Saket Court, New Delhi: In a case wherein, three accused persons namely, A, B, and C, faced trial for committing offences punishable under Sections 376-D1, 3282 and 5063 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Neha, Additional Sessions Judge, opined that the victim’s testimony was neither reliable nor trustworthy and reasonable doubts had been raised on the testimony of the witness. Further, there were material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the victim. Therefore, the Court acquitted the accused persons of all charges as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Background
On 9-3-2019, PCR call regarding rape was received at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, thus, sub-inspector reached the spot and met the victim, after which she was sent for her medical examination. After medical examination, the victim’s statement was recorded, in which she stated that on 9-3-2019, she received a call, and she asked for financial help of Rs 2,000 from ‘B’. The victim stated that ‘B’ asked her to come to Trauma Center and from there, he took her to the flat of his friend, ‘C’. On being asked for water, the victim was given cold drink by ‘A’, after consuming which she started feeling something on which ‘B’ took her to the sofa of a room and raped her. Thereafter, ‘A’ and ‘C’ committed rape upon her. When the victim gained consciousness, she found that she was raped and on following the accused persons, she was threatened that they would kill her. Thereafter, she returned to the flat and on finding that it was locked, she called PCR.
After the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 376-D/328 of IPC against all the three accused persons in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, after compliance with Section 2074 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The charge for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 328, and 506 of IPC were framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On being submitted that the accused persons had committed gang-rape upon the victim against her will and consent, the accused persons stated that sexual relations were established by them with the victim’s consent on payment of money but later the victim started demanding more money and, on their refusal, to pay more money, they were falsely implicated by the victim in a false case of rape.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Mangoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 SCC OnLine SC 83; Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177; and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, and opined that the accused persons in the present case, could be convicted on the sole testimony of victim if the same was found of sterling quality.
The Court stated that the victim’s statements suggested that she met ‘B’ at Trauma Centre around 4-4.30pm and she reached the flat 10-15 minutes and after some time, she was given a laced cold drink and thereafter, she became unconscious. The Court noted that at the time of preparation of the MLC, the victim had informed to the doctor that she had gained consciousness around 8pm and the incident of rape took place at about 5pm. The Court also noted that the victim’s blood sample was sent to FSL for DNA examination, but there was no expert report which could prove that the victim’s blood contained any intoxicating/stupefying substance. Thus, the Court opined that there was no evidence on record to show that the victim was administered any intoxicating/stupefying substance on the date of the alleged incident.
The Court opined that there were material contradictions in the victim’s statements regarding whether she was given intoxicating substance in cold drink or food product. The Court noted that the victim in her statement to police and in her examination-in-chief, stated that she was given a cold drink at the flat which contained intoxicating substance because of which she became unconscious, however, at the time of her medical examination, the victim informed to the doctor that accused ‘B’ offered her cold drink and unknown substance in food product, after which she lost her consciousness.
The Court stated that there was also material contradiction in the statements of the victim regarding whether after administration of intoxicating substance, she was semi-conscious or unconscious. The Court noted that the complaint of the victim suggested that at the time of the alleged incident of rape, she was not completely unconscious, and she knew what was being done to her. But in her statement under Section 1645 of CrPC, she stated that she was getting unconscious, but she was feeling that something was done to her. However, her examination-in-chief suggested that when she consumed half cold drink, her eyes started closing and thereafter, she completely lost her consciousness and when she regained consciousness, she felt pain in her private part and her clothes were half open.
The Court opined that the material contradictions in the statements of the victim, absence of any medical evidence and CDR of the mobile number of the victim created reasonable doubts over the allegations of the prosecution that the victim was administered any intoxicating substance at the flat by any of the accused.
The Court noted that there was no explanation on record as to why the victim did not depose in her examination-in-chief about commission of rape by the accused persons, which was the most important fact and there was no explanation as to how she forgot to mention such a material fact during her examination-in-chief. The Court thus opined that the victim’s testimony did not inspire the confidence of this Court due to various material contradictions, which made her testimony unreliable.
The Court noted that there were material contradictions in the victim’s statements regarding whether ‘B’ had firstly committed rape upon her, or it was ‘C’ who had firstly raped her. Further, in her complaint, the victim stated that she was raped by all three accused, however, at the time of her medical examination, the victim informed the doctor that she was raped by ‘B’.
The Court relied on Munna v. State of M.P., (2014) 10 SCC 254, wherein the Supreme Court opined that the evidence of the victim was required to be read in entirety and if her testimony was found to be suffering from inherent infirmities, the Court was not bound to act upon such testimony without seeking corroboration.
The Court also noted that the victim had specifically denied that she visited the said flat one day before the alleged incident, however, the accused ‘B’ had examined himself in defence to prove that he and ‘C’ established physical relations with the victim one day before the alleged incident also. Further, the Court noted that the CDR and location chart of the mobile number used by the victim showed that on the night of 9-3-2019 and at the early morning of 9-3-2019, the location of mobile number used by the victim was at the place of alleged incident and the location of the mobile number in the night of 8/9-3-2019 was at the place of alleged occurrence.
The Court opined that in the present case, the victim’s testimony was neither reliable nor trustworthy and reasonable doubts had been raised on the testimony of the witness. Further, there were material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the victim. The Court also opined that the victim had concealed material facts from the Court which made her entire testimony ‘not reliable’. Further, it was opined that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts but had to prove his defence only on preponderance of probability.
The Court held that the accused persons had been able to rebut the presumption of Section 114-A6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by examining themselves in defence and by showing the infirmities in the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the Court acquitted the accused persons of all charges as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
[State (NCT of Delhi) v. X, CNR No. DLSTOl-005514-2019, decided on 18-2-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Harsh Tikoo, Vijaylakshmi Jha, Advocates
For the Victim: Dinesh Kumar Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
3. Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023
4. Corresponding Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS, 2023’)
5. Section 183 of BNSS, 2023
6. Corresponding Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023