IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Judgment: 04.12.2015

CRL.A. 1304/2015

MALTI CHAUHAN …… Appellant
Through Mr.Amit Gaurav Singh,Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS…… Respondents
Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP

CORAM:HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

Crl.M.A.No.17716/2015 (exemption)

1 Exemption is authorised theme to usually exceptions. Application likely of. Crl.M.A.No.17717/2015 (for condonation of check of 20 days)

2 In viewpoint of a averments, done in a application, a check of 20 days in filing a interest is condoned. Application likely of. Crl. A. 1304/2015

3 This interest has been filed by a plant impugning a visualisation antiquated 07.7.2015 wherein a respondent nos.2 and 3 mount acquitted.

4 The benefaction FIR had been purebred pursuant to DD No.28A carrying been perceived in a inner military hire during military hire Sarita Vihar. This was on 22.3.2011. Information was that try of rape had been committed on a plant by her uncle and cousin. Investigation was set into motion. Victim was examined. Her matter underneath Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Certain scratches were remarkable on her body. No inner or outmost injuries were found. There was no uninformed rip of a hymen. The charge in support of a box had examined 15 witnesses. The star declare was a prosecutrix herself. She was examined as PW-2. The matter of a indicted available underneath Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his invulnerability that he has been secretly concerned was examined. The Trial Judge was of a opinion that a plant was not reasoning and convincing in her version; a systematic research and a medical opinion also did not support a chronicle of a prosecution. The indicted persons were accordingly acquitted.

5 Learned warn for a appellant submits that this visualisation has been upheld erroneously. Testimony of PW-2 has not been deliberate in a scold perspective.

6 Version of PW-2 has been scrutinized. Admittedly, in this box detached from a testimony of PW-2 there is no other confirmatory justification as a MLC of a plant and a FSL news do not support a chronicle of a prosecution. As remarkable supra there was no uninformed rip of a hymen. No injuries were remarkable on a victim. The Court had remarkable that a FSL also did not support a chronicle of a charge as nonetheless semen was rescued on a vaginal bandage and trouser of a prosecutrix yet there was no DNA matching; therefore it could not be pronounced that a semen was that of a accused.

7 In this credentials a testimony of PW-2 had been appreciated. PW-2 had on promise settled that a indicted persons Shoram and Umesh were famous to her. Shoram was her uncle and Umesh was her cousin. She was married with one Kuldeep Singh. Her divorce box was pending. On 21.3.2011 she was called by her uncle Shoram during his residence where she found usually her uncle Shoram. She was given cold splash that was laced with some sedative. After holding a cold splash she felt giddy. Her uncle Shoram committed rape on her and also took bare photographs and done video film from his mobile phone. He cramped her wrongfully. At a time of her recover she was threatened not to divulge a occurrence to anyone differently her bare photographs and video film would be circulated. PW-2 did not divulge a occurrence to any person. The indicted Shoram gave a call to her on a successive morning. PW-2 refused to go. Accused threatened her that he would divulge her bare photographs and video film to her father and other family members. PW-2 felt threatened and she went inside a residence of a indicted Shoram where he wrongfully cramped her and committed rape on her opposite her will. At that time her cousin Umesh was also there. She disclosed a occurrence to him. Umesh got hurt with her. He did not concur with her. Police censure was lodged by a plant thereafter. She was medically examined. In another partial of her interrogate she settled that she had deliberately named Umesh as perpetrator of a crime as she was dissapoint with him as he had not taken her side when he was told about a atrocities committed by indicted Shoram on a victim. This declare was cross-examined by a schooled APP for a State. She certified that she had primarily roped in Umesh and this was usually for a reason that he had not toed her line and had not concluded to get a censure lodged opposite Shoram. This had been certified by her in her interrogate that had been effected on her by a schooled APP.

8 In her interrogate by a warn for a indicted Shoram, she certified that she had left to a residence of Shoram on 21.3.2011; no one had seen her possibly entering or entrance out of a house. The censure was lodged on a successive day i.e. on 22.3.2011. No one from her family was ancillary her that is because she had left to a military hire for camp a complaint.

9 Record serve reveals that on 23.3.2011 a prosecutrix had changed an focus Ex.PW-14/DA and filed an confirmation Ex.PW-2/F wherein she had certified that when Shoram called her to a house; no other chairman was present. These contribution were reiterated in her successive confirmation filed by her on 14.5.2011(Ex.PW-2/G) .

10 The Trial Court has appreciated a testimony of a plant in a scold perspective. The interpretation of her testimony has been reproduced herein as under:

“On an research of testimony of a prosecutrix with a papers on record. we find element contradictions and improvements. When she sensitive a military vide DD no.28a, Ex.PW-4/A, she had purported that her cousin had attempted to do wrong with her. In her censure Ex. PW-2/A, she had purported that both a indicted persons had committed rape on her on both a times. During investigation, she had filed affidavits that usually a indicted Shoram not a indicted Umesh had committed rape on her. She had named Umesh given hwas not pressurizing her not to board censure opposite a indicted Shoram. Her MLC does not uncover any inner damage on her person, yet she was examined on a same day of incident. Though she had abrasions on her top behind and indicted Umesh had injury/scratch erosion over behind right scapular segment yet testimony of PW-2 would uncover that PW-2 and Umesh postulated a injuries when a indicted Unesh After meaningful a whole occurrence scolded her. The prosecutrix in her cranky hearing has also certified to have left to accommodate a indicted Umesh in Central Jail and tied him rakhi. The counterclaim of a indicted Shoram that he had seen a prosecutrix with indicted Umesh in some wrong position and when he objected, she secretly concerned in this case, can't all righteously be rejected. Although this fact has been denied by a prosecutrix in her cranky hearing yet her testimony would uncover that she used to pierce with a indicted Umesh alone even outward Delhi. Further, in her initial information to a police, she had purported that Umesh had attempted to do wrong on her.”

11 It was on a basement of this chronicle that a Court has come to a end that a testimony of a prosecutrix being full of fundamental contradictions and a prosecutrix carrying taken opposing stands she could not be termed as a declare of argent apportion and on a basement of a evidence, a Trial Judge has righteously clear a respondent. Appeal is but any merit. Dismissed.