You are on page 1of 20

IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL

FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

SC No. 192/13

Unique Case ID No.02405R0257982013

State Vs.

Rajeev Kumar s/o Sh. Satpal Sharma, R/o CM-203, Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

Date of Institution :07.09.2013.

FIR No.72/2013 dated 12.02.2013. U/s.376/328/506 IPC P.S. Bindapur.

Date of reserving judgment/Order :01.11.2014.

Date of pronouncement :14.11.2014.

JUDGMENT

1. The accused Rajeev has been facing trial for the

offences u/s 328 IPC, u/s 376 IPC, u/s 506 IPC & u/s 354 IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix

namely 'S' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her

identity) was having love affair with accused's brother Pradeep. As

the prosecutrix was into the business of real estate, the accused

requested her in the month of July, 2012 to help her in finding a

100 sq. mtrs. Flat on Tonk Road, Jaipur. Accordingly, accused took

her to Jaipur in his car. Accused has offered a cold drink to her in

the car, upon taking which the prosecutrix felt drowsy and kept on

sleeping all the way up to Jaipur. On reaching Jaipur late at night,

they checked into the hotel and spent the night in the same room.

In the morning, the accused ordered some beer and forced the

prosecutrix also to have beer. The accused also ordered viagra tablets through a waiter and then raped the prosecutrix in the hotel room at the point of knife. The prosecutrix started bleeding and cried in pain. When she told the accused that she would complain against him, he told her that in that case, neither his brother nor anybody else would marry her. He kept on threatening her and they returned to Delhi the next day. She did not tell anybody at home about the incident. After two days' accused invited her family to his house for dinner and asked her to stay back at home for some reason. She had to oblige him as she was under the pressure of his threats and stayed back at her house. The accused came there and raped her. The prosecutrix then got married to accused's brother Pradeep Kumar on 10.8.2012. However, soon after the marriage, the accused told his family that the prosecutrix does not have a good character and is having a bad eye upon him. The prosecutrix was thrown out of the matrimonial house. Thereafter also, the accused has been harassing her by taking off her chunni or touching her private parts wherever and whenever he sees her.

3. The prosecutrix had submitted a written complaint

dated 12.2.2013 to the SHO, PS Bindapur which was marked to SI Domnica for necessary action. She made inquiries from the prosecutrix, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. She took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter further investigation was entrusted to SI Nirmal Sharma. She visited the Jaipur Hotel alongwith the prosecutrix on

5.3.2013 and obtained the relevant record regarding the stay of prosecutrix with the accused in that hotel. Accused was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and hence he was formally

arrested on 14.4.2013. He was got medically examined and the exhibits given by the doctor were seized. His potency test was got conducted on 30.5.2013.

4. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet

was prepared by the IO and submitted to the concerned court.

5. Upon committal of the case to the courts of sessions,

charges u/s. 328, u/s. 376 IPC, u/s. 506 IPC & u/s. 354 IPC were framed against the accused on 24.01.2014. Accused denied the charges and accordingly trial was held.

6. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to bring

home the guilt of the accused. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2014 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. He admitted that he had accompanied prosecutrix to Jaipur on 4.8.2012 in his Santro Car but denied that he had offered her coke as soon as she boarded the car or that she had felt drowsy or that he committed rape upon her in the hotel room at Jaipur. He also denied that he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at her home twice after return from jaipur. He admitted that prosecutrix got married to his brother Pradeep on 10.8.2012 but denied that he had told his parents that the prosecutrix does not possess a good character and is having a bad eye upon him. He also denied that he has been harassing prosecutrix after the marriage. He further stated that the prosecutrix had demanded a loan of Rs. 8 to 10 lacs from

him and he expressed his inability to lend her such huge amount. He also refused to arrange the loan amount for her from his parents. He stated that he did not know how and when did

prosecutrix solemnised marriage with his brother and he came to know about the same on receipt of a copy of marriage certificate from the prosecutrix through MMS. He apprised his parents about the said marriage who got annoyed from Pradeep and threw him out of the house. He further stated that the prosecutrix used to demand money from Pradeep also and used to blackmail him by saying that she would implicate him as well as his family members in false criminal case.

7. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

8. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for the accused and

have perused the entire material available on record.

9. The prosecutrix PW6 and PW2, the Manager of Hotel

Mangal, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur are the two material witnesses for the prosecution.

10. Prosecutrix deposed that her family and the family of

the accused got acquainted with each other in the year 2011 during stay in each others neighbourhood in Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. There was only one house between the prosecutrix's house and accused's house. After some time, her family shifted to another house in the same area i.e. Sainik Nagar but their relations with the family of the accused continued. Both used to visit each other and invite each other for dinner. Rajiv's wife Monika told her that Rajiv's brother Pradeep likes her and

wants to marry her. She refused the marriage proposal as she was pursuing MBA Course and Pradeep was only matriculate. Her parents also rejected the said marriage proposal. However, after

taking her into confidence, Monika made a fun of Pradeep by telling him that she ( prosecutrix) has accepted the marriage proposal. After some time, Pradeep's parents selected a girl for him and Pradeep approached her saying that he would marry her only. She told him that she is not serious about marrying him and actually Monika had made a fun of him. Upon hearing this, Pradeep became very depressed and made a bid to kill himself by consuming rat poison. However, he was saved by immediate hospitalization. Accused Rajiv then approached her again and she told him that she would marry Pradeep after he completes 12 th class and English Speaking Course from British Council, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. Accordingly Pradeep started studying for class XIIth and also enrolled for the English Speaking Course. Regarding the visit to Jaipur and the rape incident, she has deposed as under:-

“Meanwhile, Rajeev was having some spare money and he wanted to invest the same in real estate. He knew that I am engaged in a real estate business and sought my help in this regard. One day, parents of Rajeev had gone to Nimrana, Rajasthan, alongwith my parents to have a look at some property to be purchased but the same was not to their liking. Rajeev and his family had made up their mind to make investment in only Rajasthan because of upcoming Metro projects there. Rajeev proposed to me that I should accompany him to Tonk Road, Jaipur, where many Builders have come up with their building projects and would help him in selecting a suitable property. He told me that he does not want to tell his family and my family in advance about the

said investment and he wants to give them a surprise. He told me not to tell my parents that I am accompanying him to Jaipur for the said purpose. Accordingly, on 04.8.2012 I and Rajeev went Jaipur in his white colour Santro car. We left Delhi in the afternoon and reached Jaipur at about 11 p.m. or 12 midnight. Soon after I had boarded his car, Rajeev offered me Coke, which he was already having in the car. I consumed the same and thereafter, started having severe headache which continued throughout the journey upto Jaipur. I was suffering from drowsiness and did not know how we reached Jaipur. On the way, Rajeev had stopped the car near a Dhabha and asked me to have some meals. I was not in a position to have anything to eat. I only took some soup. When we reached Jaipur, Rajeev woke me up. He took me to a hotel and we stayed for the night in the hotel in the same room. Rajeev gave me some medicines which I took and I slept throughout the night.

Next morning i.e. 05.8.2012, Rajeev woke me up. He asked me how I was feeling and I told him that I am still not feeling well and need to see a doctor. He called the waiter and ordered four Beer bottles. It was about 10 a.m. at that time. When the waiter came to our room with the Beer bottles, Rajeev asked him to bring some chopped onions etc. and some lemon. When the waiter brought these items, Rajeev told him that he has not chopped the onions etc. rightly and asked him to fetch one knife.

Accordingly, waiter brought one knife and gave it to Rajeev. It was a kitchen knife. Rajeev opened one Beer bottles and poured the Beer in two glasses which were already in the room. He insisted upon me to take Beer. I refused to have Beer saying that I am already not feeling well on account of drowsiness and headache. He kept on insisting me to give company to him by having small sips of Beer from the glass. On his insistence, I started having small sips of Beers. Meanwhile, Rajeev again called waiter. When the waiter came, Rajeev took him outside the room and I do not know what transpired between them. Rajeev also did not share with me what had transpired between him and waiter saying that it was something personal. Later on, I got to know that Rajeev had asked the waiter to fetch 'Viagra' for him. Since I was not having the Beer as Rajeev wanted me to have, he again insisted upon me to sip the Beer properly. Thereafter I went to the washroom and on return therefrom, I was lying on the bed with my back towards the wall and in a half sleeping posture. At that juncture, Rajeev came close to me and started touching me inappropriately. Then he started removing my jeans pant which I was wearing. I objected to his actions but he did not listen to me and continued. I was feeling very weak and could not resist forcefully. I kept on yelling upon him. I tried to shout but he gagged my mouth with his hand. Rajeev took the knife from the Salad plate which was on the bed itself and threatened me that if I said a word or

didn't do what he asked me to do, I would be gone. Rajeev then started having sexual intercourse with me. I resisted his moves and was moving away from him and in the scuffle, my half portion of the body fell from the bed. My lower portion of the body was on the bed and upper portion was hanging from the bed. Ultimately, Rajeev committed sexual intercourse with me forcibly and against my consent. Thereafter he apologized to me saying that he does not know how it happened. I started bleeding from my private part and there was swelling on my private part. I told Rajeev that I will complain to his parents and family about what he has done to me. He told me that I am going to be married with his brother and in case, I disclosed this incident to anybody in the family, nobody not even his brother would marry me. He also told me that I would be ostracized and humiliated in the whole area. He told me that he just could not control himself as I was slim and beautiful whereas his wife is very fatty and not so beautiful. He kept on pressurizing me not to disclose the incident to anybody. He also told me that after marriage with his brother, I and his brother can stay in a separate house. This continued till late in the evening. We started from Jaipur late at night around 11.30 p.m. and reached here in the early morning. On reaching Delhi, the accused Rajeev kept on moving the car around Dwarka area for about two hours and pressurizing me not to reveal the incident to anybody. Finally he dropped me at Nawada Metro Station at

about 7 a.m. and I reached my home on a cycle rikshaw. On reaching home, I did not tell anybody about the incident. After about two days, Rajeev invited my parents for dinner. Then he made a call to me saying that he has invited my parents for dinner and asked me to stay back at my home as he has to have some talks with me. On the day, when my parents had gone to his house for dinner, Rajeev came to our house at about 8 p.m and told me that he wants to have sex with me for the last time and thereafter he would not bother me. I told him that he has already done it once and he should not do it again as I am going to be married to his brother. However, he insisted upon the same and again committed sexual intercourse with me forcibly and without my consent. Next day, Rajeev again invited my parents to his house for dinner and I was present alone in my house. He again came to our house and raped me.”

11. She further deposed that she got married to accused's

brother Pradeep on 10.8.2012 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and after the marriage she was brought to her matrimonial house. However, just after two days, accused told his parents that she is not having good character and has a bad eye upon him. She discussed this with her husband Pradeep who suggested her that he would drop her at her parental house where she should stay for some days. Accordingly, Pradeep dropped her at her parental house but never returned to take her back from there. She stated that accused started harassing her and torturing

her whenever he met her. He and his friend used to pass lewid comments on her on the road and wherever they saw her. She had made a complaint at telephone No.181 regarding this. Thereafter she alongwith her mother visited Police Station on 12.2.2013 and submitted a written complaint which she proved as Ex. PW6/A. She also deposed that in March, 2013 she alongwith Nirmal Sharma reached at the hotel and showed her the hotel in which she and Rajiv had stayed. SI Nirmal Sharma made inquiries from the Manager and the waiters of the Hotel and also seized the hotel register. She also visited the room in which they had stayed and prepared its site plan.

12. In the cross examination, she admitted that she was

having a love affair with accused's brother Pradeep in the year 2012 and was on friendly term with accused also. She admitted that she used to talk to accused on phone. They used to talk either once in a day or twice or thrice depending upon the circumstances. She stated voluntarily that they used to talk about each others family members. She admitted that on 3.8.2012 and 4.8.2012 she was in Mumbai and she had gone there to meet her friends Mohsin Bhat, Tarun Tyagi etc. She did not recollect their mobile numbers. She returned to Delhi on 4.8.2012 by air. She admitted that on reaching Delhi, she made a call to the accused. She deposed that accused met her on Delhi Gurgaon road at about 6 pm. They reached Jaipur at about 11 pm. She had not intimated her parents that she is going to Jaipur alongwith the accused. She did not recollect the name of the hotel where they had stayed. She

had not visited Jaipur alongwith the accused before that date. She stated that they took only one room in the hotel but did not recollect the room number. The room was on the first floor and

they had reached there by climbing the stairs. They did not talk to each other in the hotel room as she was not feeling well and straightaway slept.

13. She further admitted that she is used to consume

alcohol but added that she drinks only occasionally with her friends and when there used to be any function etc. and on one or two occasions, she had consumed excessive liquor and became intoxicated but could not tell the date when it happened. She had started consuming liquor since 2006. She deposed that accused woke her up next morning at about 8.30 am and ordered four beer bottles at about 10 am. She did not complain to the hotel staff regarding the incident of rape. They checked out from the hotel at about 11 pm. She deposed that during the day on 5.8.2012, she had received a call from her mother but she did not tell her that she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused. She had received this call after the rape incident. According to her, the accused committed rape upon her between 12 noon and 1.30 pm. She did not take anything other than water from 1.30 pm till 11 pm. She had made a call to her parents at about 3 pm and told them that she is fine. She did not tell them at that time also that she is in Jaipur at Hotel at that time also. She made call to her parents again twice on that day and told them that she is fine. She did not disclose the rape incident to them. She did not make any call to her brothers or her friends. She received a call from Pradeep in the evening but did not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused or that the accused has committed rape upon her. She deposed that

upon return to Delhi, she did not disclose the incident of rape to her family members. She told them that she was in Mumbai alongwith her friends and did not tell them that she had gone to

Jaipur alongwith the accused. On 6.8.2012, she and the accused talked to each other three or four times during the day. Accused was asking her whether she has narrated the rape incident to anybody and she told him that she did not do so. She admited that she talked to accused on 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 also. Accused invited her parents for dinner on 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012. She deposed that infact accused had invited her whole family for dinner including her brothers. However, her younger brother was in Chennai and her elder brother does not go usually to any other house. She did not accompany her parents to the house of accused for dinner and told them that she would join them later on. She did not tell them that the accused has asked her to stay back in the house as he would be coming there. Her elder brother was not in the house at that time. She had talked to Pradeep on 6.8.2012, 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 but did not disclose the incident of rape to him.

14. She further deposed that on 8.8.2012, she told

accused that she would not stay back at home and would accompany her parents to his house for dinner but the accused insisted that she should stay back and upon his insistence, she stayed back at her house. She told her parents on phone that she is feeling highly depressed and hence would not go for dinner. When her parents did not find the accused in his house, who had invited them for dinner, they did not make any call tot he accused as to where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's house and returned home. She deposed that neither her family

members nor the family members of Pradeep were present at the time of their mariage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 12.8.2012. It was a love marriage. She stated that there was a dispute between her

and her in laws within two days of the marriage and they wanted to throw her out of the house as they did not like her. She left the matrimonial home after two days and later on returned to her parental house. She admitted having filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws regarding the aforesaid harassment. She was shown photocopy of complaint dated 7.9.12 by the ld. Cross examining counsel and she admitted that it is in her handwriting and bears her signatures and she had submitted the same in PS Chhawla. The complaint is Ex. PW6/D2. She admitted that she had filed a complaint before the ACP CAW Cell Sec. 9, Dwarka on 17.9.2012. She was shown photocopy of the said complaint and she admitted that it is in her handwriting and bears her signatures. The complaint is Ex.PW6/D3. She admitted that she has not mentioned in any of these complaint that the accused Rajiv had committed rape upon her on various occasions. She further admitted that she had filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act against her in laws including her sister in law and her husband but she did not level allegations against accused Rajiv in that petition.

15. She further admitted that earlier also she had filed a

complaint of rape in the year 2010 against an NRI senior citizen Manu Gurbakshini. She had filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against Sh. Manu Gurbakshini, his brother and his servant and on the directions of ld. MM, FIR No. 238/10 u/s 376 IPC was registered in PS Fatehpuri Beri. She stated that Ex. PW6/D4 is the copy of the said complaint. She stated that Ex. PW6/D4 is the copy of the said

complaint. She stated that she was having a love affair with Manu Gurbakshini and they intended to marry each other. She admitted that she was 17 or 18 years old when she met Manu Gurbakshini

and he was around 59-60 years of age at that time. She admitted that Manu Gurbakshini had lodged an FIR No. 235/10 u/s 448 IPC against her in PS Fatehpuri Beri. She admitted that she told police officials later on that she had submitted a false complaint against Manu Gurbakshini in a state of depression and on the basis of her statement, cancellation report was filed by the police in that FIR. She admitted that during the year 2010 to 2012 she made calls at telephone No.100 about 100 times. She admitted that she had made a call at telephone No.100 on 16.1.2013 saying that a boy has committed rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide and when the police officials reached the spot, she was not there.

16. She also admitted that she is in modelling profession

but denied that she has participated in Splitvilla reality show on MTV. A video was shown to her by the ld. Cross examining counsel in the witness box on the laptop and she admitted that this is her video which she had uploaded in U tube for being sent to MTV organizers for selecting her for the programmer Splitsvilla Session-6. She admitted all the contents of this video. The pen driver containing this video is Ex. X-1 and its typed transcript filed by the ld. Counsel for the accused is Ex. PW6/D5. She deposed that she had prepared this video at the studio of her friend. She further denied all the suggestions put to her.

17. PW2 is Mahavir Singh, who was the Manager of Hotel

Mangal, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur in August, 2012. He deposed that on the night intervening between 4.8.2012 and 5.8.2012, he was on night duty at the reception of the hotel. At about 11.30 pm, a male and a female namely Rajiv and Jyoti came to the hotel for a room and he alloted them the room No. 208 to them on the first

floor of the hotel. They stayed in the room for the night and checked out at abut 11.30 pm on 5.8.2012. He stated that Rajiv had made entry in this regard in the hotel register at sl. No.2003 and proved its photocopy as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that after about 5 or 6 months, police officials had come to their hotel and seized the photocopy of their register vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. He had detained a photocopy of the driving licence of Rajiv as proof of his identity which he proved as Ex. PW2/C. There is nothing worth mentioning in his cross examination.

18. Undoubtedly, in a rape case, the conviction of an

accused can be ordered on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if the same appears to the court to be credible and trustworthy and unimpeachable. In other words, the prosecutrix should qualify as a sterling witness and her evidence should be free from embellishments or prevarications. However, if the court does not feel inclined to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for corroboration from other evidence on record. It needs to be noted that like in all other criminal cases, in a case of rape also, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and such burden never shifts. It is not for the accused to show why witnesses lied against him.

19. In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecutrix

appears to be neither credible nor trustworthy. She does not qualify as a sterling witness and hence this court does not feel inclined to rely upon her testimony. The factors which weigh in the mind of this court in discarding the testimony of the prosecutrix are being discussed hereunder.

20. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the

prosecutrix was having a love affair with accused's brother Pradeep and was to marry him. The accused was therefore her would be brother-in-law (Jeth). She appears to have not raised any objection in sharing the bed with the accused in the same hotel room at Jaipur. She did not ask the accused to occupy a separate room or atleast to sleep on a separate bed. She has admitted that she consumed liquor occasionally since the year 2006. So, therefore, there was no possibility of her getting drunk merely by sipping one or two glasses of Beer. Evidently, she seems not to have objected to the accused when he started undressing her. She was as able bodied as the accused and thus was in a position to offer fierce resistance to the sexual advances of the accused, which she did not do. Further she has deposed that at the time when the accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly in the hotel room, her lower portion of the body was on the bed and upper portion was hanging from the bed. It is really difficult to fathom that a lady can be subjected to rape in such a posture.

21. The prosecutrix has deposed in her cross examination

that the accused committed rape upon her between 12 noon and 1.30 p.m. and thereafter they remained in the hotel room till they checked out at about 11 p.m. It seems that she remained peaceful with the accused in the hotel room during this period of more than nine hours. She did not try to leave the hotel room. She did not complain to any hotel staff or the hotel Manager about the incident of rape. She did not make a call at telephone no.100. She made a call to her parents at 3 p.m. and told them that she is fine. She did not tell them that she is with the accused in a hotel at Jaipur or

that the accused has raped her. She received a call from her mother also but did not tell her that she is with the accused in Jaipur. She deposed that she had made calls to her parents again twice on the date of incident i.e. 05.8.2012 from the hotel room and every time she told them that she is fine. She did not disclose the rape incident to them. She did not make any call to her brother or her friends. She admits having received a call from Pradeep in the evening but did not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur alongwith accused or that accused has committed rape upon her. Upon return to Delhi also, she did not disclose the incident of rape to her family members. She did not even tell them that she was at Jaipur with the accused and told a lie to them that she was in Mumbai alongwith her friend. The prosecutrix admits having talked to the accused three or four times during the day on 06.8.2012. She again talked to him on 07.8.2012 and 08.8.2012. The said conduct of the prosecutrix does not give any slightest indication that she had been subjected to rape by the accused in the hotel room at Jaipur. Her conduct is indicative of the fact that either no act of sexual intercourse had taken place between her and the accused in the hotel room at Jaipur or she was a consenting party to the sexual act between the two.

22. The prosecutrix has then deposed that the accused

again raped her at her house after two days of the aforesaid incident i.e. on 07.8.2012 and the subsequent day i.e. 08.8.2012. She has deposed that on both these dates, accused invited her parents for dinner to his house and asked her to stay back at her

home. When her parents reached the accused's house for dinner, accused came to their house where she was present alone and raped her. In the cross examination, she deposed that in fact,

accused had invited her whole family for dinner including her brother. She did not accompany her parents to the accused's house for dinner and told them that she would join them later on. She did not tell them that the accused had asked her to stay back in the house as he would be coming there. She further deposed that on 08.8.2012 also when the accused asked her to stay back at her house, she told him that she would not stay back at her home and would accompany her parents to his house for dinner but upon insistence of the accused, she stayed back at her house. She told her parents on phone that she is feeling highly depressed and hence would not come for dinner. She also deposed that when her parents did not find the accused in his house, who had invited them for dinner, they did not make any call to the accused as to where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's house and returned home.

23. It is evident from the aforesaid conduct of the

prosecutrix that she had stayed back willingly at her house on 07.8.2012 and 08.8.2012 when her parents used to go to the accused's house for dinner. Admittedly, the accused did not issue any threat to her and did not use any force against her. She appears to have readily accepted the request of the accused to stay back at her house which gives an impression that she too was willing to spend some time with the accused at her house in the absence of her parents. There is nothing in her testimony to show that the physical relations between the two on these two dates at her house were forcible or against her consent. It is clear that she waited for the accused to come to her house in the absence of her parents and told her parents a lie that she would join them later on or that she is feeling highly depressed and hence would not

accompany them to accused's house for dinner. There is sufficient indication that the physical relations between the two on these two dates were consensual. It is also intriguing that her parents did not get alarmed when they did not find the accused in his house, who had invited them for dinner, which demonstrates that they too knew about the intimate relations between their daughter and the accused.

24. The prosecutrix is stated to have been raped by the

accused in the hotel at Jaipur in the month of July, 2012 and then at her own house on 07.8.2012 as well as on 08.8.2012. The prosecutrix filed the complaint of rape on 12.2.2013. It has come in her testimony that she had filed a complaint Ex.PW6/D2 against her in-laws on 07.9.2012 in P.S. Chhawla and another complaint Ex.PW6/D3 in CAW Cell, Sector-9, Dwarka, on 17.9.2012. In both these complaints, she has nowhere mentioned that she has been raped by accused Rajeev. She also admitted that she had filed a petition u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act against her in-laws and in that petition, she did not level any allegation against accused Rajeev. This too suggests that the allegations of rape against accused Rajeev are concocted and fabricated.

25. From the own admission of the prosecutrix in her cross

examination, it is manifest that she is habitual of levelling false allegations of rape against persons, with whom she developed close relations. She admitted having filed a complaint of rape against one Manu Gurbakshni in the year 2010, who was a senior

citizen and was about 40 years elder to her and later on told the police officials that she has submitted a false complaint against him in a state of depression and on the basis of her statement,

cancellation report was filed by the police. She has also admitted

that during the year 2010 to 2012, she has made about 100 calls

to telephone no.100. She also admitted that on 16.7.2013 she

made a call at telephone no.100 saying that a boy has committed

rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide but when the

police officials reached the spot, she was not there.

26. The scrutiny of overall testimony of the prosecutrix

reveals that there is no truth in her allegations of rape by the

accused. Her testimony does not inspire any confidence. Her

deposition is neither credible nor trustworthy. Her version does not

find corroboration from any other evidence on record. Various

facts, which have been discussed herein-above, have come out in

her cross examination which suggests that she has cooked up a

false and fabricated story of rape and that she is habitual of

levelling false allegation of rape against the persons with whom

she had developed intimate relations.

27. Resultantly, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is

hereby acquitted as such.

28. However, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, this court would be failing in its duty if the

prosecutrix is let off without punishment for giving false evidence

before this court. She is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of

perjury which is being done by way of a separate order.

Announced in open Court on 14.11.2014.

(VIRENDER BHAT) Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.