False rape case harms reputation, wastes judicial time

IN THE COURT OF MS.SHAIL JAIN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)­01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

SC NO. : 77/16

STATE
versus
1. Ratan Deep Singh son of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, R/o B­66A, Asha Park, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
2. Gagandeep Singh , son of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, R/o B­66A, Asha Park, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
3. Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny, son of Jugal Kishore, R/o H. No. UB­9, Asha Park, L Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, N. Delhi.

FIR No. :572/14
Offence U/S : 376/380/384/506 IPC
Police Station : Hari Nagar
DATE OF RECEIPT OF FILE AFTER COMMITTAL:07/06/2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:14/10/2016

JUDGMENT

1. Accused persons namely Ratan Deep Singh, Gagan Deep Singh and Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny have been charge sheeted by Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi for the offence under section 376/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) on the allegations that on 03.06.2014, they all in furtherance of their common intention committed rape upon the prosecutrix (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity).

2. After hearing arguments, vide order dated 19.08.2016, charge for offence under section 376 /34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW1.

4. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that earlier she was residing at B­71, FF­Asha Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi with her husband and two daughters . On 21.05.2014, theft have been committed in her house and Rs. 1,20,000/­ of her husband and gold tops of her mother in law were stolen. She further stated that she had friendship with accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu and her husband came to know about her friendship with accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu and he told the prosecutrix that as Manpreet Singh was coming to their house , accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu had committed the theft and her husband told her that if accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu has not committed theft then the prosecutrix must have committed the theft. It is further stated that her husband stated to her that since the theft has been committed in his house, he would lodge an FIR. Thereafter, she went to PS Hari Nagar and made a complaint of theft mentioning that she had a doubt that accused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu had committed the theft . She made her statement to the police and the complaint is Ex. PW1/A, however, she came to know later that complaint u/s 376 IPC has been lodged against acused Manpreet Singh @ Chinu etc. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the accused persons namely Ratandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny have not committed any offence against her and they have not raped her and threatened her. She know the accused persons as they are friends of Manpreet Singh @ Chinu.

READ  MP HC Advises Trial Courts Not To Issue Non-Bailable Warrant At First Instance

5. She further stated that she stated before a madam from NGO and SHO that she wanted to take back her case but they stated that the case is before the court for trial. She was cross examined by the Ld. APP as she turned hostile. During cross­ examination by Ld Additional P.P, prosecutrix had specifically stated that she had implicated the present accused persons at the instance of her relatives, whose names, she does not remember, although they have not committed any offence against her.

6. The prosecutrix, has not supported the case of prosecution. She has deposed that accused persons has not committed any offence against her and thus has not deposed anything incriminating against all the accused persons. .

7. In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the material witness has not supported the prosecution case and no incriminating evidence has come on record against all the accused persons , thus prosecution evidence was closed. There are no other public or material witness to be examined by prosecution. As all other witnesses are either police officials or doctors, who have been part of investigation. Once the incident in question has been denied by the prosecutrix, no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the formal witnesses. Hence prosecution evidence was closed.

8. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the accused persons are dispensed with as nothing incriminating against them have come on record when the prosecutrix is hostile & has stated that the accused persons namely Ratandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny have not committed any offence against her and nothing material has come forth in her cross examination by the prosecution.

9. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against all the accused persons namely Ratandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny beyond reasonable doubt that they had committed rape on the prosecutrix. Hence, accused persons namely Ratandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary @ Sunny are hereby acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under section 376/34 of the IPC. Their personal bond are extended for further six months u/s 437­A Cr.P.C on same terms and conditions.

10. It would not be out of place to mention here, that while statement of prosecutrix was being recorded today itself and prosecutrix had admitted in her examination in chief that accused persons namely Rattandeep, Gagdeen and Yaman Chaudhary have not committed any offence. They have not raped her nor they have threatened her. On this, she was cross­examined at length by Ld Additional P.P. In the cross examination, she has specifically stated that she had physical relations with her free consent with co­accused Manpreet Singh and present accused persons namely Rattandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary were friends of accused Manpreeet Singh and she has falsely implicated these accused persons at the instance of her well wishers. But in fact these persons have not black­mailed her or had raped her.

READ  live-in-relationship Woman is entitled to get interim maintenance?

11. Thus, it is clear from the testimony of prosecutrix examined as PW­1 that she has made false complaint of rape against accused persons knowing fully well that accused persons have not committed any offence against her nor they have committed the offence of rape against her nor they have threatened her or black­mailed her. These facts make it clear that prosecutrix knowing fully well that accused persons have not committed any crime against her, had falsely implicated them in a criminal case of serious nature, due to which, criminal machinery was set into motion and charge sheet was filed against accused persons. She has given false information to the police and forced the police to use it lawful authority to cause injury to the reputation of the accused persons. Further precious time of the court has been wasted in an admitted false case where accused persons were prosecuted and have been finally acquitted today on admission of the prosecutrix.

12. Thus, I am of the opinion that this is clear case of furnishing deliberate false information to the police, a public authority thereby making the police use it lawful authority to cause injury to the reputation of the accused persons. Therefore, I deem it proper to prosecute the prosecutrix for the above mentioned criminal offence in the interest of justice and for making mockery of the judicial system by which precious time of the court has been wasted in conducting the trial of admitted false case, where accused persons have suffered humiliation & distress besides facing expenses for litigation.

13. As I am of the opinion that the prosecutrix has commit­ ted the offence of furnishing false information to the police, a public authority thereby making it use its lawful authority to the injury of the accused, as mentioned above and also ad­ mitted by prosecutrix in her examination in chief and in cross examination by Ld Additional P.P, I deem it to be a fit case for making court complaint against prosecutrix u/s 195 Cr.P.C to the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for prosecution of the prosecutrix for furnishing false information to the police. The complaint against the prosecutrix be made separately and Mr.Hira Singh Latwal, Senior Judicial Assistant­Reader is hereby authorised under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. by the undersigned to make the complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Metropol­ itan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

READ  Whether party can insist court to record common evidence in two suits?

14. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.

15. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in the open Court on (SHAIL JAIN) this 14th October, 2016. Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)­01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

FIR No : 572/14 State Vs Rattandeep Singh etc PS: Hari Nagar 14.10.2016 Present: Sh Pawan Kumar (Sub), Ld Additional P.P. for State. Accused Rattandeep, Gagandeep and Yaman Chaudhary present on bail with counsel Sh V. K. Malhotra.

PW­1 is present, examined and discharged. PW­1 is material witness being prosecutrix. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. As the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by examining other witnesses who are either police officials who have taken part in the investigation or the doctors who have medically examined the prosecutrix or accused persons. Hence PE is closed.

Requirement of recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against the accused.

Vide my separate judgment, the accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 376/34 IPC. As per provisions of order 437 A ­IPC, bail bond of accused persons extended for further six months.

Since the prosecutrix had not supported the case of prosecution and has admitted in the evidence that she had filed the present FIR falsely against the accused persons at the instance of

her well wishers, though they have not committed any offence against her, I am of the opinion that the prosecutrix has committed the offence of furnishing false information to the police, a public authority thereby making it use its lawful authority to the injury of the accused, as mentioned above and also admitted by prosecutrix in her examination in chief and in cross examination by Ld Additional P.P, I deem it to be a fit case for making court complaint against prosecutrix u/s 195 Cr.P.C to the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for prosecution of the prosecutrix for furnishing false information to the police. The complaint against the prosecutrix be made separately and Mr.Hira Singh Latwal, Senior Judicial Assistant­ Reader is hereby authorised under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. by the undersigned to make the complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

File be consigned to record room.

(Shail Jain) (Shail Jain ASJ(Special Fast Track Court)­01 West, THC, Delhi 14/10/2016

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *