lagi.
Ruchika ne unhe Rathere sir ke 12.8.1990 wali incident

49
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

bare main vistar se bataya.

Meri mata ne Ruchika se uske pita ke bare puchha to
maine unhe bataya ki voh hamare ghar hi aa rahe hai va
mere pitaji bhi us din ghar par the or meri mother ne sari
baat unhe bataya va unhone Ruchika se dubara sari baat
puchhi or mere parents ne humse puchha ki Rathore sir us
samai khan honge jis par maine bataya ki vah lawn tennis
court main hone kyonki 6.30-7.00 pm ka samai tha.
Mare ghar ke nazdeek he hame Ruchika ke pita kuchh
neighbour va bache mile jab main Ruchika va mere mata
pita lawn tennis ki taraf ja rahe the.
Vahan se hum sab log HLTA gaye jaha hame pata laga ki
Rathore sir kuchh samai pahle HLTA office chale gaya
hain. Hum sab log HLTA ke office jane lage va kuchh
sathi khiladi jinme Vipul Chanana va Manish Arora the
hamare sath chal pade.

27. It is further argued that the learned trial

court had wrongly relied upon the testimony of
Aradhana and wrongly applied the ratio of the case
Narain Chetan Ram Chaudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra. In
the said case conviction was on the basis of
approver's testimony but in the instant case there
was no approver, single alleged eye witness and there
was previous enmity/hostility of the witnesses and
the accused in the instant case. Since the name of
Aradhana is not mentioned as eye witness in Ex.P1 and
there are vague allegation of 'Chedh char' in Ex.P1
so prosecution was required to prove beyond
reasonable doubt presence of Aradhana in HLTA office
on 12.8.1990. Since prosecution has failed to prove
the same so no reliance can be placed on the
testimony of Aradhana and learned trial court had
wrongly considered her statement as gospel truth.
Learned trial court wrongly held that there was no
person inside the room or near the room and wrongly
did not believe the defence version.

50
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

28. It is further argued that the prosecution

has failed to examine three important witnesses
namely, coach,Thomas, ball-picker Paltoo and Manager
hailing from Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Uttrakhand
respectively and belonging to different religions
i.e. Christian and Hindu respectively. They were
totally independent witnesses. Sh. Paltoo who had
gone to call Ruchika on 12.8.1990 and again on
14.8.1990 was required to be examined. The coach
could prove the veracity of version of Aradhana that
she was sathi khiladi. The prosecution has failed to
examine Manager Kuldip Singh who was present in the
tennis coaching centre on 16.8.1990. The CBI is
having jurisdiction in the entire country so version
of the prosecution that Paltoo was not available
cannot be accepted. Coach Thomas and Manager Kuldip
Singh were joined in the investigation. The adverse
inference is required to be drawn against the
prosecution for withholding the material witnesses.
A list of 12 witnesses who were present at the spot
was given to Sh. R.R. Singh on 26.8.1990 and said
fact is admitted by CBI. None of the said witness is
examined.

29. It is further argued that learned trial

court wrongly held that enquiry conducted by Sh.R.R.
Singh was a fact finding enquiry and witnesses of the
accused were not required to be examined in said type
of enquiry and explanation given by Sh. R.R. Singh
that Sh. SPS Rathore pressed to record his statement
in presence of advocate so he was not examined. There
is no law which says that it is a fact finding
enquiry. The accused cannot be allowed to give his
statement in presence of an advocate and witnesses of
the accused are not to be examined. Sh.R.R. Singh
even violate the orders passed by the government. He

51
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

examined only 5 of the 11 persons who had signed

Ex.P1. The presumption is that remaining six
witnesses would not have supported the version of the
prosecution. He also did not record statement of
accused and his witnesses. Since appellant was
posted in BBMB and was on deputation with the
Ministry of Power, Government of India, so enquiry
ordered by the Chief Minister Haryana to enquire into
the conduct of the appellant is without jurisdiction.
Learned trial court has wrongly held the statement of
witnesses recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh are admissible
under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is
wrongly held that Sh. R.R. Singh derive powers from
Section 36 Cr.P.C. If he had derived powers under
Section 36 Cr.P.C then any statement made before him
will be treated at par with statement recorded by the
police under Section 161 Cr.P. C. which can only be
used for the purpose of contradiction and not
corroboration. The learned trial court has wrongly
decided the question of law with regard to previous
statements recorded by Sh.R.R. Singh and
applicability of Section 157 of the Evidence Act and
Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The court wrongly
applied the ratio of case Rameshwar Vs. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1952 Supreme Court 3768. Ms. Aradhana's
statement before Sh. R.R. Singh was made on 21.8.1990
after 9 days. Said statement was not made at the
first available opportunity. Within those 9 days she
got time and opportunity to tailor her statement.
Learned trial court failed to examine the law cited
by the defence. The learned trial court had wrongly
held that girls were pygmies before Rathore who also
took a stand in the writ that he was scared from
Haryana police. The investigation be handed over to
any other agency. The appellant had himself sought
investigation by CBI since very senior police officer
and very senior IAS officers were involved in the

52
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

frame up against him. They were went upon marring

his brilliant service career besides removing from
Presidentship of HLTA. Learned trial court had
wrongly held that statement of Aradhana @ Reemu is
well admissible in evidence since she had seen the
entire incident and Ruchika explained the incident
immediately after the incident. Since presence of
Aradhana is not proved at the spot on 12.8.1990 so
her statement could not be relied upon. The factum
of speech between Ruchika and Aradhana was brought in
after 9 days and that too after launching of criminal
defamation case against Aradhana and her parents.
There was total material improvement and statement of
Aradhana cannot be relied upon. Alleged narration of
incident by Ruchika to Aradhana in reply to
Aradhana's query as to what happened is also not
admissible as resgestae under Section 6 of the
Evidence Act because it is hearsay after thought. It
must be spontaneous statement during the transaction
closely associated with the thing being done for
making it admissible. It cannot be narration of past
event in answer to a query or after elapse of time.
The rule of resgestae is an exception to the general
rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. It is
on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such
statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue
and such statement must be part of such transaction.
If there is any slight interval for fabrication then
the statement is not part of resgestae. In the
instant case the statement was made after time
elapsed and on enquiry so is not admissible. The
learned trial court wrongly applied the yardstick of
aggressive allegations for adjudicating the false
implication of the appellant. There can be no
standard laid down as to what kind of allegations may
be treated by the court as suspicious. The false
implication and aggressiveness may have to be

53
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

informed from the subsequent conduct of Aradhana and

her parents in dealing with present case of alleged
molestation. The subsequent aggressive action of
Aradhana etc prove that appellant was falsely
implicated. Smt. Madhu Parkash in connivance with
her advocate made interpolation in the copy of the
writ petition supplied to the appellant by adding one
line that appellant had made life of Ruchika so
miserable that she committed suicide. Separate
complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is also pending.
Mother of Aradhana filed an application for adding
Section 306 IPC before CBI court on 15.10.2001. The
language of Ex.P1 was intentionally made flowery so
that vague allegations can be stretched to any limits
and any convenient person can be used as eye witness.
Aradhana stated in the cross-examination that she had
no personal knowledge that appellant had managed 40-
50 people for took out the procession. She also
stated that some people used to follow Ruchika. At
many times they passed sarcastic remarks against
Ruchika in her presence. In the cross-examination
she stated that she told the same to IO but the CBI
wrote whatever they thought correct. The learned
trial court made contradictory observation. If the
accused had been so fearless and daredevil to hug a
girl in the broad day light then observation of
learned trial court that accused became nervous and
fell down on the chair cannot be accepted. Aradhana
is a 10th class student of DAV school. Her entire
conversation is in Hindi. Even the accused is relied
to be continued his dialogues in Hindi. There was no
change in audience or situation which could make the
appellant to suddenly switch over to English from
Hindi. If Aradhana was stunned then she could not
catch each and every word spoken in English so Ex.P1
is proved to be handy work of joint mind of advocates
and senior police office for making plausible story

54
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

after four days.

30. It is further argued that there is delay of

three days on the part of Aradhana in giving
information about the alleged incident. There was
unexplained delay of 45 hours on the part of Smt.
Madhu Parkash and Sh. Anand Parkash and her relatives
in giving information. Sh. R.R. Singh submitted
report on 3.9.1990 and there is unexplained delay of
7 years when writ was filed by Smt. Madhu Parkash.
There is no document that any effort was made by the
complainant for lodging the FIR from 3.9.1990 to
27.11.1990. Learned trial court wrongly held that
the prosecution cannot be blamed for the delay. The
learned counsel for the accused has relied on various
judgments on the question delay, improvement made by
the witness, antecedents of the prosecution
witnesses, reputation, improbable story, adverse
inference, conviction based on testimony of sole
witnesses, expert evidence, equal treatment for
defence witnesses, under Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act, under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act and on the question if two views are
possible then view favourable to the accused should
be considered. The said citations are as under :

Ramjag & others Vs. The State of UP AIR 1974 SC 606;

Awdesh & Anr Vs. State of MP (1988)2 Supreme C ourt Cases
557; Devi Lal Vs. State of Haryana 1999(ii) All India
Criminal Reporter 701; State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh
and others 2005 SCC (Crl.) 43; Gorle S. Naidu Vs. State
of A.P. And others (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 449;
Brajbandu Nail & Ors Vs. State 1975 Crl. Law Journal
1933; Thulia Kali Vs. The State AIR 1973 Supreme Court
Cases 501; Bhag Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1979 PLR Vol.
LXXXI 265; Vidhya Dharan Vs. State of Kerala 2004 SCC
(Crl.) 260; State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kumar
1999 Vol.1, All India Criminal Reporter 406; Piara Singh

55
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Vs. State of Punjab 2000(1) 493; Raghu Nandan Vs. State

of MP 2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 498; Maha Raj Deen
and others Vs. The State 1996 Crl. Law Journal 506; Tej
Singh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 Crl. Law
Journal 1944; Hasan Murtja Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 3
SCC-1; S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 1996 Crl.L. J.
3237; Bhagwan Sarup Lal Bishan Lal Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others AIR 1965 Superme Court 682; Pandu
Rang Sita Ram Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 Vol.1, RCR
(Crl.) 858; Harjana Therepala Vs. PP High Court of AP
2002 Vol.3 RCR (Crl.) 861; Habib Mohd. Vs. State of
Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC-51; Kapur Singh Rani Vs. State of
Delhi 2006 Vol.1 RCR (Crl.) 943; Partap Singh & other
Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 Vol.3 Criminal Court Cases
129; State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Parkash 2007 Vol.4,
Criminal court Cases 134; Ram Krishan Madhu Sudan Nayar
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 Supreme Court 927;
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1995 Vol.3, All India
Criminal Law Report 622; Badri Vs. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1976 SC 560; Madhu Yadav Vs. State of Bihar 2002(2)
RCR (Crl.) 770; Gope LakshmiChand Badlani Vs. Oriental
Bank of Commerce & other 2002 Voo.5 SLR 68; Anil Sharma
and others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2004 Supreme Court
Cases (Crl.) 1706; Dwarka Dass Vs. State of Haryana
2002(4) RCR 794; The President Shichi Vihar Vs. Yellaiah
AIR 1960AP 148; M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs.
Chaintanyakumar & another 1992 Crl. L.J. 3450; Narain
Chetan Ram Chaoudhar Vs. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal
No. 25-26 of 2000.

31. The learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that judgment passed by learned trial court
be set aside and appellant be acquitted of the charge
framed against him.

32. The learned PP for the CBI has argued that

the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and proved
the case against the accused beyond shadow of
reasonable doubt. There is no dispute that office of
HLTA was situated in the garage of house of the

56
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

accused. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu (PW.13) Mr. Manish

Arora PW.3, Mr. Vipul Chanana PW.4 and Ms. Ruchika
since deceased were the members of association and
used to play tennis in the lawn tennis court. Father
of Ruchika Sh. S.C.Girhotra PW.15 has proved that
accused visited his house on 11.8.1990 and told him
that he came to know that he was sending his daughter
Ruchika to Canada and requested him not to send her
abroad as she was very good player and would arrange
special coaching for her. The accused asked PW.15 to
send her daughter on 12.8.1990 at about 12.00 noon in
his office to discuss about her training. Ruchika
was not present in the house at that time so on her
return PW.15 told her about the visit of the accused
to their house and asked her to meet him on 12.8.1990
in his office at 12.00 noon. Ms. Aradhana PW.13
proved that Ruchika came to her house at 11.00 am on
12.8.1990. She was very excited. She told the visit
of the accused to their house on 11.8.1990 and
proposal of the accused not to send her abroad and he
would arrange special coaching for her as she was
promising player. She also told Aradhana that
Rathore had asked her father to send her at 12.00
noon on 12.8.1990 at HLTA. The said fact is also
mentioned in Ex.P1. PW.13 proved that she alongwith
Ruchika went to play lawn tennis on 11.8.1990. While
they were playing, Sh. Paltoo-ball picker came there
and told Ms. Ruchika that Rathore had called her to
his office at 12.00 noon. Accordingly they both went
to office of HLTA where they met the accused.
Accused sent Aradhana to call the coach Sh. T.
Thomas. While Aradhana left the office, accused
molested/outraged the modesty of Ms. Ruchika. On
return she herself saw the accused molesting Ruchika
and thereafter, Ruchika told her about the entire
incident. Ms. Aradhana is an eye witness to the
crime. Learned trial court rightly relied on her

57
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

statement. She also proved that both of them decided

not to inform their parents as they apprehended that
SPS Rathore being high ranking police officer could
involve and harass the girls and their parents. On
13.8.1990 it was Monday and lawn tennis courts used
to be closed so they did not go for playing on
Monday. On 14.8.1990 they went for playing at 4.30 pm
to lawn tennis court by preponing their practice time
from 6.30 pm since respondent used to visit lawn
tennis court at 6.30 pm and after the said incident
the girls wanted to avoid the respondent. On that
day when they were about to return after practice at
around 6.30 pm Sh. Paltoo came over to the lawn
tennis court and told Ruchika that respondent had
called her to his office immediately. Ms. Ruchika
refused to go and told Aradhana that his intention
was malafide and he had called her to molest her
again. Thereupon, both the girls decided to inform
their parents. They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika
where they met her father Sh. S.C. Girhotra. Ms.
Ruchika tried to narrate the incident to her father
but she could not narrate the same and broke down.
Whereupon her father told Ms. Aradhana to take her to
her mother. They went to the house of Ms. Aradhana
where Smt. Madhu Parkash PW.2 and Sh. Anand Parkash
PW.1 were present. She narrated the entire incident
to Smt. Madhu Parkash PW.2 who informed to her
husband. Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Aradhana, Sh.
Anand Parkash, Smt. Madhu Parkash and Sh. S.C.
Girhotra and other persons went to HLTA court to meet
Sh. SPS Rathore and came to know that Rathore had
already left the HLTA. They waited for about 45
minutes and thereafter dispersed. On 15.8.1990,
number of persons including players and their parents
collected at the residence of Sh. Anand Parkash and
decided that incident should be brought to the notice
of higher authorities including Chief Minister of

58
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Haryana. Accordingly, memorandum Ex.P1 was prepared

which was signed by Ruchika, Aradhana, Sh. Anand
Parkash, Smt. Madhu Parkash and others. The
witnesses identified their signatures and signatures
of Aradhana in the court. Although accused tried to
prove that signatures of Ruchika were not genuine by
examining Sh. Devinder Parsad DW.10, the learned
trial court has rightly held that in view of the
direct and primary evidence the report of the
handwriting expert cannot be considered to be safe
and rightly did not rely on the said report. On
16.8.1990 Ruchika, Aradhana, Smt. Madhu Parkash, Dr.
Naresh Mittal, Sh. Anand Parkash, Sh. S.C. Girhotra
and some other persons went to Civil Secretariat to
meet the Chief Minister and the Home Minister but
they were not available. So memorandum Ex.P1 was
given to Sh. J.K. Duggal PW.11 who assured them that
matter would be enquired into. He asked those
persons to reach lawn tennis court where Sh. S.K.
Joshi SDM would be reaching. They reached at lawn
tennis court and assembled there at 5.00 pm. Notice
dated: 15.8.1990 with regard to suspension of Ruchika
w.e.f. 13.8.1990 was found displayed on the notice
board. Sh. S.K. Joshi SDM reached there. Sh. Anil
Dhawan SHO Panchkula also reached there. Sh. Kuldip
Singh Manger and Sh. T. Thomas coach were also
present there. Sh. Kudip Singh in presence of
witnesses informed on enquiry that he had affixed
notice Ex.P2 on the directions of SPS Rathore.
Ruchika had not committed any act of indiscipline.
He also wrote the same on the notice Ex.P2. Said
fact was also confirmed by coach Sh. T. Thomas. He
signed at point-I on Ex,P2. He also made endorsement
on asking that to the best of his knowledge Ms.
Ruchika had not done any act of misbehaviour or
indiscipline in the HLTA tennis court. SDM handed
over said notice to Sh. Anand Parkash who proved the

59
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

said notice in his deposition. The witnesses have

duly proved these facts. Sh. Anil Dhawan SHO
Panchkula PW.10 has proved that on being called by
Sh. SPS Rathore he went to his residence at about
9.00 pm on 16.8.1990. Manager Kuldip Singh, coach T.
Thomas and one more person besides Sh. Rathore were
present. Sh. Rathore complained that some boys/girls
players and their parents had beaten Sh. Kuldip Singh
and T. Thomas and one watchman. He took away the
registers alongwith money etc but he deposed that on
that day when he had gone to lawn tennis court Sh.
Kuldip Singh Sh. T. Thomas did not complaint about
the beatings given by those persons. On 17.8.1990,
Sh. Anand Parkash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra alongwith
other went to Chief Minister again. Chief Minister
informed that orders have been passed for an enquiry
to be conducted by the DGP Haryana Sh. R.R. Singh
and he would submit his report within a week. PW.2,
PW.5 and PW.15 have duly proved the said fact. On
18.8.1990 Sh. Anand Parkash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra
went to police station, Panchkula and met Sh. Anil
Dhawan SHO Panchkula and handed over to him a written
report Ex.P3 alongwith the photocopy of memorandum
Ex.P4. In compliance of the orders of the Chief
Minister and Home Minister to conduct enquiry, Sh.
R.R. Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses
including Smt. Madhu Parkash, Ms. Reemu, Sh. S.C.
Girhotra, Sh. Anil Dhawan, Ms. Ruchika and Sh. Anand
Parkash. He made recommendations that a case under
appropriate sections of IPC be got registered on the
statement of Ms. Ruchika and being investigated. But
no action was taken by the government. It proves how
much clout the accused was having in the government.
The accused has made allegations that Sh. B.S. Ojha
and Sh. J.K. Duggal were nursing grudge against him.
Learned trial court has rightly ignored the
allegations. They were senior officers posted in the

60
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

government of Haryana. Sh. B.S. Ojha was working as

PS to Chief Minister and Sh. J.K. Duggal was working
as Home Secretary. If they were having any enmity
with the accused then they would have got the case
registered against the accused immediately. The
allegations of the accused that Sh. R.R. Singh was
having strained relations with him since 1976 were
after thought. Sh. R.R. Singh gave an independent
report. No girl or her father would make a complaint
of such heinous nature against even their enemy. The
statements of the witnesses recorded by Sh. R.R.
Singh are admissible under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The statements of the witnesses who
were examined in the court can be corroborated with
the statements of witnesses recorded by Sh. R.R.
Singh in the enquiry. Learned trial court has
rightly held so. Sh. J.K. Duggal and Sh. B.S. Ojha
are independent witnesses. They have no grudge
against the accused. Even if there was some dispute
over the control of HLTA between the accused and the
two, it was not such a big issue which would have
induced them to implicate the accused falsely. There
is no evidence on record to infer any nexus of these
two officers with Sh. Anand Parkash and Sh. S.C.
Girhotra. There is no evidence to suggest any enmity
between the accused and Sh. Anand Parkash. The
accused created a false defence that Sh. Anand
Parkash had a motive to implicate him falsely. The
statement of Sh. Shadi Lal PW.6 is without any basis.
It is improbable for a person to remember a petty
matter after a gap of 35 years. No documentary
evidence is proved to substantiate the allegations
made in the statement Ex.DW6. The accused also set
up a false defence while cross-examining Sh. Sh.
S.C. Girhotra that he wanted heavy amount from the
accused for settlement of the matter in the year
2001. The accused produced a cassette purported to

61
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

be conversation between Sh. Karan Singh DW.9 and

witness about demand of money. The cassette was
played only for five seconds. The witness denied his
voice. The cassette was in possession of the accused
but his voice was not got tested. The said false
defence was created in order to prejudice the court
against the prosecution witnesses. Learned trial
court gave reasoning for relying on each and every
fact and passed a well reasoned order. Learned PP for
the CBI relied on various judgments under Sections 6
and 157 of Indian Evidence Act, conduct of the
witness, quality and quantity of the evidence, with
regard to contradictions in the statement of witness,
post event conduct of the witness and failure to
obtain evidence and with regard to adverse inference.
The said authorities are as under :

Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao & another Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh 1996 Crl.L.J. 4151 SC; Rattan Singh Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh 1997 Crl. L.J. 833 SC; Sukhar Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh 2000 Crl.L.J. 29 SC; Rameshwar Kalyan
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1952 Crl.L.J. 547 SC; State
of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh and another 1998 Crl.L. J. 1416
SC; Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999
Crl.L. J. 4561 SC; State of Orissa Vs. Dibakar Naik and
others 2002 Crl.L. J. 2826 SC; State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Devendra Singh 2004 Crl. L.J. 3118 SC; Magan Bihari
Lal Vs. State of Punjab 1977 Crl.L. J. 711 SC; Sanjay
Goel Vs. State of UP 2002 Crl.L. J. 625; Sheelam Ramesh
and another Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh 2000 Crl. L. J. 51
SC; Rattan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1997 Crl.
L.J. 833 SC; Narayan Chetanram Chowdhary and another
Vs.State of Maharashtra 2000 Crl. L.J. 4640 SC;
Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of UP 1998 Crl.L. Journal
2064; Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala 2004 Crl.L. J. 605
SC; Srichand K. Khetwani Vs. State of Maharashtra 1967
Crl. L.J. 414 SC; State of Punjab Vs. Major Singh 1967
Crl. L.J. 1 SC; Aman Kumar and another Vs. State of
Haryana 2004 Crl. L.J. 1399 SC; State of Karnataka Vs.

62
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Krishna @ Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538; Savaka Perumal Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu 1991 Crl.L.J. 1845 SC; Dhananjoy
Chatterjee @ Dhana Vs. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC
220; State of Karnataka Vs. Saranappa Vasnagouda
Aregoudar 2002 Crl.L. J. 2020 SC; State of UP Vs. Kishan
2005 Crl.L.J. 333 SC; Siddarama & others Vs. State of
Karnataka 2006 IV (Cr.)(SC) 78.

33. The learned counsel for the CBI submitted

that learned trial court rightly convicted the
accused under Section 354 IPC and ultimately prayed
that appeal filed by the accused be dismissed.

34. After considering the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that there is no dispute that in the year 1990
accused Sh. SPS Rathore an IPS officer was on
deputation to Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB) as
Director (Vigilance & Security). He formed the HLTA
and got the same registered with the Registrar of
Firms and Societies on 29.11.1988 with its address as
469, Sector-6, Panchkula. Office of the HLTA was
established in the garage of the house which was
under construction of the accused during the
relevant period. The accused was president of the
HLTA at that time. Sh. T. Thomas, Sh.Kuldip Singh
and Sh. Paltoo were working as coach, Manager, and
ball-picker respectively with HLTA at that time. The
HLTA was imparting training in tennis court in
Sector-6 adjacent to the house of the accused. The
players were enrolled. Ms. Ruchika (since deceased),
Aradhana @ Reemu (PW.13), Sh. Manish Arora (PW.3),
Sh. Vipul Chanana (PW.4) also enrolled them as
members and used to play tennis in the courts of
HLTA. The accused used to visit said lawn tennis
court in the evening. The accused admitted in the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he met Ms.
Ruchika in the HLTA office on 12.8.1990. It is

63
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

specific case of the prosecution that Ruchika in the

company of her friend Aradhana @ Reemu went to play
at lawn tennis courts on 12.8.1990. While they were
playing Sh. Paltoo-ball picker came over there and
told Ms. Ruchika that Sh. Rathore has called her to
his office at 12.00 noon. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika
and Aradhana went to the office of HLTA where they
met the accused. Aradhana was sent by the accused to
fetch the coach Sh. T. Thomas. The case of the
prosecution is further that accused molested/outraged
the modesty of Ms. Ruchika while Ms. Aradhana left
the office. The prosecution examined Ms. Aradhana
(PW.13). She deposed that she alongwith Ruchika went
to play tennis on 12.8.1990. Sh. Paltoo ball-picker
came over there and informed Ms. Ruchika that Sh. SPS
Rathore had called her in HLTA office to meet him.
They both went there to meet the accused in his
office. They saw the accused standing outside his
office. On seeing them accused proceeded towards the
office and asked them to follow him. Whereupon Mr.
Ruchika requested the accused to talk to her outside
the office but accused insisted to her to come in the
office. They followed him towards the office. On
reaching inside the office on being asked by the
accused a chair was brought on which PW.13 sat down
and Ruchika remained standing. The accused directed
not to bring another chair immediately thereafter,
the accused asked Aradhana to fetch the coach Sh. T.
Thomas. PW.13 after leaving Ruchika there in the
office went to call the coach. When she reached to
the back of the house of the accused she found Thomas
coach standing at a distance on the other side of the
house across the road. She asked Sh. Paltoo to go
and fetch the coach Sh. T. Thomas as he was called by
the accused. Sh. Paltoo by gesture indicated her that
he had refused to come. Thereafter, PW.13 returned.
When she reached at entrance of the office she saw

64
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

that the accused was holding one hand of Ruchika and

his other hand was around her waist and he had
embraced Ruchika whereas Ruchika was trying hard to
get herself released by pushing him away with one of
her other hand. On seeing the witness there, the
accused became nervous and left Ruchika and fell down
on the chair. The witness informed the accused that
coach had refused to come over there, thereupon the
accused forcefully asked the witness to go again and
call the coach personally. In the mean time, Ruchika
tried to come to the side of the witness, the
accused asked Ruchika to stay there and asked the
witness to fetch the coach and to tell the coach and
he had been called by him. Ruchika came near the
witness and went out of the office. When Aradhana
also wanted to follow her, the accused told her
asked her to cool down, I will do whatever she will
say. Thereafter, she followed her who was running.
When witness caught up Ruchika she started weeping
loudly, thereupon the witness enquired from Ruchika
as to what had happened. Ruchika narrated that as
soon as she had left to fetch the coach, the accused
had caught hold of her hand which she with lot of
difficulty got released but the accused again got up
from his chair and again caught hold her hand and
with his other hand he caught hold of her waist and
dragged her towards him and embraced her, while she
was pushing him. She further informed her in the
mean time, she (Aradhana) reached there and own
seeing her (Aradhana), he left her (Ruchika). After
that, both Aradhana and Ruchika discussed and decided
that they would not inform their parents as Sh. SPS
Rathore being high ranking police officer could harm
their families.

35. Ms. Aradhana (PW.13) also made the statement

that on 13.8.1990 they did not go to play tennis

65
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

since HLTA was closed on Monday. They both used to

play tennis in the evening. Their usual time was from
6.30 pm. In the evening, almost daily the accused Sh.
SPS Rathore used to visit the lawn tennis courts.
They in order to avoid him thought it proper to go
for playing at 4.30 pm. At about 6.30 pm on
14.8.1990 while they were about to return after the
practice, Sh. Paltoo came over the lawn tennis court
and told Ruchika that accused had called her in his
office immediately. But Ruchika refused. Then
Ruchika told her (Aradhana) that Rathore had called
her again so his intentions were not good. Since
they had not informed about the incident which took
place on 12.8.1990 to their parents this had
emboldened him. They thereupon decide to inform
their parents. They went to the house of Ruchika
where they met Sh. S.C. Girhotra, father of Ruchika
present in the house, Ruchika tried to narrate the
incident which took place on 12.8.1990 to her father
but she could not narrate the same and broke down,
whereupon her father told Aradhana to take her to her
mother and said he too would be reaching there. They
went to the house of Aradhana where Smt. Madhu
Parkash (PW.2) and Sh. Anand Parkash (PW.1) were
present. Ruchika told the incident which took place
on 12.8.1990 in detail to Smt. Madhu Parkash and Smt.
Madhu Parkash informed to her hand Sh. Anand Parkash
(PW.1) about the said incident. Thereupon, Sh.
Anand Parkash asked them about the whereabouts of the
accused. Both informed that accused might be
available at lawn tennis court at that time.
Thereafter, Ruchika, Aradhana, Sh.Anand Parkash, Smt.
Madhu Parkash, Sh. S.C. Girhotra and other persons
went to HLTA court to meet Sh. Rathore where they
were informed that Sh. Rathore already left for HLTA
office. After knowing that accused might be at HLTA
office, they reached at HLTA office where they were

66
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

informed that Sh. Rathore had already left for

Chandigarh. They waited for him for about 45 minutes
and when he did not turn up they disperse from there.
They decided to assemble on 15.8.1990. The abovesaid
fact has also been substantiated from the evidence of
Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW.15), Sh. Anand Parkash (PW.1),
Smt. Madhu Parkash (PW.2), Sh. Manish Arora (PW.3)
and Sh. Vipul Chanana (PW.4).

36. The case of the prosecution starts with the

memorandum Ex.P1 on the basis of which FIR in
question was registered as per directions of Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court which were passed on the
writ filed by Smt. Madhu Parkash. The defence has
strongly raised objections about the correctness and
admissibility of the document Ex.P1. The defence
version is that signatures of Ruchika at Point-B on
the document are forged. Learned defence counsel is
relying on the report dated: 14.3.2008 Ex.DW10/1 of
document and handwriting expert Sh. Devinder Parsad
DW.10 who after examining the signatures of Ruchika
on Ex.P1 which is marked as X1 on its photograph and
P3 which is marked X2 in its photograph, gave the
opinion that person who wrote the signature Mark-X1
did not write the signature Mark-X2. On the other
hand, Aradhana (PW.13), Smt. Madhu Parkash (PW.2) and
Sh.Anand Parkash (PW.1) gave the direct evidence that
Ruchika signed on Ex.P1 in their presence. The
learned trial court held that Ruchika was the best
person to depose about the genuineness about her
signatures but she is no more so could not appear in
the witness box. In her absence, the persons in
whose presence she signed the document are the best
witness to prove the genuineness of the signatures.
Their view is relevant under Section 47 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Her signatures were not got compared
with any previous authenticated and admit signatures

67
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

of Ruchika. The strong direct evidence cannot be

rebutted by weak type of evidence of handwriting
expert and ultimately held that signatures of Ruchika
on Ex.P1 stand proved. As per version of the
prosecution Ex.P1 was prepared on 16.8.1990 at the
residence of Sh. Anand Parkash. It is only a
memorandum and not a specific complaint. It is
addressed to Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Home Department, Haryana Government, Chandigarh. It
consists of five pages. After narrating the entire
incident at page No. 4 it is written that instead of
tendering apology to the public Rathore by using his
position as police officer had planned to terrorise
father of Ruchika. He sent a letter through Sh.
Kuldip Singh-Manager on 15.8.1990 between 1.00 to
2.00 pm that it was brought to the notice of
President that on the previous day in the evening he
wanted to meet him so he should meet him between 1.00
or 2.00 pm. It was written in the letter not to
bring girls with him. In fact, Rathore had directed
the Manager to bring the father of the girl alone to
him. It is necessary to mention here that accused
examined in defence, Ram Piara DW.2. The extract of
his statement is as under :

On 14.8.1990 at around 7.00-8.00 pm, 4-5 people came

to the residence of 469, Sector-6, Panchkula. Mr. Girothra
and Sh. Anand Parkash were among of them. Mr.
Girothra had asked where is Mr. Rathore thereupon I
replied that he had already gone to Chandigarh. On that
Mr. Girhothra asked me to summon Mr. Rathore. I replied
that I will convey your message to Mr. Rathore and I went
to marked and made a telephonic call to the Sahib. Sahib
told me that they may meet me in the morning. After that,
I returned and conveyed the message which Sahib had
given to me and told him that Sahib had called him to his
residence or he may talk to him on phone. Thereafter, they

68
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

left the house.

On 15.8.1990 around 1.30 pm I had gone
alongwith Manager Kuldip Singh to Girothra's residence
363, Sector-6, Panchkula to hand over a letter which
Sahib had given to me for delivering it to Mr. Girothra. I
delivered the letter to Mr. Girothra.

37. No doubt, memorandum was not signed by Sh.

S.C. Girhotra PW.15 father of Ruchika and brother of
Ruchika. The memorandum bear signatures of some
persons. All the persons who signed the memorandum
were not the witness of facts which were written in
the memorandum Ex.P1. They have just assembled and
mustered courage that action should be taken against
the accused on the basis of facts stated therein. In
the memorandum, the fact of visit of Sh. SPS Rathore
in the house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra is also mentioned.
On 11.8.1990 accused Sh. Rathore visited the house of
Sh.S.C. Girhotra (PW.15) and told him that he was
informed that he was sending his daughter Ruchika to
Canada. He requested him not to send her abroad as
she was a very good player and he would arrange for
her special coaching. He asked Sh. S.C. Girhotra to
send his daughter on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 noon to his
office where he would discuss with her about the
training. At that time Ruchika was not present at
her house. On her return to the house, Sh. S.C.
Girhotra informed her about the visit of Sh. Rathore
on that day and asked her to meet him in his office
on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 noon. On the next day, Ruchika
went to the office of the accused which was situated
in the under construction kothi of the accused at
12.00 noon. It was a matter of chance that she took
alongwith her sathi khiladi. The name of the
Aradhana is not mentioned in the memorandum Ex.P1 but
memorandum Ex.P1 bears the signatures of Aradhana and
her parents. In Ex.P1, events of 11.8.1990,

69
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

12.8.1990, 13.8.1990, 14.8.1990, 15.8.1990 are

written. In the end of Ex.P1 is the written that
there is lot of anger among the residents of
Panchkula due to said incident if such a senior
officer of the police molest girls of the age of his
daughter then there is no honour and security left
for the common man. Ultimately, it was requested
that entire matter be got enquired into at highest
level as they have already written that justice at
the lower level was impossible against the officer of
the rank of IG so they were approaching him for
justice. The question arises whether there was
conspiracy to falsely implicate the accused or few
people of the Panchkula had joined hands after the
occurrence for justice to Ruchika and for taking
action against the accused at highest level since he
was officer of the rank of IG.

38. No doubt, the signatories of Ex.P1 are

Aradhana, her parents, Dr. Naresh Mittal, relative of
Aradhana, their neighbour and three minor tennis
players. There is no iota of evidence which may
even remotely suggest that Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW.15)
had any previous enmity with the accused for falsely
implicating the accused and putting his minor school
going daughter's future at stake. There is no
documentary evidence on the file about previous
enmity of Sh. Anand Parkash with the accused. The
accused examined Sh. Shadi Lal Malik DW.6 working as
Assistant Reader with the accused in the year 1973
when accused was posted as SP of Kurukshetra
district. The statement of DW.6 cannot be believed.
No complaint in writing against the father of Sh.
Anand Parkash who was living in Ladhwa District
Kurukshetra in the year 1973 is proved on the file.
Many persons daily meet Superintendent of Police. It
is not probable that a incident which had occurred

70
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

about more than 15 years ago was in the mind of Sh.

Anand Parkash. Had Sh. Anand Parkash was nursing
any enmity against the accused then he would not have
allowed his daughter Aradhana to join the HLTA which
was formed and headed by accused. The statement of
DW.6 is after thought. Even if the said statement is
taken as correct then it does not prove that PW.1 had
any reason to be hostile to the accused. The accused
had simply directed SHO Ladhwa if complaints against
Sh. Babu Ram father of Sh. Anand Parkash (PW.1) were
correct then he should be put behind bars otherwise
he should not be harassed. Such type of directions
are given by the senior police officers generally
whenever any person come to meet them in such
matters. The accused acted in the same manner which
was expected from the police officer. Any other
police officer would have also acted in the same
manner. Rather said directions were favouring the
father of Sh. Anand Parkash since accused
specifically asked the SHO if complaints were false
then he should not be harassed. More-over, an IPS
officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police
cannot remember such a trifling matter which had
occurred when he was posted as Superintendent of
Police. It is an after thought defence and cannot be
accepted. There is nothing on the file that Sh.
Anand Parkash or Sh. S.C. Girhotra had any enmity
with the accused or they were nursing any grudge
against the accused prior to the date of occurrence.
It is common knowledge that hardly any person come to
the rescue of the victims of crime. Since it was a
case involving senior police officer of the State so
no one could even think of proceeding against him.
As per version of the accused himself that Dr. Naresh
Mittal is an influential person of the area so his
joining with Sh. Anand Parkash, his relative cannot
be considered as unnatural or result of any

71
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

conspiracy. If Sh. S.C. Girhotra was interested to

extort any money from the accused then he would have
met the accused on 15.8.1990 when accused sent a
letter to meet him alone and did not bring the girls
with him. The defence version that Sh. S.C. Girhotra
joined hands with Sh. Anand Parkash only out of greed
for money does not sound to reason and cannot be
accepted. The part of the defence version that Sh.
S.C. Girhotra demanded money after registration of
the case would be discussed at the later part of the
judgment. Since many people have put signatures on
Ex.P1 which was prepared only as memorandum to be
given to higher authorities so it is not of much
significance who had drafted the same and who had got
typed the same. The signatories of the memorandum
wanted that action should be taken against the
accused on the basis of facts mentioned therein.
It merely gives a sequence of events which had
happened from the very beginning. The accused could
not prove that Sh. C.P. Bansal DIG and Sh. Shyam Lal
DSP were enimical towards him. If the memorandum
Ex.P1 had been prepared with their consultation then
witnesses would not have deposed about their presence
in the court. The said memorandum was handed over to
Sh. J.K. Duggal (PW.12) who was posted as Home
Secretary to the Government of Haryana. He informed
about the memorandum to Sh. B.S. Ojha then Principal
Secretary to Chief Minister. There is no evidence on
record to substantiate the allegations of the accused
that these two officers were, in any way,
instrumental in the preparation of the memorandum for
implicating the accused in this case. The
endorsement on memo Ex.P1 was made by Sh. B.S.Ojha
(PW.14). He proved the endorsement Ex.PW14/A. The
enmity/grudge suggested by the accused to Sh. J.K.
Duggal (PW.12) and Sh. B.S. Ojha is without any
basis. If these persons who were holding high post

72
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

in the government of Haryana were enimical to the

accused and wanted to implicate the accused falsely
in the criminal case of this nature then they would
have pursued the matter and ensured registration of
criminal case against the accused in the police
station especially, when Sh. R.R. Singh had submitted
his findings and recommendations in his report dated:
3.9.1990 for registration of case against the accused
and for investigation. The accused examined Sh. Om
Parkash Kathuria (DW.16) Secretary, HLTA. He proved
the proceedings dated: 24.4.1989 Ex.DW16/1. He also
deposed that on 23.4.1989 message was received
through Sh. S.K. Saxena then Tresurer of HLTA that
Sh. B.S. Ojha wanted to become President of HLTA and
Sh. SPS Rathore should step down. Thereafter, an
urgent meeting of Executive body of the association
was held on 24.4.1989. In the said meeting, it was
held that proposal sent by Sh. B.S. Ojha was not
acceptable because Sh. SPS Rathore was duly and
unanimously elected as President and new President
can only be elected after elections. Only a tennis
player could become a Executive member. Proceedings
of the meeting were drawn and were duly signed by Sh.
SPS Rathore. These proceedings are Ex.DW16/1. The
decision of the Executive Body was conveyed to Sh
B.S. Ojha through Sh. S.K. Saxena that proposal for
nominating him as President of association was not
acceptable. Sh. Saxena informed to them that Sh.
B.S. Ojha was very annoyed and he will not led the
association to conduct tournament at Hissar in May,
1989. He further deposed that Sh. Ojha was not made
President of the association. So with his blessing
they created another association after 4-5 months
after Hissar tournament and Sh. J.K. Duggal, IAS was
made President of the association which was known as
Haryana Tennis Association (HTA). He also proved the
registration of the association Mark-D34. The

73
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

defence raised by the accused cannot be accepted

since Ex.D16/1 is only on loose paper. The
proceedings are not written in any register. It does
not bear signatures of Executive members or any other
office bearer of the HLTA. It only bears signatures
of the accused. More-over, HTA came into existence
after 24.4.1989. Sh. B.S. Ojha did not become
president of HTA i.e. Lawn tennis association formed
subsequently. If Sh B.S. Ojha was so desperate to
become President of Lawn tennis association then he
would have not allowed even Mr. Duggal to become
President of HTA. Sh. B.S. Ojha (PW.14) made
endorsement Ex.PW14/A on the memorandum Ex.P1 that CM
had ordered the DGP should enquire into it and submit
his report within one week positively. Both PW.12
and PW.14 were senior IAS officers and they knew that
as per bye-laws of the HLTA they could not become
President of HLTA. So there was no question of their
asking Sh. Rathore to step down and Sh. Ojha be made
President of HLTA. The dispute over the control of
HLTA was of trifling nature for a person holding high
position in the government so defence of the accused
that Sh. Ojha and Sh. Duggal were enimical towards
the accused is not acceptable. The accused also
contended that Sh. R.R. Singh had grudge against him.
The accused came with the defence that on transfer of
Sh. R.R. Singh as SSP, Rohtak the accused succeeded
him to that post. When he left the charge of SSP,
Rohtak he asked the accused to accommodate him to
harvest the wheat crop at the residence which was
grown by him in the area surrounding the residence.
The accused did not accommodate him to harvest the
crop and refused to do so. So relations between two
were bad since 1976. In the cross-examination, this
witness stated that it is correct that he told CBI
that he may have asked Sh. Rathore to accommodate him
to harvest the crop at Rohtak at his residence but

74
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Sh. SPS Rathore refused to do so. Had Sh. R.R. Singh

PW.6 having any hostility in his mind then he would
not have stated that he might have asked Sh. Rathore
to accommodate him for harvesting the crop at Rohtak
residence. It shows that Sh. R.R. Singh is a truthful
man. More-over, the proceeds from the said crop were
required to be deposited in the government treasury
and the same were not to be kept by Sh. R.R. Singh.
There is no other fact on the file about hostility
between accused and Sh. R.R. Singh. Thus, defence of
the accused that Sh. R.R. Singh was hostile towards
him cannot be accepted. Sh. R.R. Singh is proved to
be an impartial man, while holding post of DGP
Haryana. He conducted enquiry on the orders of
Government of Haryana. The learned trial court has
rightly considered the enquiry conducted by him.
There is no dispute that Sh. R.R. Singh recorded the
statement of Ruchika, Aradhana, Smt. Madhu Parkash,
Sh. S.C. Girhotra in the enquiry conducted by him on
the orders of the Chief Minister. He sent the report
for registration of the case against the accused but
no case was registered against the accused. He was
posted as DGP of Haryana at that time. If he was
hostile towards the accused then he would have
personally made efforts for registration of case
against the accused. After sending the report he did
not bother what happened to the report which further
prove that he was not hostile or biased against the
accused. Sh. R.R. Singh stepped into the witness box
as PW.6 and proved his report. His observation that
on 26.8.1990, in the evening about 47-50 persons
including few women and children from labour colony,
Chandigarh came in procession shouting slogans in
favour of Rathore, against Ruchika and her father may
not help to the prosecution to prove the crime in
question but it is a fact which prove the conduct of
the accused after the incident. He used such tactics

75
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

so that no person should come forward against him,

otherwise he would be insulted in that manner such
procession could not be without the active connivance
of the accused. The accused has tried to put a case
that every body was enimical towards him who had
dealt Ex.P1 at any stage. It is a simple case
whether accused molested Ruchika on 12.8.1990 in
order to outrage her modesty in his office at about
12.00 noon. Admittedly, the accused had met Ruchika
at that time in his office. The question is whether
Aradhana was accompanying her and is eye witness to
the crime. If it is proved whether reliance can be
placed on the testimony of Aradhana. Since Ruchika
has already expired so court is required to
scrutinize the statement of Aradhana very carefully.
In memorandum Ex.P1 the name of Aradhana is not
written but word sathi khiladi (co-player) is
written. At the time of occurrence, she was also
school going child and teenager. Her statement was
recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh DGP in the enquiry on
21.8.1990. A proper explanation has been given by
the prosecution that persons present at the time of
preparation of memorandum Ex.P1 were of the opinion
that in case her name is mentioned then accused being
high rank officer would harass her. This is the
natural act of the persons who had gathered in
support of Ruchika for providing her justice. No
person likes to bring the name of her minor daughter
in such like cases. Since parents of Aradhana had
also signed memorandum Ex.P1 so there was no question
of Aradhana asking them to write her name in the
memorandum instead of sathi khiladi. As discussed
above there was no enmity between Sh. Anand Parkash
and accused proved on the file prior to the incident
and Aradhana alongwith her parents and Ruchika was
also impleaded as accused in the complaint filed
under Section 500 IPC by the accused in the court of

76
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala on 18.8.1990 so

version of the accused that Aradhana was introduced
first time as eye witness on 21.8.1990 cannot be
accepted. If she was not the eye witness then there
was no question of impleading a minor girl as accused
in the complaint under Section 500 IPC. Aradhana
stepped into the witness box as PW.13. Her cross-
examination was conducted on many dates. Her cross-
examination ran into 152 pages. In case Jai Shree
Yadav Vs. State of UP (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 788,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a witness is
subjected to lengthy cross-examination over lengthy
period of time there is always a possibility of a
witness committing mistakes which can be termed as
omissions, improvements and contradictions which have
to be appreciated in the background of ground
realities. The head note 'F' of the said authority
is as under :

Criminal trial- Appreciation of evidence Contradictions,

inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments
Mitigating factors- Number of questions in and duration of
cross-examination- Held, when a witness is subjected to a
lengthy cross-examination (more than a hundred questions)
over a lengthy period of time (more than six months to a
year) there is always a possibility of the witness committing
mistakes which can be termed as omissions, improvements
and contradictions- Therefore those infirmities will have to
be appreciated in the background of ground realities which
makes the witness confused because of the filibustering
tactics of the cross-examining counsel, and if not found
fatal to the evidence given in the examination-in-chief,
would not in any manner affect the evendentiary value of
the examination-in-chief- Evidence Act, 1872- S.114.

39. Learned trial court has held that the

statement recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh of PW.13 is

77
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

admissible under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence

Act and said statement can be used for corroboration.
Learned trial court also relied on case Rameshwar Vs.
Rajasthan AIR 1952 Supreme Court 54 that in the instant
case time gap was about 8 days but in the case
Rameshwar the statement was recorded after 14 days.

40. Since State Government has given directions

to Sh. R.R. Singh to hold enquiry so he was competent
to hold enquiry. More-over he was senior most police
officer posted in the State of Haryana so he had got
the jurisdiction to investigate any criminal act
which has occurred in the area of State of Haryana.
Although, learned defence counsel cited authorities
and tried to establish that her statement under
Section 157 Evidence Act was not admissible but
learned trial court has correctly held in para No. 54
of the judgment that said authorities were not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case. Although in the memorandum Ex.P1 the word
'chedh char' is used describing the act of the
accused but in the end of Ex.P1 it is clearly
mentioned if such a high police officer molest girls
of the age of his daughter then there was no honour
and security left for the common man. It proves that
the word 'chedh char' was used in the broader sense
and signatories of the memorandum were conveying to
the government about molestation of Ruchika at the
hands of high ranking police officer. Memorandum,
ultimately after long time, was converted into FIR.
An FIR cannot be considered as encyclopedia of each
and every event. The object of FIR is only to set
the criminal law in motion. In the instant case the
memorandum was submitted that the matter be got
enquired into. It is not the requirement of the law
that name of the witnesses and each and every fact
must be mentioned in the FIR. I draw support from

78
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

case Bhagwan Singh & Ors Vs. State of MP 2002(4) Supreme

Court Cases 85.

41. Learned trial court has rightly held that

Aradhana had seen entire incident of molestation with
her own eyes. Thereafter, Ruchika had explained her
incident immediately. The act of Ruchika running
from the office and act of witness to follow her and
stopping her were part of the same transaction.
Learned defence counsel relied on various judgments
that statement of Aradhana is not admissible under
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1971 Crl. Law
Journal 172, AIR 1958 Cal. 482, AIR 1951 Orissa 53, AIR
1931 Madras 233, AIR 1930 Cal. 132, AIR 1921 Lahore 258,
1950 Crl. Law Journal 968, 1953 Crl. Law Journal 1427.
Since Ruchika instantaneously told to Aradhana about
the act of the accused so statement of Aradhana is a
substantive piece of evidence and is admissible under
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned
trial court has rightly placed reliance on the
statement of Aradhana. The act of the accused was
seen by Aradhana PW.13 and the statement of Ruchika
given to Aradhana proved that act of the accused was
to outrage her modesty. She stood a lengthy cross-
examination. Her confidence could not be shaken on
the material point i.e. incident of molestation which
she had seen with her own eyes. Her statement was
recorded in the court after about 15 years of the
occurrence. Any contradiction in her statement is
without any significance. Such a minor girl cannot
implicate falsely a senior police officer of the
State. The service record of her father is no
ground not to believe her statement. The learned
trial court has rightly held that discrepancy pointed
by learned defence counsel that witness has not named
Paltoo-ball picker in her statement before Sh. R.R.
Singh that she asked the person who had brought the
chair in the office to call the coach but did not

79
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

name Paltoo who was known to her is a minor

discrepancy. The purpose of appreciating evidence of
a particular witness is to whether said witness is
able to prove the fact beyond shadow of reasonable
doubt or not. Each and every sentence of the
statement of the witness cannot make any basis for
coming to the conclusion. The entire statement of
the witness is to be seen whether the fact is proved
or not. Even after seeing the occurrence her
behaviour cannot be considered as unnatural keeping
in view her age at that time. More-over, the accused
left Ruchika on seeing her, the accused got nervous
and fell on his chair. The accused again ordered her
to go and bring the coach personally. She had no
reaction time. Ruchika started leaving the room.
She followed her and asked her what had happened. So
her act was the most natural act under these
circumstances. More-over, the accused then told to
her to ask Ruchika to cool down and he would do
whatever she said which further prove the intention
of the accused was to win her. It is well known that
every person acts differently under different
situations. There is no hard and fast rule. Since
Aradhana PW.13 is proved to be independent witness
and she also made statement in the enquiry on
21.8.1990 conducted by Sh. R.R. Singh DGP Haryana and
thereafter duly proved her version in the court so
her statement is sufficient to prove that the accused
molested the Ruchika. Thus, I am of the view that
PW.13 has duly proved the act of molestation by the
accused and learned trial court has rightly placed
reliance on the testimony of Aradhana PW.13. As per
defence version only Ruchika was suspended from
playing in the tennis court on Monday 13.8.1990. But
the other player who was playing with Ruchika was not
suspended which also prove that order of suspension
was after thought and was prepared to create the

80
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

defence. More-over, order of suspension is shown to

be passed on the basis of complaint of coach. If
girls wanted to take any revenge then their grudge
should have been against the coach and there would
not have been any grudge against the accused. Sh.
S.C. Girhotra (PW.15) has duly proved that accused
visited his house on 11.8.1990 and asked him to send
Ruchika to his office on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 noon
where he would discuss about her training. Learned
defence counsel referred to the statement of Sh. S.C.
Girhotra (PW.15) that he stated in the cross-
examination that it is correct that Sh. SPS Rathore
did not come to his house. The perusal of his
statement shows that said question was put to the
witness thrice and he denied that Sh. Rathore did not
come to his house on 11.8.1990. But at one stage he
stated that it is correct that he did not come to his
house on 11.8.1990 but later on he volunteered to say
that Sh. Rathore came to his house on 11.8.1990.
When a particular question is put to a witness more
than once then it cannot be said that the witness
admitted a particular fact in the cross-examination.
The entire statement of witness is required to be
considered and stray sentence in the statement is of
no help to the court for making any opinion with
regard to particular fact. The learned trial court
has rightly held that question regarding written
statement was asked and in that context he stated
that he signed written statement that accused has not
met him. This fact appears to be a little bit
different from entire remaining statement. In the
written statement in para-14 he even denied that any
information was sent to the answering defendant by
the accused or the answering defendant was advised to
withdraw Ruchika from said centre. All the facts of
the plaint were denied by the witness in the written
statement so fact regarding meeting of the accused

81
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

was denied. The contents of written statement cannot

prevail upon the direct testimony of the witness.
From the evidence on the file it is proved that Sh.
Rathore visited the house of Sh S.C. Girhotra on
11.8.1990 and that is why Ruchika and Aradhana went
to play tennis on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 O'clock.
Although the learned defence counsel pointed out
discrepancies with regard to time when Ruchika left
her house and when she reached the house of Aradhana
and distance between their houses and tennis court
and the office but said contention of the defence
counsel is without any significance since it is not
expected from minor girls to remember their minute to
minute programme. The defence version is that
Ruchika met the accused at 12.00 noon on 12.8.1990 so
such like discrepancies regarding time are
meaningless. The learned defence counsel propounded
the story about the improbability of commission of
offence. Learned trial court has duly considered the
same and rightly held that at the time of incident
presence of any person inside the room or very near
to the room is not established. Many witnesses are
examined in defence that they were present in the
house of the accused on 12.8.1990 at 12.00 noon but
such defence can be created at any time and reliance
cannot be played on the testimony of such witnesses.
Even if any labour was doing any work in the house
that was not a hurdle for the accused to commit the
crime since there was no person inside the room where
accused created the circumstances that Ruchika should
be alone with him. It was not a big room and chair of
the accused was not far away. The learned trial
court has rightly held that the distance of 2-3 ft.
is not such a big distance. It can be covered in one
or two steps. It is not improbable that accused
cannot fall on his chair. Ruchika was studying in a
convent school. Her decision not to tell the act to

82
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

their parents as they were scared from the accused

being high police officer cannot be in any way
considered as unnatural. Sh. Paltoo ball-picker,
coach T Thomas and Sh. Kuldip Singh Manager were not
examined by the prosecution and learned trial court
has rightly held that IO clarified that he tried to
join Paltoo but he was not available. Sh. T. Thomas
was not the substantial witness so he was not joined
the investigation. There is no ground to differ with
the view of learned trial court. It is also rightly
held by learned trial court that by trimming of Ex.P2
it is not proved that a line was torn from the
document or it was altered. More-over, any event
subsequent to the crime is not of much importance
when there is eye witness's account. Learned defence
counsel raised objection about the visit of SDM at
HLTA and taking of the record of HLTA with motive to
take over HLTA but HLTA was never taken over by Sh.
B.S. Ojha and Sh. J.K. Duggal so it is of no help to
the defence. When people of the area had made
complaint against the accused then it was obvious for
the government to do something as a mere eye wash.
The filing of copy of the memorandum Ex.P4 with the
police does not any way affect the case of the
prosecution adversely. Since it is a case of eye
witness version so all the subsequent events attached
with the main issue cannot dislodge the eye witness's
account. Learned trial court has rightly held that
even if Ex.P2 is not proved the case of the
prosecution is well proved. Learned trial court has
held that merely on the ground that Aradhana did not
go to the hospital and attend the cremation ceremony
of Ruchika it cannot be said that they were not
playing tennis jointly at some particular point of
time. From the evidence, it is proved that they were
playing tennis jointly. They were living in the same
locality. So it cannot be said that they were not

83
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

closed with one another. Ruchika, a young girl

committed suicide. Aradhana was not related to her .
If Aradhana and her mother Smt. Madhu Parkash did not
visit her in the hospital to enquire about her help
and did not attend her cremation same does not make
any difference. It is well known that last
ceremonies in such type of unnatural death of the
young girls are done quietly and quickly even without
informing distant relations. The memorandum Ex.P1
was submitted with the government without wasting
time promptly. On the orders of the government, DGP
Haryana conducted the enquiry and made
recommendations on 3.9.1990 for registration of the
case against the accused but no case was registered
because the accused was very senior police officer in
the Government of Haryana and ultimately FIR was
registered on the orders of Punjab & Haryana High
Court, so delay in lodging the FIR cannot be
attributed to victim, complainant or prosecution.
From the above discussion, it is proved that there
was no enmity between the accused and the witnesses,
the statement of Aradhana PW.13 is reliable and she
has successfully proved that accused molested Ruchika
in order to outrage her modesty. The intention of the
accused was premeditated. The defence version is not
probable and cannot be relied upon and deserve to be
ignored.

42. The version of defence that Sh. S.C.

Girhotra demanded money from the accused for
withdrawing the matter from the court. Learned trial
court has rightly held that there is no cogent
evidence on record to establish that money was
demanded. More-over it was subsequent event and has
no effect on the alleged incident. The act of
molestation on the part of the accused is duly proved
by the eye witness so argument of the learned defence

84
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

counsel that the accused is a man of high integrity

and moral character loses its significance. The
learned trial court has rightly held that it cannot
be presumed that a person will not commit the act of
molestation since he is having meritorious service
record. This may be circumstance at the time of
awarding the sentence but it is not a circumstance to
come to the conclusion that a accused is a
meritorious officer so he would not have committed
the crime in question. Much stress has been laid on
the role of Smt. Madhu Parkash PW.2 and Sh. Anand
Parkash PW.1 and their relative Dr. Naresh Mittal
PW.5 about their role against the accused. They were
not the eye witnesses. If they had joined hands after
the occurrence for getting justice for the victim
then no motive can be attached to their acts. It is
not necessary that any NGO should come forward for
this purpose. When conscious of any person is pricked
is anybody's guess. The bad service record of Sh.
Anand Parkash has no relevancy in the instant case.
More-over, as discussed above it is a case of eye
witness's account so all other points raised by the
accused against the witness of prosecution are of no
help to him and those are liable to be ignored. Said
points need not require to discuss in detail.
Nothing is perfect in this world. Certain lapses are
pointed out by learned defence counsel in the
investigation of the case but the same was not
motivated and any lapse on the part of investigating
officer or any government officer is of no help to
the convict. The question is whether judicial
conscience of the court is satisfied for coming to
the conclusion on the basis of evidence brought on
the file whether a person has committed the offence.
If answer is in affirmative then all other connected
matters and factors become irrelevant. The learned
defence counsel laid much reliance that on the case

85
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

Jagvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (2) RCR 89

(decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court) that
confession of a accused recorded by SDM during
enquiry is not admissible. In the instant case,
there was no confession of the accused during enquiry
so said authority is not attracted. The learned
defence counsel relied on case Partap Singh and
another Vs. State of M.P 1971 Crl. L. J. 172 that
statement made by person sometimes after the incident
to a question is not spontaneous but in the instant
case there was no time lapse when Aradhana after
seeing the occurrence enquired from Ruchika and she
replied while weeping. So said authority is
distinguishable on facts and ratio of said
authorities cannot be applied to the facts of this
case. The learned defence counsel has relied on many
authorities but each case is to be seen from its own
angle. The authorities cited by the learned defence
counsel are distinguishable on facts and ratio of
said authorities cannot be applied to the facts of
the instant case. The learned defence counsel also
pointed that authorities relied by the learned trial
court for coming to the conclusion are
distinguishable. The learned trial court has rightly
applied the ratio of case Narain Chetan Ram Chaudhary
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Rameshwar Vs. State of
Rajasthan. But learned defence counsel has failed to
show that authorities relied by learned trial court
were not attracted to the points decided with the
help of said authorities. In the light of the above
discussion, I am of the view that well reasoned
judgment has been given by the learned trial court
and the accused has been convicted in accordance with
the law under Section 354 IPC. There is no ground
to interfere in the order of conviction of the
accused passed by learned trial court. So appeal
filed by the accused Sh. SPS Rathore against his

86
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

conviction deserves to be dismissed.

43. The counsel for the CBI and counsel for the
complainant-revisionist have argued that learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate took a lenient view and
ordered the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of six months only and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo
for a period of one month for committing an offence
under Section 354 IPC keeping in view the prolonged
trial, age of the accused and there was no allegation
in the past regarding such a conduct of moral
turpitude. Sentence awarded to the convict is
inadequate in view of the seriousness of the offence.
The mensrea in the present case is duly established
which is sine-qua-non in the offence. The act of the
convict was premediated. Since convict had visited
the house of the minor girl Ruchika on 11.8.1990 and
had requested her father not to send her abroad as he
would make the arrangement for providing her best
coaching. The learned trial Court has taken into
consideration age of the convict while awarding
sentence of imprisonment but failed to take into
consideration that girl molested was minor school
going and was playing tennis in the coaching centre
which was headed by the convict. When a minor girl is
molested a liberal view cannot be taken against the
convict. The prolonged trial in this case has been
due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused.
There was a fight between the unequals i.e. on the
one hand there was a teenaged girl who had decided to
fight for her right to battle with a senior officer
who have been the IG of the State of Haryana and
later on promoted as DGP of Haryana. On the contrary
said minor Ruchika was expelled from her school at
the behest of the convict but the learned trial Court
failed to take into account that minor girl was

87
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

molested and other tell tale circumstances were

created by the accused which ultimately forced the
minor to commit suicide. She under went various
miseries at the hands of the accused who had been got
her expelled from the school. The victim and his
family members were harassed. Sarcastic remarks were
being passed to her whenever she used to go outside.
She remained depressed and confined to her house and
ultimately committed suicide. It is a case of vivid
example of the persons like the convict who had
always considered themselves above the law. Ashu, the
brother of Ruchika was falsely involved in various
cases of theft and was tortured. Later on he was
discharged in all the cases by the court. A
procession including consisting 50/60 persons was
carried out in Sector 6 Panchkula on 26.8.1990 at the
behest of the appellant. The said procession was
raising slogans against Ruchika and in favour of the
appellant. The DGP submitted his report recommending
the registration of case against the appellant on
3.9.1990 and Ruchika was expelled from the school on
19.9.1990 because daughter of the convict was also
studying in the same school and was of the same
batch. No case was registered against the convict
despite recommendation of the DGP of the State. After
decision of this case by the learned CJM, Chandigarh
an inquiry was conducted. The leaned SDM, Chandigarh
submitted his report to Home Secretary, Chandigarh on
8.2.2010 where it was categorically mentioned that
Ruchika was expelled from the school due to
extraneous pressure. Ruchika was got expelled from
her school on 19.9.1990 on account of submission of
late fee whereas convict gave representation to Home
Minister, Haryana after barely a week i.e. on
26.9.1990 stating that Ruchika was expelled from the
school on loose moral ground and thereafter the
report of DGP which recommended registration of FIR

88
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

was suddenly changed into departmental inquiry and

was kept further under the wrap for three years and
after death of Ruchika in the year 1993, the file was
sought to be closed with the office note since
Ruchika had died, therefore, no action on the
complaint was required to be taken. The convict
tried to put pressure on all the PWs by way of
lengthy cross-examination. During trial of the case
every possible method was used to sabotage the story
of prosecution. Then DGP Sh. R.R. Singh conducted the
inquiry and recorded statement of Ruchika in the year
1990. FIR was registered when Hon'ble Hight Court
passed the orders on the writ petition filed by the
complainant. It took nine years for registration of
the case and further nine and half year for
completion of the trial. At the time of act of
molestation the convict was posted as Inspector
General of Police who got his promotions from time to
time and retired in the year 2002 as DGP, Haryana. On
the other hand, victim who was minor, teenaged girl,
studying in tenth class and ultimately being fed up
with the life committed suicide. The act of the
molestation of Ruchika by the convict was not on the
spur of moment but was preplanned act. The convict
being Inspector General of Police was duty bound to
protect the vulnerable persons but he himself
committed the act of molestation of minor girl. This
is a major aggravating factor requiring the severest
of the punishment to be awarded to the convict.
Sentence imposed should respond to the sensitivities
of the society and imposing a meager sentence would
be counter productive. The Court must not keep in
view the rights of the criminals only but must also
keep the rights of the victim of the crime and
society at large while considering the imposition of
appropriate punishment. The sentence imposed by the
Court should have a deterrent affect on the wrong

89
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

doer. The undue sympathy in imposing inadequate

sentence do more harm to the justice delivery system
and undermine the public confidence. The sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the convict is grossly
inadequate and requires that same be enhanced to the
maximum extent provided for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 354 IPC. He relied upon
case State of Madhya Pardesh Vs. Sheikh Shahid 2010(1)
RCR (Crl.) 220, State of Karnatka Vs. Krishna @ Raju
(1987) 1 SCC 538, Savaka Perumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
1991, Crl. L.J. 1845 SC, Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhanna
Vs. State of West Bengal (1994)2 SCC, 220, State of
karnataka Vs. Saranappa Vasnagouda Aregoudar 2002 Crl.
L.J. 2020 SC, State of U.P. Vs. Kishan 2005 Crl. L.J. 333
SC, Siddarama and others Vs. State of Karnatka 2005 IV
(Cr.) (SC) 78 and Ahmed Husein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and
another Vs. State of Gujarat 1 (2010) CCR 1(SC).

44. The learned counsel for the convict Sh.

S.P.S. Rathore has argued that in the instant case
media at the behest of the persons who had involved
him in this false case built up malicious hate
campaign against the convict even after pronouncement
of the orders on 21/12/2009 which led to murderous
assault on the convict on 8.2.2010. The media and
the opposing counsel in the instant case have been
commenting and published half truths and twisted
facts to maintain sensational characters of the news
in order to promote their own economic interests.
The media has not exercised restraint even in respect
of Court judgment. Every one is presumed innocent
until proved guilty. There is nothing on record that
there was anything adverse against the convict
earlier or there is any misconduct on the part of the
convict even after the incidence. He is having
flawless and high reputation regarding integrity and
high moral character. He was awarded President's
medals and other decorations which are only awarded

90
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

to the persons of integrity and high moral character.

If the convict had any earlier intention of
misbehaving Ruchika then he would never have called
her at 12:00 hours in the day rather he would have
called her after 5:00 p.m. He would not have sent
Aradhna to call the coach and to add one more witness
as coach. The age of the girls is generally reduced
at the time of initial admissions in the school. No
medical proof or the certificate from the Registrar
of Births and Deaths has been produced by the
prosecution. Ms. Ruchika was likely to be more than
16 years of age but was shown only 15 and half years
in the school certificate. The convict in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had clarified
that he had no hand in the procession on 26.8.1990.
No person from Rajiv Colony of Panchkula was examined
to prove any connection with the convict. The Secret
Inquiry Officer from whom Sh. R.R. Singh gathered
information was also not examined. No question was
put to the convict under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
regarding the allegations of harassment of Ashu. The
convict has proved the written statement filed by the
Government in suo-moto the proceedings for grant of
compensation to Ashu Girotra as Ex.DW11/A and said
proceedings were ultimately quashed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Said issue was duly examined by Hon'ble
Apex Court. Ashu Girotra was duly represented by his
counsel before the Apex Court. He had no role in
arrest of Ashu. The convict took recourse two legal
remedies by filing complaint for defamation. There is
no question of harassment of any witness in this
manner. Charge sheet was submitted on 17.11.2000 and
judgment was passed by learned Trial Court on
21.12.2009. During said period this case was fixed
for about 240-250 days but appellant never sought
adjournment except for a short period when he was
operated for heart valve replacement on 10.9.2007 and

91
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

was convalescing after the major surgery. The trial

of the case was delayed only due to non production of
witnesses by the prosecution and on the request of
the prosecution. The convict is entitled for benefit
of protracted trial.

45. The learned trial Court erred in not

granting probation to the convict that allegations
were serious in nature since the victim was minor
and allegations are of moral turpitude. The view of
the trial Court is misconceived and reflected by
media bias. The provisions of Probation of Offenders
Act are beneficial provisions. The convict deserves
benefit of admonition under Section 3 of Probation of
Offenders Act or alternatively benefit of probation
for good behaviour under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act since the alleged incident is dated
12.8.1990 and is now about 20 years old. The convict
is 69 years old. He has major health problems. He
had undergone open heart surgery for replacement of
aortic valve and he is continuously on medications
for controlling his INR through blood thinners which
has to be monitored regularly otherwise it can be
fatal on account of blood clotting or internal
bleeding. He is suffering from severe spondilitis,
hyper tension and diabetes. He is retired from
service and has dependent unmarried daughter with
congenital heart problem and has to look after her
personally. He is getting pension. His retirement
benefits are in peril for which notice has already
been served upon the convict by the Government of
India, it will amount to punishment to his family.
He has undergone agony for protracted trial
stretching for more than 10 years. His agony
commenced in 1990 when he was subjected to inquiry by
Sh. R.R. Singh. Charge sheet was issued to him in
1991. After dropping of inquiry he has to litigate in

92
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and

thereafter in the Apex Court since 1997. It had
exhausted him both mentally and financially. The
convict is having complete honest and clean
reputation who was DGP Haryana. PW.10 and PW.11
themselves justified that convict had never been
linked with any other matter of moral turpitude or
mis behaviour with any girl prior to 12.8.1990. He
has never been convicted in any other case till date.
He has remained on bail through out the trial. He
never violated any condition of the bail bond till
date. The maximum allegations made against the
convict is that of embracing the girl. The convict
has already been punished by motivative media which
laid unleashed hate campaign against him which
culminated in murderous assault on him in the Court
compound on 8.2.2010. Media hate campaign also led
to forfeiture of his President's medal given in 1985
i.e. five years prior to the alleged occurrence for
his outstanding professional accomplishment. The
counsel for the convict relied on case Ranji Missir
Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1088, Isher Dev
Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1912 SC 1295, Hamir Singh Vs.
State of Punjab Criminal Revision No.551/2009 decided on
April, 15, 2009, Narinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab
Criminal Revision No.648/2002, Dhanpat and others Vs.
State of Punjab and another Criminal Revision No.210 of
1991 decided on March 16, 2010, Ajay Dahiya Vs. State of
Haryana Criminal Revision No.1413 of 2000 decided on
12.2.2010, Kaur Singh Vs. State of Punjab Criminal
Revision No.566 of 2003 decided on March 6, 2009, Kanwar
Pal Singh Vs. State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh Thro' Secy.,
and another (appeal Crl. 1032 of 1998) decided on
27.7.2005 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Lakhwinder Singh and
another Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No.270 SB of
1995 decided on March 9, 2007, Parmod Vs. State of
Haryana Criminal Revision No.1035 of 2000 decided on
3.3.2009, Rai Singh Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Revision
No.7 of 1993 decided on July 4, 2007, Mahindro Devi Vs.

93
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

State of Haryana and others Criminal Revision No.2332 of

2004 decided on 14.9.2006, Pal Singh and others Vs. State
of Punjab Criminal Revision No.770 of 2002 decided on
24.3.2009 and Jaimal Singh Vs. State of UT, Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No.588 of 1997 (O&M) decided on
February 15, 2010.

46. After considering the submissions of the

counsel for the parties, the question arises what is
the object of punishment. It is necessary to
understand the co-relation of crime and punishment.
According to Ralf Waldo Emerson, Crime and
punishment grow out of one stem. Punishment is a
fruit that unsuspected ripens within the flower of
the pleasure which concealed it. The most simplistic
definition of punishment was given by Hugo Grotious
who defined punishment as the infliction of an ill,
suffered for an ill done. However, from a
criminological point of view punishment can be
defined as a penalty or sanction given for any crime
or offence. So, punishment is as necessary to law as
law is necessary for the society. The punishment is
a negative which seeks to restore the moral balance,
and to that extent it is an ethical necessity. When
this purpose is not achieved punishment loses its
purpose and effectiveness. The effect of punishment
varies according to the criminality of the accuseds.
There are various theories of punishment including
deterrent theory, preventive theory and reformative
theory. In case Sevaka Pirumal etc. (supra) Hon'ble
Apex Court held in para No.9 of the judgment that
undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do
more harm to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and society
could not long endure under serious threats if the
courts did not protect the injured, the injured then
resort to private vengeance. It is duty of every
Court to award proper sentence having regard to the

94
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

nature of the offence and manner in which it was

executed or committed. In case State of U.P. Vs.
Krishnan (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that object of awarding sentence
should be to protect the society and to deter the
criminals in achieving the avord object of law by
imposing appropriate sentence. The head note B of
case State of M.P. Vs. Sheikh Sahid cited (supra) is as
under :
Indian Penal Code, Section 53- Criminal Procedure
Code, Section 354- Quantum of sentence Undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more
harm to the justice system to undermine the public
confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long
endure under such serious threats- Further held:
I) The aggravating and mitigating factors and
circumstances in which a crime has been
committed are to be delicately balanced on the
basis of really relevant circumstances in a
dispassionate manner by the Court- Such act of
balancing is indeed a difficult task.
II) The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it
relates to offences against women, dacoity,
kidnapping, misappropriation of public money,
treason and other offences involving moral
turpitude or moral delinquency which have great
impact on social order and public interest cannot
be lost sight.
III) Any liberal attitude by imposing meager
sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely
on account of lapse of time in respect of such
offences will be resultwise counter productive in the
long run.

47. The probation laws were enacted in India to

provide reformation to the offenders. It is a
restorative jurisprudence in dealing with the

95
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

offenders. The object of Probation of Offenders Act,

1958 is to prevent conversion of youthful offenders
into obdurate criminals of mature age in case they
are sentenced to undergo substantive imprisonment in
jail. The release of offender on probation saves him
from stigmatisation and thus prepares him for an
upright living. The shame of going through the trial
process would have sufficient chastised him. On the
other hand if offenders are not punished suitably and
adequately, the faith and confidence of public in
criminal justice system is bound to erode and
tendency to obey the law will be decreased gradually
which should not be good for the society. If
offenders are punished according to the gravity of
the offence, then the people will think twice before
committing the offence again, rather they will follow
the law strictly and also the convicted person after
undergoing punishment will hesitate to commit it
again. There is an impression and feeling among the
people that probation law is an easy let off of the
wrong doer and it is a form of leniency shown to the
offender and not a punishment. Whether release of
offender after admonition or probation of good
conduct would at all serve any useful purpose in this
era of modernisation, globalization, growth of
industrialization and expansion of cities with the
rapid expansion of population depends upon the facts
of the case. This fact cannot be lost sight of that
it is the human feeling and sentiment that the
aggrieved party who has suffered loss and injury to
his person and property is never satisfied if the
offender is released on probation. While passing
sentence or releasing the offender on probation the
Court cannot ignore the victim who has suffered
humiliation, indignity, loss of reputation, loss of
damage to his property and injury both physical and
mental. Some victims are satisfied with the grant of

96
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

compensation only but it is always not so. The Court

has to consider the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the character
of the offender and position of the victim while
awarding the sentence or releasing the offender on
probation. Basically the Courts are to make balance
keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of
the case, status and position of the offender and the
victim and nature of the offence. Coming to the case
in hand trial Court held that allegations are of
moral turpitude. Such allegations are serious in
nature pertaining to the circumstances when the
victim was minor. Liberal view cannot be taken,
prolonged trial and age of the convict can be
considered while passing the order on quantum of
sentence. The learned trial Court further held that
plea of the convict that there was no earlier
allegations of such nature or any such type of
conduct can be considered while passing the order on
quantum of sentence.

48. In the instant case, the offence committed

by the convict is under Section 354 IPC. At the time
of commission of offence, the convict was police
officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police
whereas, victim was a teenaged minor school going
girl having high hopes from life. She used to play
lawn tennis in the courts of HLTA with sole aim to
become good player. The convict was President of
HLTA and that time and was even running office of
HLTA in the garage of his house which means he was
over all incharge of all the functions of HLTA. The
incident is dated: 12.8.1990. The defence was
created that due to indiscipline of Ruchika she was
suspended from the HLTA for 15 days. Even convict
filed a defamation case under Section 500 of IPC on
18.8.1990 against many persons including the minor

97
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

victim and her friend Aradhana. The government of

Haryana marked inquiry to DGP Haryana. A procession
of about 50 persons was taken in Sector-6, Panchkula
where victim was residing. The slogans shouters were
shouting slogans in favour of convict and against the
minor Ruchika. The DGP Haryana sent the inquiry
report dated: 3.9.1990 and recommended the
registration of case against the convict. Ruchika
who was studying in the Sacred Heart Convent School,
Sector-26, Chandigarh which is one of the premier
educational institution of Chandigarh was expelled
from the school on 19.9.1990. The daughter of
convict was also studying in the said school. Since
Ruchika was expelled from school few days after the
sending of report by the DGP Haryana for registration
of case and it is well known that hardly any girl
child is expelled from the school as long as she is
attending classes so the expulsion of Ruchika from
the school was result of direct or indirect influence
of convict on the school authorities. It is a fact
that Ashu brother of Ruchika was arrested in various
cases of theft but he was discharged in all the cases
of theft by the courts. Since CBI did not collect
any evidence as to why he was implicated in theft
cases and what was the reason for his discharge and
at whose instance he was arrested or implicated in
the cases so no comments can be made on this
contention of the learned counsel for the complainant
and CBI. There is no dispute that Ruchika committed
suicide. A precious life is lost. Thereafter
departmental enquiry initiated against the convict on
the basis of inquiry report of DGP Sh. R.R. Singh
were dropped. The convict got promotions and retired
as DGP of Haryana. The convict was working as senior
police officer at the time of occurrence. He was
President of HLTA. As police officer his role was to
protect the public. As President of HLTA his role

98
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

was to train young budding players for the India.

But he failed in both duties by molesting a minor
girl. People are afraid to send their minor girls to
play grounds due to presence of such persons in the
sports field. Due to activities of such persons, our
nation is lagging behind in every sport and citizens
of country felt ashamed as knowing that India lost
again. As long as such persons are at the helm of
affairs of sports associations the presence of women
in the sports activities cannot be increased and real
talent cannot be brought forward to represent the
country in various sports. Justice should not only
be done but it appears to have been done. I have
considered the arguments of learned defence counsel
if convict is not released on probation then it may
affect his pensionary benefits but keeping in view
the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact
that the legal battle was between two unequals the
said contention of learned defence counsel is of no
help to the convict. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of this case the authorities cited by
learned defence counsel for releasing the convict on
probation are distinguishable on facts and ratio of
said authorities cannot be applied to the facts of
the instant case. If convict is released on probation
then it would be mockery of the justice delivery
system. It is a case in which convict deserves
maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under
Section 354 IPC. The learned trial court fell in
error by awarding rigorous imprisonment of six months
to the convict. The trial court was required to
minutely consider the conduct of the convict after
the occurrence and during trial of the case. Cross-
examination of PW.3 Aradhana was conducted in 152
pages. Cross-examination of PW.1 Sh. Anand Parkash,
PW.2 Smt. Madhu Parkash, PW.3 Sh. Manish Arora, PW.5
Dr. Naresh Mittal and PW.15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra was

99
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

conducted in 26 pages, 124 pages, 40 pages, 62 pages

and 152 pages respectively. No doubt, every accused
has got right to cross-examine the witness but no one
has got right to drag the cross-examination to such
an extent. Such a lengthy cross-examination of the
witnesses prove that they were put on trial and
accused was not facing trial. The objection raised
by the learned defence counsel that convict is a
victim of media trial is without any basis. Learned
trial court has rightly held that court has concern
with the facts and circumstances which are available
on record only and court is not concerned with the
report of any agency about the accused or the victim.
So I am of the view that courts are only bound by law
and its own judicial conscience. Till today, media
cannot influence the decision making process. Indian
courts and Indian judicial system is very strong. If
media is able to influence the judgments of the
Indian courts then there cannot be independence of
judiciary. The courts work on the basis of legal
evidence available on record. Nobody should
apprehend the media trial can influence the decision
of the courts. For awarding sentence the court is to
take into consideration totality of facts. In the
instant case the convict has no remorse for the wrong
committed by him. Every witness of this case had to
face allegations in one form or the other and attempt
was made to catch the witness in a well woven legal
web. Although convict deserves maximum punishment
which is prescribed for offence under Section 354 IPC
but keeping in view the age of the convict, his
medical background, his dependent unmarried daughter
who is suffering from congenital heart problem, his
meritorious service record and the fact that convict
spent more than 200 dates in the court during trial
of the case, I am of the view that purpose of law
would be met if convict is awarded sentence of

100
 SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

rigorous imprisonment for 1 years, otherwise, face

of the public in justice delivery system/judiciary
would erode.

49. In the light of the above discussion, the

appeal filed by Sh. SPS Rathore against his
conviction is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by
CBI and revision petition filed by the complainant
against the inadequacy of the sentence and for
enhancement of sentence of imprisonment are allowed.
The order of sentence passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereby convict was
awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months is
hereby set aside. The convict is ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 1 years (one and half
year) for committing offence under Section 354 IPC.
The sentence of fine remains unchanged. The convict
is ordered to be taken into custody and is ordered to
be sent to the concerned jail for undergoing the
sentence of imprisonment. Record of learned trial
court be returned. One copy each of the judgment be
placed on the connected appeal file titled as CBI Vs.
SPS Rathore and connected revision file titled as
Madhu Parkash Vs. SPS Rathore. All the files are
ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced on:
25.5.2010. (Gurbir Singh)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Chandigarh.

101
SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

102
SPS Rathore Vs. CBI

103