SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shiva @ Chandrika vs State on 1 July, 2019

$~
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+CRL.A.1284/2014CRL.M.A.13864/2015

[email protected]…..Appellant
Through:Mr.PramodKumarDubey,
Adv.(DHCLSC)withMrs.
PinkyDubey,Mr.Saurabh
KumarandMs.HarpreetKalsi,
Advs.

versus

STATE…..Respondent
ThroughMs.MeenakshiChauhan,APP
forStatewithSISurender
Singh,PSSector-23,Dwarka,
Delhi

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEC.HARISHANKAR

%JUDGMENT
01.07.2019

1.Thisappeal,[email protected],
callsintoquestionjudgment,dated24thMarch,2014,passedbythe
learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge(hereinafterreferredtoas―the
learnedASJ‖),convictingtheappellantunderSections
344/376/376D/323/506oftheIndianPenalCode,1860(hereinafter
referredtoas―theIPC‖),aswellastheconsequentorder,dated29th
March,2014,wherebythelearnedASJhassentencedtheappellantto

(i)3years’rigorousimprisonment(RI)withfineof₹5000/-,forthe
offenceunderSection344,SectionIPC,withdefaultsentenceof1month’s

CRL.A.1284/2014Page1of65
imprisonment,(ii)1year’sRIfortheoffenceunderSection323,SectionIPC,

(iii)10years’RIfortheoffenceunderSection376,SectionIPC,withfineof₹
25,000/-,withdefaultsentenceof6monthsimprisonment,(iv)20
years’RIfortheoffenceunderSection376D,SectionIPC,withfineof₹
25,000anddefaultsentenceof6months’RIand(v)2years’RIfor
theoffenceunderSection506,SectionIPC,withthefurtherstipulationthat
thesentences(i),(ii),(iii)and(v)wouldrunconcurrently,whereafter
therunningofthesentenceunder(iv)wouldcommence.Effectively,
therefore,theappellanthasbeensentenced,bythelearnedASJ,to30
years’RI,apartfromthestipulationsregardingfineanddefault
sentence.

CaseoftheProsecution

2.Thecaseoftheprosecution,assetoutinthechargesheet,dated
18thJune,2013,filedbeforethelearnedAdditionalChiefMetropolitan
Magistrate(ACMM),maybesummarisedthus.

3.Consequentto,andincomplianceof,thedirectionsissuedby
thesuperiorofficerson23rdMarch,2013,WomanSubInspector(SI)
Parmila(PW-7)madeDDEntryNo.17AandproceededtoHouseNo.
303,BharthalVillage,whereshewasinformedbytheprosecutrix
(PW-1),thata―wrongact‖hadbeencommittedwithher,andthatshe
hadbeeninjuredasshewasbeaten.Sheexpressedherdesiretohave
herselfmedicallyexamined,whereuponSIParmila,accompaniedby
SILokeshKumar(PW-4),reachedtheDDUHospital,wherethe
prosecutrixwasexaminedvideMLCNo.7025/13.Thestatementof

CRL.A.1284/2014Page2of65
theprosecutrixwasrecordedunderSection161oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure(Cr.P.C.),whereinshedeposedthat(i)her
marriagehadtakenplacethirteenyearsearlier,andshehadthree
children,(ii)earlier,sheusedtoworkinRaebareli,(iii)theappellant,
whousedtoworkinthesamepremises,hadanevileyeonher,(iv)on
15thJune,2012,whileshewastravellingfromKanpurtoRaebareli,
andwenttothebathroom,theappellant,whowaspresentthere,
threatenedtokillher,andherhusbandandchildren,andcoveredher
mouthwithahandkerchief,(v)shedidnotrecollectwhathappened
thereafter;however,whensheregainedconsciousness,shefound
herselfinaroomwhich,shelaterlearnt,wasinDelhi,(vi)the
appellantdidnotallowhertoleavethehouse,andusedtoadminister
intoxicatingdrugstoher,whereafterheusedtocommitwrongacts
withher,(vii)healsoestablishedunnaturalcontactwithher,(viii)he
usedtotortureher,mentallyandphysically,(ix)whileleavingthe
house,heusedtolockherinside,andtakethekeywithhim,(x)on
22ndMarch,2013,at9:00PM,theappellant,afterreachinghome,left
thehouseandreturnedatabout11:00PMwithtwoofhisfriends,
whomshedidnotknow,(xi)thesaidtwopersonshadcoveredtheir
facesandwerewearingblackcaps,(xii)oneofthesaidpersonswas
wearingablacktrouserandawhitecheckshirt,whiletheotherwas
wearingasky-blueshirtandacream-colouredtrouser,(xiii)after
enteringtheroom,theyclosedthedoorandswitchedoffthelights,

(xiv)theappellantraisedthevolumeoftheTV,whereafterhethrew
heronthebed,andheldherhands,(xv)whenshebegantoshout,the
appellantcoveredherfacewithacloth,afterwhichhetoldhisfriends
tocommit―wrongact‖withher,(xvi)thereafter,thesaidtwofriends

CRL.A.1284/2014Page3of65
oftheappellantremovedherclothesand,afterwearingcondoms,
committedwrongactwithher,andleft,(xvii)aftertheyhadleft,the
appellantbeatherseverely,andcommitted―wrongact‖withher,
(xviii)theappellantthreatenedherthat,incaseshedisclosedwhathad
transpiredandrefertoanyone,hewouldkillher,(xix)afterthat,at
about11:00AM,shemanagedtosomehowleavethehouse,and
dialled―100‖fromaplaceneartheBijwasanRailwayStation,and
(xx)thereafter,thePolicetookhertothehospitalformedical
examination.Sherequestedthatlegalactionbetakenagainstthe
appellantandhistwofriends,whocommittedwrongactswithher,
againstherwill,andalsotorturedhermentallyandphysically.Inview
oftheaforesaidstatementoftheprosecutrix,SIParmila(PW-7)
preparedatehrir,asoffencesappeartohavebeencommitted,bythe
appellant,underSections323/Section342/Section328/Section366/Section376D/Section377/Section506/Section34,SectionIPC.
Thetehrirwassent,withSILokeshKumar(PW-4),tothePolice
Station,whereFIRwasregistered.SIParmila(PW-7)alsohadthe
prosecutrixmedicallyexamined,videMLCNo.7025/13,attheDDU
Hospital.Thesealedexhibits,providedbythedoctorsattheHospital,
weretakenintocustodybythePolice.Theappellantwas,thereafter,
arrestedandhisdisclosurestatementwasrecorded.Theappellant’s
medicalexaminationwasalsoconductedattheDDUHospital,vide
MLCNo.6992/13.Exhibits,foundatthesceneofcrime,werealso
takenintocustodybythePolice,andSitePlanwasprepared.On24th
March,2013,theappellantwasproducedbeforethelearnedACMM,
andoneday’sPoliceremandwasobtained.Theprosecutrixwassent
toNariNiketan.On25thMarch,2013,theappellantwasremandedto
judicialcustody,andthestatementoftheprosecutrix,underSection

CRL.A.1284/2014Page4of65
164,SectionCr.P.C.,wasrecordedbyMs.SwatiKatiyar,thelearnedMM
(PW-8).Theexhibitsweresent,on2ndApril,2013,forobtaining
expertopinion,totheForensicScienceLaboratory(FSL),videRoad
Certificate(R/C)No.5/21/13.Considerableeffortswereundertaken,
totracethetwootheraccusedpersons,aspertheversionofthe
prosecution,butnoinformationwasreceivedfromanyone.

4.Onthedateoftheaforementionedchargesheet18thJune,2013,
theresultoftheMLCoftheprosecutrixhadnotyetbeenreceived,and
thereportfromtheFSLwasalsoawaited.

5.Thefactsdisclosedbytheprosecutrix,itwasalleged,madeout
acaseofcommissionofoffence,bytheappellant,underSections323/
Section342/Section328/Section366/Section376/Section376D/Section377/Section506/Section34IPC.

6.Astheappellantpleadednotguilty,tothechargesagainsthim,
thecasewassetdownfortrial.

Evidence

Prosecutionwitnesses

7.Thewitnessescitedbytheprosecutioncouldbedividedintothe
followinggroups:

(i)theprosecutrixPW-1,
(ii)Policewitnesses-PW-2HCSatish,PW-4SILokeshKumar

Yadav,PW-6W/Const.SunitaandPW-7W/SIParmila,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page5of65

(iii)witnessesregardingsampling-PW-3Const.ChhatarMal,

(iv)hospitalwitnesses-PW-5Dr.Shweta,PW-9Dr.Soma
MitraandPW-10Dr.ManjeetKumar,and

(v)otherwitnesses-PW-8,thelearnedMM.

Evidenceoftheprosecutrix

StatementofprosecutrixunderSection164,Cr.P.C.

8.Inherstatement,recordedbythelearnedMMunderSection
164,SectionCr.P.C.,theprosecutrixdeposedthat,on15thJune,2012,while
travellingfromKanpurtoRaebarelibytrain,alongwithherhusband
andchildren,shevisitedthetoilet,andfoundtheappellantinside.On
hertryingtoleavethetoilet,theappellantaskedhertokeepquiet,
threateningherthat,else,hewouldkillherhusbandandchildren.
Thereafter,shedeposed,theappellantcoveredhermouthwitha
handkerchief,andshebecameunconscious,whereaftershecouldnot
recollectwhathappenedtillsheregainedconsciousnessandfound
herselflockedinaroom.Onlookingthroughthewindow,shesaw
theboardonaschool,fromwhichshelearntthatshewasinDelhi.
Shedeposedthattheappellantreturnedaboutanhourandhalflater,
and,onherrequestingforbeingallowedtoreturntoherhusbandand
children,severelybeather.Asshewashavingheadache,theappellant
gavehersometablets.Accordingtoherstatement,theappellantoften
usedtogivehertablets,whichputhertosleepforseveralhours,after
which,onawakening,sheusedtofindherselfnakedwithlarge
quantitiesofsemenaroundhervaginalarea,fromwhichshe

CRL.A.1284/2014Page6of65
understoodthattheappellanthadrapedherafterrenderingher
unconscious.Shestated,further,thatshestarteddisposingofthe
tablets,andthat,abouttwotofourmonthslater,sherealizedthatthe
tabletswererenderingherunconscious.Sheallegedthat,duringthis
period,theappellantusedtobeatherseverely,andalsothatheusedto
commitrapeonherevenwhenshewasconscious,threateningtokill
herifshewouldraiseanyalarm.

9.Theprosecutrixfurtherallegedthat,on22ndMarch,2013,at
about11:00PM,theappellantarrivedattheroomwithtwoothermen.
Theappellantclosedtheroom,raisedthevolumeoftheTVtoahigh
levelandswitchedoffthelights.Hepushedherontothebedand,
whenshetriedtoscream,stifledhermouthwithahandkerchiefand
boundherhands.Sheallegedthatthesecondmancoveredhermouth
withthehandkerchiefandthethirdmanstartedpullingatherclothes.
Inthismanner,shealleged,thethreemenrapedherinturns.
Thereafter,thetwoothermenwentawayandtheappellantagain
rapedher.Accordingtoherstatement,thefacesofthetwoothermen
werecoveredwithahandkerchiefandtheyhadblackcapsontheir
heads.Onewaswearingablueshirtandcreamcolouredpantandthe
otherwaswearingablackpantandshirtwithblackandwhitechecks.

10.Theprosecutrixfurtherstatedthat,whensheawokenext
morning,i.e.on23rdMarch,2013,theappellantwaswatchingTV,
andshefoundamobilephoneunderthepillow,whichshepurloined.
Onherexpressingadesiretovisitthetoilet,theappellantagreedbut
saidthathewouldaccompanyher.Shefurtherdeposedthat,on

CRL.A.1284/2014Page7of65
reachingthetoilet,shetoldtheappellantthatshewasclosingthedoor
ofthetoilet,andaskedhimtogoandgethertoothpaste.Duringthe
timetheappellantwenttogettoothpaste,shefledfromthetoilet.She
reachedthenearbyBijwasanRailwayStation,anddialedthePolice,
whoarrived.ShetookthePoliceteamtotheroom,wherethe
appellantwaspackinghisclothes,readytoflee.Shedeposedthatthe
Policealsofoundusedcondoms.Alleging,infine,thattheappellant
hadforciblyhadsexwithher,shestatedthathedeservedtobe
punished,sothathewouldnotrepeatthesameactwithsomeother
girl.

Evidenceoftheprosecutrixduringtrial

11.TestifyingasPW-1,theprosecutrixstatedthat,on15thJune,
2012,she,alongwithherhusbandandchildren,werereturningfrom
KanpurtoRaebarelibytrainandthatwhen,atabout3:00PMshe
visitedthetoilet,shefoundtheappellantpresentinside.Whenshe
turnedandtriedtoleave,theappellantcaughtholdofherhandand
threatenedthat,ifsheraiseanyalarm,hewouldkillherhusbandand
children.He,thereafter,coveredhermouthwithahandkerchief,and
shelostconsciousness.Accordingtoherdeposition,whenshe
regainedconsciousness,shefoundherselfinaclosedroom.On
peepingthroughasmallwholeofthewindow,shenoticedtheboard
ofaschoolontheothersideoftheroad,onreadingwhichherealized
thatshewasinDelhi.Shedeposedthat,aboutanhourandhalflater,
theappellantenteredtheroomandstartedbeatingherand,onher
complainingofaheadache,gaveheratablet,theconsumptionof

CRL.A.1284/2014Page8of65
whichwererenderedherunconscious.Priortobecomingunconscious,
however,accordingtoherdeposition,theappellantcommittedsexual
intercoursewithheragainstherconsent.Thismodusoperandi,
accordingtohertestimony,wasrepeatedonfurtheroccasionsi.e.,the
appellantusedtoadministersometabletstotheprosecutrixand,when
shewasinsemi-consciousstate,usedtocommitunwelcomesexual
intercoursewithher,whereaftershelostconsciousness.Shedeposed
that,onregainingconsciousness,sheusedtofindthatshewasnaked
andthatthereweresemenstainsalloverthebody.Theappellantwas
alsopresentinperson;attimesnakedandatothersclothed.The
prosecutrixfurtherdeposedthattheappellantdidnotpermitherto
leavetheroomand,thoughhetookhertoanearbydoctorattimes
whenshewasfeelingsick,heusedtothreatenhernottodisclosethe
commissionofsexualintercoursewithhereithertothedoctororto
anybodyelse.This,accordingtothetestimonyoftheprosecutrix,
continuedfortwotothreemonths.Oneevening,theappellant
brought,withhim,twootherpersonswhosefaceswerecoveredwith
smallcottontowels.Raisingthevolumeofthetelevision,intheroom,
toaveryhighlevel,theappellant,accordingtothetestimonyofthe
prosecutrix,pushedherontothebedand,whenshestartedtocry,
coveredherfacewithacloth.Thereafter,shedeposed,theappellant
andhistwocompanionsdisrobedher,whereafterthetwoother
personsforciblycommittedsexualintercoursewithheroneafterthe
other,whereaftertheyleft.Afterthis,accordingtoherdeposition,the
appellantalsocommittedsexualintercoursewithheragainsther
consentandalsobeatherseverely,threateningher,allthewhilethat,
ifshenarratedtheincidenttoanyone,hewouldeliminateher.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page9of65

12.Accordingtothetestimonyoftheprosecutrix,thenextmorning,
atabout10:00AM,sheexpressedadesiretovisitthetoilet,which
wasatadistancefromtheroom,whereupontheappellantwentwith
her.Sherequestedtheappellanttobringtoothpaste,forwhichthe
appellantreturnedtothehouse,seizingwhichopportunityshefled.
Nearthehouse,shefoundarailwaystation,fromwhichshedialedthe
police.Thepolicearrivedandrecordedherstatement,underSection
161,SectionCr.P.C.(Ex.PW-1/A).They,thereafter,broughthertothepolice
station,fromwhereshewastakentotheDDUHospitalandmedically
examined.Thedoctortook,intoherpossession,theundergarmentsof
theprosecutrixandalsoobtainedvarioussamplesfromher.She
deposedthat,fromthehospital,shewasbroughtbacktothepolice
stationandwastakenfromthereto―Alpawas‖,wheresheremained
till25thMarch,2013,onwhichdateshewasproducedbeforethe
learnedMM,whorecordedherstatementunderSectionsection164Cr.P.C
(Ex.PW-1/B).Shealsoshowedthepoliceofficialstheroomwhere
shehadbeenconfinedandsexuallyassaultedbytheappellantand
deposed,further,thattheappellantwasarrestedfromthesaidhousein
herpresenceonthesameday,i.e.23rdMarch,2013.Theprosecutrix
furtherdeposedthat,fromthecourt,shewastakentoNariNiketan,
wheresheremainedforabouttwelvetothirteendays.

13.Theprosecutrixwascross-examined.Incross-examination,she
admittedthatherhusbandhadnotlodgedanycomplaintaftershewas
kidnapped,thoughshedeniedthesuggestionthatthiswasbecausethat
herhusbandsuspectedhercharacter.Shefurtherstatedthatthehouse
inwhichshewasinitiallyconfinedbytheappellanthadthreestoreys

CRL.A.1284/2014Page10of65
withtentotwelverooms.Shefurtherstatedthat,afteraboutthree
months,theappellantshiftedhertoanotherhouse,whereshewas
confinedinaroomonthegroundfloor.Shestatedthatthereweresix
tosevenroomsinthehouse.Sheconfessednotknowinghowmany
roomswereonthegroundflooronwhichshewaskept,thoughshe
deposedthatthiswasbecauseshewasina―frightenedstate‖.

14.Aproposthesecondhouseinwhichshewasconfined,the
prosecutrixdeposed,incross-examination,that(i)thereweretwo
doorsintheroominwhichshewasconfined,(ii)thehousehadtwo
maingates,(iii)thegateattherearsideofthehouseusedtobelocked
fromoutside,(iv)thefrontgateusedtobeboltedfrominsidebythe
appellantand(v)therewasaVideoconcolourTVwhichhadbeen
broughtbytheappellantinherpresence.

15.Theprosecutrixadmittedthatsheaccompaniedtheappellantto
anelectronicstorewherehepurchasedaTV,andthatthechoiceof
TVwasherselection,thoughsheaddedthattheappellanthad
threatenedhernottodiscloseherplighttoanyone,failingwhichhe
wouldkillher.Shefurtherdeposed,inhercross-examination,thatthe
appellanthadpurchasedtheT.V.bysellinghergoldandsilver
jewellery.Shefurtherstatedthattheappellanthadtakenher,onfoot,
fromthefirsthousetothesecondhouseandhadbroughtthegoods
fromthefirsthouselateron,thoughsheclarifiedthatshecouldnot
statethedistancebetweenthetwohouses.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page11of65

16.Incross-examination,theprosecutrixfurtherdeposedthatthe
appellantwasnotemployed,andwasnormallyintheroomwithher,
leavingtheroomforjustfivetotenminutes,duringwhichtimehe
usedtolocktheroomfromoutside,though,attimes,heusedtoask
hertoboltthedoorfrominside,statingthathewouldbenearby.

17.Shefurtherdeposedthat,alongwiththepoliceshehadreached
thehouseat11:00AMandhadagainvisitedtheroomwhereshehad
beenconfinedalongwithherhusbandafterwhichshewasreleased
fromNariNiketan,inordertocollectherbelongings.Shefurther
deposedthatthelandlordofthesecondhousewasRambirSingh,
whosewifeusedtocollectrentfromtheappellant.Shefurther
deposed,inhercross-examination,thatshehadreturned,from
Mumbai,aboutoneandhalfmonthsbeforethedatewhenshewas
kidnappedbytheappellantandthat,duringthesaidperiod,shehad
stayedwithherhusbandatherin-laws’houseatRaebareli.She
deposedthat,whileshewasatRaebareli,shewasworkingwitha
women’sorganisation,asanagent,foraboutayearandahalf,and
thattheappellantwasalsoemployedasanagentinthesame
organisation.Theprosecutrixdeniedthesuggestionthattheappellant
hadoncepurchasedarailwayticketforherandherchildrentotravel
toAhmedabad,orthatshehadgonetoLudhianawiththeappellant.
Shealsodeniedthesuggestionthatshe,andtheappellant,had
solemnisedacourtmarriageatDistrictBanda,U.P.andthatshehad
destroyedthemarriagecertificatepertainingthereto.She
acknowledged,incross-examination,that,atthetimeofherbeing
kidnapped,shewastravellinginanovercrowdedgeneral

CRL.A.1284/2014Page12of65
compartment,andthatthereweremanypersonsstandingoutsidethe
toilet,whenshehadsoughttovisitit.Shefurtherdeposedthather
husbandhadinformedthat,whenhereachedthetoilettolookforher,
hewastoldbythepersonsstandingoutsidethetoiletthatshehadbeen
takenbyanotherpersonbycoveringhermouthwithahandkerchief.

18.Shefurtherdeposedthattheappellantusedtoadministertwoto
threetablets,toher,duringtheday,inordertorenderhersemi-
consciousandthat,aftertakingthetablets,sheusedtoremain
unconsciousforthreetofourhours.Shefurtherdeposedthatthe
appellantusedtocommitsexualintercourse,withher,threetofour
timesinadayandthat,duringtheperiodofherconfinement;the
appellantdidnotpermithertotalktoherhusbandonphone.

19.Theprosecutrixalsodeniedhavingstated,tothepolice,thatshe
hadseentheappellantwhenshecameoutoftoilet,though,inher
statementunderSection161Cr.P.C.,shehadsostated.The
prosecutrixalsodeniedthesuggestionthatshehadfiledacaseagainst
herhusbandintheRaebareliandtestifiedthat,infact,theappellant
hadfiledthesaidcase,inhername,againstherhusband,byforging
hersignaturesonthepetition.

Policewitnesses

PW-7Const.Parmila

20.OnemayfirstadverttothestatementoftheIOConst.Parmila,
whotestifiedasPW-7.Herstatementwasrecordedtwice,firstlyon
21stNovember,2013and,later,on10thFebruary,2014.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page13of65

21.Inherstatementdated21stNovember,2013,PW-7Const.
Parmiladeposedthat,on23rdMarch,2013,whenshereachedHouse
No.303,BharthalVillage,shefoundSILokesh(PW-4)andConst.
RadheyShyamalreadypresentthere,alongwiththeprosecutrixand
theappellant.Shedeposedthattheprosecutrixcomplainedthatshe
hadbeenrapedbytheappellant,andthatshewasinjuredandin
intensepain.She,thereupon,hadtheprosecutrixexaminedatthe
DDUHospital,wheresherecordedthestatementoftheprosecutrix,
underSection161Cr.P.C.(Ex.PW-1/A),andpreparedtheRukka,on
thebasisofwhichFIRwasregistered.Shedeposedthatthedoctors,at
theHospital,handedover,toConst.Sunita(PW-6),12sealed
pullandasalongwithonesampleseal,whichwereseized,bythe,vide
SeizureMemoEx.PW-4/A.Thereafter,shereturned,atabout10:30
PM,toHouseNo.303,whereshepreparedtwopullandas,one
containingatowel,bedsheet,mattressandGudri,andthesecond
containingusedcondoms.Bothweresealedwiththeseal‗PK’and
seizedvideSeizureMemoEx.PW-4/B.Shefurtherdeposedthatshe
arrestedtheappellantvideArrestMemoEx.PW-4/Candrecordedhis
DisclosureStatement,whichwasexhibitedasEx.PW-4/E.The
accusedpointedoutthespotofincident,whichwasrecorded,videher,
videPointingOutMemoEx.PW-4/F.Thereafter,deposedPW-7,the
prosecutrixwassenttoNariNiketan,andtheappellantwassenttothe
Hospitalformedicalexamination.Afterhismedicalexamination,
Const.RadheyShyamreturned,fromthehospital,withthree
pullandasandonesampleseal,givenbythedoctor,whichwere

CRL.A.1284/2014Page14of65
seized,byher,videSeizureMemoEx.PW-4/G.Allexhibits,she
deposed,weredepositedintheMalkhana.

22.PW-7furtherdeposedthat,on21stNovember,2013,she
recordedthesupplementarydisclosurestatementoftheappellant,
whichwasexhibitedasEx.PW-4/Hand,on25thMarch,2013,the
prosecutrixwasproducedbeforethelearnedMMwhereherstatement,
underSection164,SectionCr.P.C.wasalsorecorded.Asshestatedthatthe
exhibits,sent,byher,totheFSL,hadnotyetbeenreceivedback,her
furtherstatementwasdeferred.She,however,testifiedtohavingfiled
thechargesheetinthecourt,onconclusionofinvestigation,andalso
identifiedtheappellantinCourt.

23.On10thFebruary,2014,theMHC(M)produced2pullandas,
sealedwiththesealoftheFSL,whichcontainvariousitems,which
wereidentifiedbyPW-7ashavingbeenseized,byher,attheplaceof
occurrence.Theywere,therefore,accordedseparateExhibitnumbers.

24.PW-7wascross-examined.Incross-examination,shedeposed
that,whenshehadreachedHouseNo.303on23rdMarch,2013,she
foundtheprosecutrixweepingandterrified.Shefurtherdeposedthat
theprosecutrixhadtoldherthatshehadstolenthemobileofthe
appellantandusedittotelephonethePolicefromtheBijwasan
RailwayStation.ShetestifiedthatthedistancebetweentheHouseNo.
303andBijwasanRailwayStationwas600to700meters.PW-7
furtherconfirmedthatshehadnotaskedtheprosecutrixwhereshehad
keptthemobile,orseizedit.Shefurtherdeposedthatthetwoother

CRL.A.1284/2014Page15of65
persons,who,theprosecutrixalleged,hadcommittedgangrapeon
her,couldnotbetracedandthattheprosecutrixstatedthat,astheir
faceswerecovered,shewouldnotbeinapositiontorecognisethem.
Shenotedthefact,inherdeposition,thattheappellanthad,onthe
otherhand,deniedtheallegationthathewasaccompaniedbyany
otherperson.Inhercross-examinationPW-7furtherconfirmedthat
theprosecutrixhadbeenstayingwiththeappellantintheroomat
HouseNo.303forthepastsixtosevenmonths,thoughthe
prosecutrixstatedthat,priorthereto,shewasstayingatanotherhouse
fortwotothreemonths.She,however,didnotprovidetheaddressof
thesaidotherpremiseswhereshewaslodged.

PW-6Const.Sunita

25.Theexamination-in-chiefofPW-6,Const.Sunita,was
substantiallyidenticaltothatofPW-7Const.Parmila.She,too,
identifiedtheappellantcorrectlyincourt.

26.Incross-examination,however,PW-6ConstSunita,onbeing
queried,admittedthatConst.Parmila(PW-7)didnotaskanyofthe
othertenantstojoinintheinvestigation,andstated,inthesame
breath,thatshedidnotknowwhetherPW-7hadmadeanyinquiry
fromtheothertenants,thoughsheadmittedhavingbeenwithher
throughouttheday.Shealsodeposedthatshedidnotrecollect
whethertheothertenantswerepresentinthehousewhentheyreached
there.Regardingtheprosecutrix,PW-6acknowledgedthat,whenthey

CRL.A.1284/2014Page16of65
tookhertothehospital,shewasnotbleeding,andtherewasno
externalinjuryonherbody.

PW-4SILokesh

27.PW-4SILokeshdeposed,duringtrial,that,on23rdMarch,
2013,hereachedHouseNo.303,wherehemettheprosecutrix,who
allegedthatshehadbeenbeatenandrapedbythreepersonsthe
previousnight-i.e.,thenightbetween22ndand23rdMarch,2013.
Theappellantwasalsopresentatthetime.PW-4furtherdeposedthat,
onhearingthesaidcomplaintoftheprosecutrix,hecalledtheSHO,
whereuponConst.Parmila(PW-7)reachedthespot,fromwherethey
tooktheprosecutrix,formedicalexamination,totheDDUHospital,
wherethestatementoftheprosecutrix,underSection161Cr.P.C.,was
recordedbyConstParmila(PW-7).Onthebasisthereof,PW-7
Const.Parmilapreparedtherukka,onthebasisofwhichFIRwas
registeredbyhimatthePoliceStation.Hedeposedthat,afterhaving
theFIRregistered,hereturnedtotheHospital,wherehehandedover
theFIRandcopyoftherukkatoPW-7Const.Parmila.

28.PW-4furtherdeposedthat,afterthemedicalexaminationofthe
prosecutrixwasconcluded,thedoctoratthehospitalhandedover,to
Const.Sunita(PW-6),twelvepullandasandasampleseal,which
weresubsequentlyseizedbyPW-7Const.ParmilavideSeizureMemo
ExPW-4/A.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page17of65

29.FromtheHospital,deposedPW-4,theyreturnedtoHouseNo.
303,fromwheretheypreparedasinglepullandaoftwo
packets/packages,onecontainingabedsheet,mattress,toweland
Gudri,andtheotherpacketofusedcondoms,whichwereseizedvide
SeizureMemoPW-4/B.Theappellantwassubsequentlyarrestedvide
ArrestMemoExPW-4/C,hisdisclosurestatement(ExPW-4/E)was
recordedbyPW-7andthePointingOutMemo,recordingthepointing
out,bytheaccused,ofthespotofoccurrence,wasrecordedasEx
PW-4/F.Theappellantwas,thereafter,takentotheHospital,where
hewasmedicallyexamined,andthethreesealedpullandas,provided
bythedoctor,wereseizedvideSeizureMemoExPW-4/G.

30.PW-4furthertestifiedthattheappellantwasproduced,inCourt,
on24thMarch,2013,andremandedtooneday’sPoliceCustody,
duringwhichhissupplementarydisclosurestatement(ExPW-4/H)
wasrecordedbyConst.Parmila(PW-7).On25thMarch,2013,the
appellantwasproducedinCourt,andremandedtojudicialcustody.
Onthesameday,theprosecutrixwasproducedinCourt,andher
statement,underSection164Cr.P.C.,wasrecordedbythelearned
MM.

31.PW-4correctlyidentifiedtheappellantincourt.Asthereport
oftheFSLwasawaited,hisexamination-in-chiefwasconcluded,with
libertytolearnedCounselfortheprosecutionaswellastheappellant
torecallhimforfurtherexaminationifneedarose.Hewasnot,
however,recalled.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page18of65

32.Incross-examination,PW-4acknowledgedthatHouseNo.303
hadtentotwelverooms,allofwhichweretenanted,andthattheyhad
acommontoilet.Hefurtheragreedthattheappellantwasnothaving
anyexternalinjurieswhenhemether,thoughshewasweeping.He
alsodeposedthatnoneofthetenants,residinginthehouse,wasaware
ofanyrapehavingbeencommitted.

PW-2HCSatish

33.HCSatish,deposingasPW-2,testifiedtohavingbeenhanded
over,at4:30PMon23rdMarch,2013,therukka,bySILokesh(PW-

4),onthebasisofwhichheregisteredFIRNo.69/13againstthe
appellant,underSections323/Section342/Section376D/Section377/Section506/Section34IPC(ExPW-
2/A).Incross-examination,hedeposedthathecouldnotstate
whethertheoverwriting,atpoint‗X’intherukka,wasbeforethe
rukkawassenttohim,orthereafter.Thesaid―overwriting‖,itmaybe
noted,wasregardingthefigure―22‖,intheperiodofcommissionof
theoffence,asnotedatthefootoftherukka,as―15June2012to
22/3/13uptoabout11PM‖.Acarefullookatthesaidalleged
―overwriting‖doesnot,however,indicatethatitwas,inreality,
overwritten.Inmyopinion,nothingturnsonthesaidalleged
―overwriting‖.

Witnessesregardingsampling-PW-3Const.ChhatarMal

34.PW-Const.ChhatarMaldeposed,duringtrial,that,on2nd
April,2013,hehadreceivedseventeensealedpullandasalongwith

CRL.A.1284/2014Page19of65
twosamplesealsfromtheMHC(M)anddepositedthemintheFSL,
andobtainedacknowledgementthereagainst,whichhehandedoverto
theMHC(M).Hesworethatthepullandasremainedintactwhilein
hiscustody.Incross-examination,PW-3confirmedthatfifteen
pullandashadthesealoftheCMO,DDUHospital,whiletwohadthe
seal‗PK’.

HospitalWitnesses

35.Dr.Shweta,MedicalOfficerattheDDUHospital,testifyingas
PW-5,deposed,duringtrial,that,on23rdMarch,2013,theprosecutrix
hadbeenbroughttotheHospitalbyConst.Sunita(PW-6),with
allegedhistoryofphysicalandsexualassault,andthattheprosecutrix
hadbeenexaminedbyDr.Anuragunderhermedicalsupervision.She
provedtheMLCpreparedbyDr.Anurag,whichwasaccordingly
exhibitedasExPW-5/A,statingthatsheidentifiedthesignatureofDr.
Anurag.Shefurthertestifiedthattheprosecutrixhad,thereafter,been
referredtotheObg/GynaeDepartmentoftheHospitalforfurther
examination.Incross-examination,PW-5deniedthesuggestionthat
theprosecutrixwasnothavinganyexternalinjuryandthattheinjuries
mentionedintheMLCweremerelyasperthestatementofthe
prosecutrix.

36.InjuxtapositionwiththeevidenceofPW-5Dr.Shweta,PW-9,
DrSomaMitra,proved,duringtrial,theentriesmadebyDr.
Tabassum,SeniorResident(Gynae)intheHospital,intheMLCofthe

CRL.A.1284/2014Page20of65
prosecutrix(ExPW-9/A).Shetestifiedthatsherecognizedthe
handwritingofDr.Tabassum,whohadsincelefttheHospital.

37.Dr.ManjeetKumar,SeniorResident(Casualty),DDUHospital,
whohadconductedtheMLCoftheappellant,testified,duringtrial,as
PW-10.Hedeposedthat,on24thMarch,2013,theappellanthadbeen
broughttothehospitalbyConst.RadheyShyamandthathehad
conductedhismedicalexamination,inconnectionwithFIRNo.
69/13.Heconfirmedthathedidnotfindanythingtosuggestthatthe
appellantwasnotcapableofperformingthesexualact,butstatedthat
theappellantcouldnotgiveasemensample.HeprovedtheMLCof
theappellant,aspreparedbyhim,whichwasexhibitedasEx.PW-
10/A.Healsodeposedthathehadhandedoversamplesoftheblood
andpubichairoftheappellant,aswellastheappellant’s
undergarments,totheI/Oinasealedcondition.Hewasnotcross-
examined,despitegrantofopportunity.

MLCofprosecutrixandappellant

38.Injuxtapositionwiththeoralevidence,duringtrial,ofthe
abovereferredhospitalwitnesses,itwouldbeappropriate,atthisstage
itself,torefertotheMLCsoftheprosecutrixandtheappellant.

39.ThedetailedMLCoftheprosecutrix,aswrittenbyDr.
Tabassum,readthus:

―UPT-Negative

C/S/BS/R-OBGY

CRL.A.1284/2014Page21of65
33yrslady/……

WithA/H/osexualandphysicalassaultbyShivaalias
Chandrika29yrs/MandtwoothermalefriendsofShiva
(namesofwhichisnottoSunita)toW.Ct.SunitaNo.
2775…medicalandgynaecologicalexamination

Accordingto(prosecutrix)shewastravellingintrainon
15/06/12fromKanpurtoRaebareillywithherhusband
andthreechildren.Shewenttowashroom,whereShiva
threatenedherwithkillingherhusbandandchildrenand
kidnappedherafterusingsomedrugwithhandkerchief.

(Prosecutrix)doesnotrememberanythingafterthat.
Whenshegainedconsciousness,shefoundherselfina
roominwhichlatershecametoknowwasinDelhi.

Shecontactedherhusbandandherfamily3monthsafter
beingkidnapped;butthefamilyrefusedtoacceptherand
soshecontinuedlivingwithShiva.

Sheusedtotalktoherhusbandandalsosometimesto
herchildrenandparentsbutnoneofthemwerereadyto
accepther.

Shivausedtogivehersomemedicationsdailyafter
whichsheusedtobecomedrowsynotremember
anything.

Heusedtohavesexualintercoursewithheraftergiving
herthedrugandalsophysicallyassaulther.Shegives
H/oinjurytolefteyedurigassaultbyShiva1½months
backforwhichshehadtakenmedicaltreatment.

Heusedtosexuallyassaultherdailyandejaculateinher
vagina.

ShealsogivesH/ooralandanalintercourse(penetration)
andejaculation.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page22of65

Heusedtoalsoassaultheronherbreastsandotherbody
partsduringtheact.

Lastnight(22/03/13ataround11pm),Shivagottwo
othermalecompanionswhosexuallyandphysically
assaultedheronebyoneusingcondom.

ShegivesH/ovaginalpenetrationbybothmalesusing
condom.Herclotheswereremovedandshewasmade
nudebeforetheassault.

ButnoH/oanyoraloranalpenetration.

Afterthis,Shivaalsosexuallyandphysicallyassaulted
heranddidvaginalpenetrationwithoutusingcondom.

Afterwhichhelockedherinsidearoom,whenboththe
malesleft.

Inthemorning,(prosecutrix)lockedherselfinthe
washroomandwhenshivaleftthehouse,sheranaway
fromthereandreachedBijwasanstationandcalled100
no.(Police)andseekedhelp.

ShegivesH/opassingurineandstoolsafterincident.

NoH/otakingbathaftertheincident.

C/opaininlowerabdbackalsointhepinealregion.

NoH/ovomitingorbleeding.

NoH/oanyothercomplaints.

O/G

G.C.Avg;afeb

Pt.consciousorientedtotime/place/person

P/R-80/min

CRL.A.1284/2014Page23of65
BP-110/70mmHg

CVS/RS/NAD

P/A-Soft,NoG/R/T;Noorganomegaly

Suprapubic….(illegible)

C/Ex-Noobviouspinealinjuryorbleedingfromany
site

P/S:Cxerosion.Foulsmellingdischarge(+)

P/V:Ex↑
UtR/V;MPSP/VF/M/R;B/LFxfree;NT

Noobviousrectalinjury

Noobviousinjuryonanyotherbodypart.

NoC/obleedingfromanysite.

NoC/oseminalstainatanyothersite.

Samplescollected

Bloodsamples

1)Plainvial:2ccforBGotherinv
2)EDTAvialforDNA
3)NaFforalcoholotherintoxicant
4)outerclothes-greycoloursalwar
5)innerclothes:-browncolourpanty
6)Hairstrands
7)Nailscrapings
8)Nailclippings
9)Pubichairclipping
10)2vulvalswabs
11)2vaginalswabs
12)2vaginalsmears

CRL.A.1284/2014Page24of65
13)2rectalswabs

SealedhandedovertoW.Ct.Sunita.‖

40.TheMLCoftheappellant(ExPW-10/A),totheextentitwas
relevant,merelystatedthattherewasnofreshexternalinjuryseenat
thetimeofexamination,andthattherewasnothingtosuggestthathe
couldnot―performsexualact‖.Itwasnoted,however,thatthe
appellantcouldnotgiveasemensampleandthat,therefore,hisblood
gauzesample,undergarmentandsampleofpubichairweresealedand
labeledandhandedovertotheIO.

Otherwitnesses-PW8,thelearnedMM

41.ThelearnedMMwhohadrecordedthestatementofthe
prosecutrix,underSection164oftheCr.P.C.,merelytestifiedasto
therecordingofthestatementandthefactthattheprosecutrixhad
beenidentifiedbyPW7SIParmila.Sheconfirmedthatthe
prosecutrixhadherselfdictatedthestatementinnarrativeform.

FurtherEvidence

ForensicEvidence

42.ThereportoftheFSL,regardingthesamplessenttoit,was
tenderedinevidence,bythelearnedAPP,on10thFebruary,2014,and
exhibitedasExPA.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page25of65

43.AspertheFSLreport,interalia,humansemenwasdetectedin

(i)thesalwaroftheprosecutrix,(ii)theunderwearoftheprosecutrix,

(iii)thevulvalswaboftheprosecutrix,(iv)thevaginalswabsofthe
prosecutrix,bothdeepandanterior,(v)thevaginalsmearofthe
prosecutrix,(vi)thebedsheetseizedfromHouseNo.303and(vii)the
usedcondom.ThereportfurthercertifiedthattheDNAprofileofthe
semenfoundonthesalwar,underwear,vulvalswabandvaginalswab
oftheprosecutrix,aswellasthesemenfoundonthebedsheetseized
fromHouseNo.303,matchedwiththatoftheappellant.However,
theDNAprofileofthesemenfoundontheusedcondomwasfoundto
bedissimilartotheDNAprofilegeneratedfromthesaidexhibits.
Thesemenfoundontheusedcondomwasnot,therefore,thatofthe
appellant.

StatementofappellantunderSection313,Cr.P.C.

44.Inhisstatement,underSection313oftheCr.P.C.,the
appellant,whilebaldlydenyingmostoftheallegationsputtohim,as
―incorrect‖,admitted,as―correct‖,thesuggestionthathehadtaken
theprosecutrix,twiceorthrice,toanearbydoctoronfoot,whenshe
wasfeelingsickand,onthesaidoccasions,―usedtothreatenhernot
todisclosetheincidentsofsexualintercourseeithertothedoctoror
anybodyelse‖.Healsodeniedhavingtravelledinthetrain,from
KanpurtoRaebareli,inwhichtheprosecutrixwastravelling,insisting
thathewasinDelhionthesaiddate.Hedeniedknowledgeoftherape
oftheprosecutrix,orofherhavingsustainedinjuriesintheprocess.
HedeniedhavingmadeanydisclosurestatementtoPW-7SIParmila,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page26of65
orhavingpointedouttheplaceofincident.Hedeniedtheveracityof
thePointingOutMemoEx.PW-4/F,orthefactthatitwaspreparedat
hisinstance.HeallegedthattheFSLreport(Ex.PA)wasafalse
report,andfurtherallegedthathehadbeenfalselyimplicated,
allegingthat,in2009,theprosecutrix,alongwithherchildren,had
voluntarilycometohisroom,asshehadbeenthrownoutofthe
matrimonialhome,andhadremainedthereforaboutoneweek.He
deniedhavingeverhadsexualintercoursewiththeprosecutrix,and
allegedthatthecaseagainsthimhadbeencreatedbytheprosecutrix
attheinstanceofthehusband,whorefusedtoacceptherbackunless
shelodgedacomplaintagainsthim.Hestatedthathedidnotdesireto
leadanydefenceevidence,andthathewasinnocent.

TheimpugnedjudgmentofthelearnedASJ

45.ThelearnedASJ,intheimpugnedjudgment,hasobservedit
wasnotbelievablethattheprosecutrixwouldhavebeenkidnapped
fromacrowdedtraincompartment,bytheappellant,asshehad
alleged.Inthisconnection,thelearnedASJhasnotedthefactthatthe
prosecutrixwasaround30yearsofageatthetime,and,apartfromthe
factthatthegrown-upladycouldnotbetakenawayfromacrowded
traincompartmentinsuchafashion,thelearnedASJobservesthat―it
wouldnotbepossibleforapersontocarryaladyinanunconscious
statefromarailwaystationbetweenKanpurandRaebareliuptoDelhi
withoutbeingnoticedbyanypersonincludingpoliceofficials‖.In
thisconnection,thelearnedASJhasalsonotedthefactthatno
complainthadbeenlodged,regardingtheprosecutrixbeingmissing,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page27of65
eitherbyherhusbandorbyanyofherfamilymembers,tillshewas
recoveredbythePoliceon23rdMarch,2013.Inthesecircumstances,
thelearnedASJholdsthattheprosecutrix―mayhavegonetothe
accusedonherownandvoluntarily‖,andthatshe―wasnotforcedor
druggedbytheaccused‖.Consequentonthesefindings,thelearned
ASJhasdroppedthechargesunderSections328andSection366oftheIPC,
asframedagainsttheappellant.

46.ThelearnedASJgoesontohold,however,thatitwasthe
consistentstatementoftheprosecutrixthat,afteradministeringher
somesubstance,whichrenderedherunconscious,onaregularbasis,
theappellanthadbeencommittingsexualintercoursewithher,
withoutherconsent.Heobservesthat,merelybecausetheevidence
ledbytheprosecutrixindicatedthatshemayhavegonetothe
appellantvoluntarilyandonherown,itdidnotimplyorconstruethat
shehadgonetohimtoenjoysexualrelations,andthatthereasonfor
hertoleaveherhusbandandchildrencouldhavebeensomethingelse,
―maybeamaritaldiscordetc.‖.

47.Proceedingtherefrom,thelearnedASJnoticedthefactthat,as
pertheDNAreport(Ex.PA)oftheFSL,humansemen,theDNAof
whichmatchedthatoftheappellant,wasfoundonthesalwar,
underwear,vulvalswab,vaginaswabandvaginalsmearofthe
prosecutrix.Thisevidence,notesthelearnedASJ,establishedthefact
thattheappellanthadsexualintercoursewiththeprosecutrixavery
shorttimebeforeshewasfoundbythePoliceandsentformedical
examination.ThefactthattheDNAofthesemenfoundintheused

CRL.A.1284/2014Page28of65
condomwasdissimilartotheDNAgeneratedfromtheaboveexhibits,
heholds,alsoprovedthattheprosecutrixhadbeensubjectedtosexual
intercourse,notonlybytheappellant,butbysomeotherpersonsas
well,whohadusedthecondomwhichisseizedfromtheroomofthe
appellant.ThelearnedASJholdsthattheseconclusions,ofhis,were
alsoinlinewiththeevidenceoftheprosecutrixherself.

48.ThelearnedASJthenproceedstoinvokeSection114Aofthe
IndianEvidenceAct,1897(hereinafterreferredtoas―theSectionEvidence
Act‖),holdingthat,onceitwasprovedbytheprosecutionthatsexual
intercoursebetweentheappellantandtheprosecutrix,aswellas
betweensomeotherpersonintheprosecutrix,hadtakenplaceon22nd
March,2013,andtheprosecutrixhadbeenconsistentlyallegingthatit
wasagainstherconsent,theCourtwasboundtopresumelackof
consent,theonuslyingontheappellanttorebutthepresumptionand
establishthatthesexualintercoursebetweenhimandtheprosecutrix,
asalsobetweentheprosecutrixinthesaidotherpersons,was
consensual.Nosuchevidenceofconsent,itisobserved,hadbeenled
bytheappellant,who,inhisstatementunderSection313,SectionCr.P.C.,
hadsoughttoadheretothestandthathehadnotcommittedsexual
intercoursewiththeprosecutrixatanypointoftime-astandwhich,
notesthelearnedASJ,stoodfalsifiedbytheDNAreport.Thelearned
ASJhasrejectedthesubmissionthattheprosecutrixwasvoluntarily
havingsexualrelationswiththeappellantonthereasoningthat,ifthis
wereso,therewasnoreasonforhertosuddenlycallthePoliceon
23rdMarch,2013.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page29of65

49.Followingontheabovereasoning,thelearnedASJfindsthe
chargeoftheprosecutrixhavingbeenforciblysubjectedtosexual
intercoursebytheappellant,aswellasotherpersons(on22ndMarch,
2013),standsproved.Healsoholdstheallegationoftheappellant
havingregularilybelabouredtheprosecutrixtobeestablished.The
chargeunderSection377IPC,though,hasbeenheldtobe
unsubstantiated.

50.ThelearnedASJhas,therefore,convictedtheappellantunder
Sections344,Section376,Section376(D),Section323andSection506oftheIPC,whileacquitting
himofthechargesunderSections328,Section366andSection377thereof.

SubmissionsoflearnedCounselbeforethisCourt

51.Arguingonbehalfoftheappellant,Mr.PramodKumarDubey
advancedthefollowingsubmissions:

(i)TheFSLreportcouldnotbereliedupon,astheauthorof
thereporthadnotbeenexamined.

(ii)Theseizurememo,quathecondom,hadnotbeen
proved.

(iii)Therewasadelayoftwoweeksinsendingthesamples
totheFSLforanalysis.

(iv)Inthefactsofthecase,consent,onthepartofthe
prosecutrix,wasboundtobeinferred,especiallyasthe

CRL.A.1284/2014Page30of65
prosecutrixandtheappellanthadcohabitedforninemonthsin
thesamepremises.

(v)Thedeposition,duringthetrial,oftheprosecutrixtothe
effectthat,onopeningthedoorofthetoilet,shefoundthe
appellantinside,couldnotbebelieved,astherewasnothingto
indicatehowtheappellantwasawarewhichtoiletthe
prosecutrixwoulduse.

(vi)Neithercouldherfurtherstatement,inthesame
testimony,thatshecouldnotunderstand,properly,whatwas
writteninEnglishontheboardoftheschooloppositetheroom
whereshewasconfined,couldnotbebelieved,asshehadhad
passedher12thclassandwasworkingwiththeLIC.

(vii)Whileasserting,inherexamination-in-chief,duringtrial,
thattheappellantdidnotallowtheprosecutrixtogooutsidethe
room,sheadmitted,inhercross-examination,thatshehad
accompaniedtheappellantforbuyingaTV,whichwasselected
asperherchoice.

(viii)Though,inherexamination-in-chief,theprosecutrix
allegedthatthetwopersons,whohadbeenbroughtbythe
appellanton22ndMarch,2013,hadpulledoffherclothes,no
suchclotheswererecoveredbythePolice.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page31of65

(ix)Itcouldnotbebelievedthattheappellanthad―foundthat
therewasarailwaystationnearby‖,onlyafterhavingstayedin
thesamehouseforninemonths.

(x)Theallegation,theprosecutrix,thattheappellantusedto
commitsexualintercourse,withher,threetofourtimesaday,
couldnotbebelieved.

(xi)Therecoverymemoofthecondom(Ex.PW-4/B),not
havingbeensignedbyeithertheprosecutrixortheappellant,
wasnotadmissibleinevidence.

AnalysisandFindings

Factumofsexualintercourse,betweenappellantandprosecutrix,
standsproved

52.IntheopinionofthisCourt,theresultoftheDNAprofilingof
thesemenfoundatvarioussites,asreportedbytheFSL,canleaveno
mannerofdoubtregardingtheactualphysicalfactofsexual
intercourse,betweentheappellantandtheprosecutrix,havingtaken
place.The―ResultsofDNAAnalysis‖,ascontainedinthereportof
theFSL(Ex.PA)clearlystatedthat―maleDNAprofilegenerated
fromsourceofEx.‗20′(Bloodgauzeoftheaccused)wasaccounted
inthemixedDNAprofilegeneratedfromthesourceofEx.‗1′
(Salwarofprosecutrix),whereasMaleDNAprofilegeneratedfrom
thesourceofexhibits‗2′(Underwearofprosecutrix),‗10′,‗12′
(vulvalandvaginalswabofprosecutrix)and‗19a'(Bedsheet)were

CRL.A.1284/2014Page32of65
foundtobesimilartotheDNAprofilegeneratedfromthesourceof
Ex.‗20′(bloodongauzeoftheaccused).Theallegeddata,enclosed
withthesaidReport,bearsoutthesefindings.ThoughtheFSLreport
wastenderedinevidence,bylearnedAPP,beforethelearnedASJon
10thFebruary,2014andexhibitedasEx.PA,theappellantdidnot
choosetocontrovertorquestionthefindingstherein.

53.Itcannot,therefore,bedisputedthattheappellantdid,infact,
commitsexualintercoursewiththeprosecutrix,andthisCourtentirely
endorsesthefindingsofthelearnedASJ,tothisextent.The
submission,oftheappellant,thathehadneverhadsexwiththe
prosecutrixis,therefore,rejected.

Kidnapping-Section366,IPC

54.ThisCourtalsoentirelyendorsesthefinding,ofthelearned
ASJ,totheeffectthattheallegationoftheappellanthavingkidnapped
theprosecutrixfromthetrain,isnotproved,andisinherently
unbelievable.Thoughthereisnosignificantinconsistency,regarding
thesaidallegation,asitfiguresinthestatementoftheprosecutrix,
underSection161oftheCr.P.C.,Section164oftheCr.P.C.,her
examination-in-chiefduringtenderingofevidenceintrial,theversion
oftheincidentasrelatedtotheDoctorattheHospitalandasrecorded
intheMLCoftheprosecutrix(Ex.PW-9/A),thisCourtagreeswith
thelearnedASJthattheallegationofkidnappingcannot,however,
sustain.Theprosecutrix,incross-examinationduringtrial,accepted
thatthecompartment,fromwhichshewassupposedlykidnapped,was

CRL.A.1284/2014Page33of65
anovercrowdedGeneralcompartmentofthetrain,andthat,atthesaid
time,manypersonswerestandingoutsidethetoilet,fromwhichshe
wasallegedlykidnapped.Shewentontostate,incross-examination,
thatherhusbandtoldherthatthesaidpersons(whowerestanding
outsidethetoilet),onbeingqueriedbyhim,statedthatshehadbeen
takenbyapersonbycoveringhermouthwithahandkerchief.Itis
impossibletobelievethatsuchanincidenttookplaceinacrowded
Generalcompartmentofthetrain,withoutanyoneraisingany
objection.Significantly,theprosecutrixalsoadmitted,incross-
examination,thatherhusbanddidnotlodgeanycomplaintwiththe
Policeauthorities,aftershehadbeenallegedlykidnapped,evenwhile
denyingthesuggestionthattherewasanyillwillbetweenher
husbandandherself.Ifoneweretobelievetheversionofthe
prosecution,therefore,itwouldappearthat,fromacrowdedGeneral
classtraincompartment,theappellant,single-handedly,renderedthe
prosecutrixunconscious,atorinthetoiletofthecompartment,inthe
presenceofanumberofpassengers,andboldlycarriedher,in
unconsciousstate,tohishouseatDelhi,withoutanyoneraisingany
objection,muchlessanyalarm.ThelearnedASJhas,quiterightly,
refusedtoacceptthatthiscouldhaveoccurred,andthisCourt
endorsesthefindingsofthelearnedASJ,onthisscoreaswell.The
appellanthas,therefore,rightlybeenacquittedofthechargeunder
Section366oftheIPC,andthisCourtupholdsthesaidfinding.

55.Thereis,therefore,noexplanation,whatsoever,fortheperiod
duringthetimewhentheprosecutrixleftherhusbandandchildrento
visitthetoilet,andwhenshereachedHouseNo.303,oftheappellant.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page34of65

Thiscourtisconstrainedtoobservethatthetotalabsenceofany
attempt,onthepartoftheinvestigatingofficers,andtheprosecution,
toexplainthis,isaseriouslapse,andpresentsayawninggapinthe
chainofcircumstances,whichwouldlinkallthestrandsofthestory.
ThelearnedASJhasheld,consequenttohisfindingthatthe
prosecutrixhadnotbeenkidnappedfromthetrainbytheappellant,
thattheprosecutrixvoluntarilyvisitedthehouseoftheappellant,
perhapsonaccountofsomemaritaldiscord,etc.Needlesstosay,such
afindingwouldbepurelypresumptive,andcannotsustaininlaw.
Thereisnoevidencetosuggestanymaritaldiscordbetweenthe
prosecutrixandherhusband,and,therefore,theperiodpriortothe
prosecutrixreachingthehouseoftheappellant,i.e.HouseNo.303,
mustnecessarilyberegardedasremainingunexplained.

56.Werethepresentcasetobepurelyoneofcircumstantial
evidence,perhaps,suchayawninggapmight,byitself,havebeen
fataltothecaseoftheprosecution,asitisoneofthefundamental
principlesofappreciationofcircumstantialevidence,thatthe
circumstances,whichareproved,mustformanunbrokenchain,and
thatthebenefitofanymissinglinksinsuchachainmustnecessarily
enureinfavouroftheaccused,andvitiatethecaseoftheprosecution.

57.Thiscase,however,cannotbeallowedtoblindlyfollowthat
path,asthefactumofsexualintercourse,betweentheappellantand
theprosecutrix,standsprovedbytheDNAprofilingevidence
providedbytheFSL,asisalreadynoticedhereinabove.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page35of65

RapeandGangRape-Sections376and376D,IPC

58.―Gangrape‖isdefined,inSection376DoftheIPC,inthe
followingterms:

―376D.Gangrape.-Whereawomanisrapedby
oneormorepersonsconstitutingagrouporactingin
furtheranceofacommonintention,eachofthosepersons
shallbedeemedtohavecommittedtheoffenceofrape
andshallbepunishedwithrigourousimprisonmentfora
termwhichshallnotbelessthantwentyyears,butwhich
mayextendtolifewhichshallmeanimprisonmentforthe
remainderofthatperson’snaturallife,andwithfine:

Providedthatsuchfineshallbejustandreasonableto
meetthemedicalexpensesandrehabilitationofthe
victim:

Providedfurtherthatanyfineimposedunderthissection
shallbepaidtothevictim.‖

59.―Rape‖isdefinedinSection375,andpunishment,forthesaid
offence,iscontemplatedbySection376,oftheSectionIPC.

60.Theseprovisionsunderwentwhat,forthepurposesofthe
presentcase,mayberegardedasaradicalchange,bytheSectionCriminal
Law(Amendment)Act,2013(hereinafterreferredtoas―the2013
SectionAmendmentAct‖).TheseamendmentsalsoaffectedSection114Aof
theEvidenceAct,whichwasalsocorrespondinglyamended.Itwould
beusefultosetoutthepre-andpost-amendedprovisions,thus,to
enableaclearcomparisonbetweenthem:

ProvisionPre-3rdFebruary,Post-3rdFebruary,
(Section)20132013

CRL.A.1284/2014Page36of65
375,SectionIPC―Rape-AmanisRape.-Amanis
saidtocommitsaidtocommit―rape
―rape‖who,exceptinifhe-

thecasehereinafter
excepted,hassexual(a)penetrateshis
intercoursewithapenis,toanyextent,
womanunderintothevagina,
circumstancesfallingmouth,urethraor
underanyofthesixanusofawomanor
followingmakeshertodoso
descriptions:-withhimorany
otherperson;or
First.-Againsther
will.(b)inserts,toany
extent,anyobjector
Secondly.-Withoutapartofthebody,
herconsent.notbeingthepenis,
intothevagina,the
Thirdly.-Withherurethraoranusofa
consent,whenherwomanormakesher
consenthasbeentodosowithhimor
obtainedbyputtinganyotherperson;or
heroranypersonin
whomsheis(c)manipulates
interestedinfearofanypartofthebody
deathorofhurt.ofawomansoasto
causepenetration
Fourthly-Withherintothevagina,
consent,whentheurethra,anusorany
manknowsthatheispartofbodyofsuch
notherhusband,andwomanormakesher
thatherconsentistodosowithhimor
givenbecausesheanyotherperson;or
believesthatheis
anothermanto(d)applieshis
whomsheisormouthtothevagina,
believesherselftobeanus,urethraofa
lawfullymarried.womanormakesher
todosowithhimor
Fifthly.-Withheranyotherperson,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page37of65
consent,when,attheunderthe
timeofgivingsuchcircumstances
consent,byreasonoffallingunderanyof
unsoundnessofmindthefollowingseven
orintoxicationorthedescriptions:-
administrationby
himpersonallyorFirst.-Againsther
throughanotherofwill.
anystupefyingor
unwholesomeSecondly.-Without
substance,sheisherconsent.
unabletounderstand
thenatureandThirdly.-Withher
consequencesofthatconsent,whenher
towhichshegivesconsenthasbeen
consent.obtainedbyputting
heroranypersonin
Sixthly.-Withorwhomsheis

withoutherconsent,interested,infearof
whensheisunderdeathorofhurt.

sixteenyearsofage.

Fourthly.-Withher
Explanation.-consent,whenthe
Penetrationismanknowsthathe
sufficienttoisnotherhusband

constitutethesexualandthatherconsent
intercoursenecessaryisgivenbecauseshe
totheoffenceofbelievesthatheis
rape.anothermanto
whomsheisor
Exception.-Sexualbelievesherselfto
intercoursebyamanbelawfullymarried.
withhisownwife,
thewifenotbeingFifthly.-Withher
underfifteenyearsofconsentwhen,atthe
age,isnotrape.timeofgivingsuch
consent,byreason
ofunsoundnessof
mindorintoxication
ortheadministration
byhimpersonallyor

CRL.A.1284/2014Page38of65
throughanotherof
anystupefyingor
unwholesome
substance,sheis
unabletounderstand
thenatureand
consequencesofthat
towhichshegives
consent.

Sixthly.-Withor
withoutherconsent,
whensheisunder
eighteenyearsof
age.

Seventhly.-When
sheisunableto
communicate
consent.

Explanation1.-For
thepurposesofthis
section,―vagina‖
shallalsoinclude
labiamajora.

Explanation2.-

Consentmeansan
unequivocal
voluntaryagreement
wherethewomanby
words,gesturesor
anyformofverbal
ornon-verbal
communication,
communicates
willingnessto
participateinthe
specificsexualact:

CRL.A.1284/2014Page39of65

Providedthata
womanwhodoes
notphysicallyresist
totheactof
penetrationshallnot
bytherecentonlyof
thatfact,be
regardedas
consentingtothe
sexualactivity.

Exception1.-A
medicalprocedure
orinterventionshall
notconstituterape.

Exception2.-

Sexualintercourse
orsexualactsbya
manwithhisown
wife,thewifenot
beingunderfifteen
yearsofage,isnot
rape.‖

376,SectionIPCPunishmentforPunishmentfor
rape.--rape.--

(1)Whoever,except(1)Whoever,
inthecasesprovidedexceptinthecases
forbysub-section(2),providedforinsub-

commitsrapeshallbesection(2),commits
punishedwithrape,shallbe
imprisonmentofpunishedwith
eitherdescriptionforrigorous
atermwhichshallnotimprisonmentof
belessthanseveneitherdescriptionfor
yearsbutwhichmayatermwhichshall
beforlifeorforanotbelessthan
termwhichmaysevenyears,but
extendtotenyearswhichmayextendto
andshallalsobe

CRL.A.1284/2014Page40of65
liabletofineunlessimprisonmentfor
thewomenrapedislife,andshallalso
hisownwifeandisbeliabletofine.
notundertwelve(2)Whoever,--
yearsofage,inwhich(a)beingapolice
cases,heshallbeofficer,commits
punishedwithrape--
imprisonmentof(i)withinthelimits
eitherdescriptionforofthepolicestation
atermwhichmaytowhichsuchpolice
extendtotwoyearsorofficerisappointed;
withfineorwithor
both:(ii)inthepremises
Providedthattheofanystationhouse;
courtmay,foror
adequateandspecial(iii)onawomanin
reasonstobesuchpoliceofficer's
mentionedinthecustodyorinthe
judgment,imposeacustodyofapolice
sentenceofofficersubordinate
imprisonmentforatosuchpolice
termoflessthanofficer;or
sevenyears.(b)beingapublic
(2)Whoever,--servant,commits
(a)beingapolicerapeonawomanin
officercommitssuchpublicservant's
rape--custodyorinthe

(i)withinthelimitsofcustodyofapublic
thepolicestationtoservantsubordinate
whichheisap-tosuchpublic
pointed;orservant;or

(ii)inthepremisesof(c)beingamember
anystationhouseofthearmedforces
whetherornotdeployedinareaby
situatedinthepolicetheCentralora
stationtowhichheisStateGovernment
appointed;orcommitsrapein

(iii)onawomaninsucharea;or
hiscustodyorinthe(d)beingonthe
custodyofapolicemanagementoron
officersubordinatetothestaffofajail,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page41of65
him;orremandhomeor

(b)beingapublicotherplaceof
servant,takescustodyestablished
advantageofhisbyorunderanylaw
officialpositionandforthetimebeingin
commitsrapeonaforceorofa
womaninhiscustodywomen'sor
assuchpublicservantchildren's
orinthecustodyofainstitution,commits
publicservantrapeonanyinmate
subordinatetohim;orofsuchjail,remand

(c)beingonthehome,placeor
managementoroninstitution;or
thestaffofajail,(e)beingonthe
remandhomeorothermanagementoron
placeofcustodythestaffofa
establishedbyorhospital,commits
underanylawfortherapeonawomanin
timebeinginforceorthathospital;or
ofawoman'sor(f)beingarelative,
children'sinstitutionguardianorteacher
takesadvantageofhisof,orapersonina
officialpositionandpositionoftrustor
commitsrapeonanyauthoritytowards
inmateofsuchjail,thewoman,commits
remandhome,placerapeonsuch
orinstitution;orwoman;or

(d)beingonthe(g)commitsrape
managementoronduringcommunalor
thestaffofahospital,sectarianviolence;

takesadvantageofhisor
officialpositionand(h)commitsrapeon
commitsrapeonaawomanknowing
womaninthathertobepregnant;
hospital;oror
(e)commitsrapeona(j)commitsrape,on
womanknowingherawomanincapable
tobepregnant;orofgivingconsent;or
(f)commitsrapeona(k)beingina
womanwhensheispositionofcontrol
undertwelveyearsofordominanceovera

CRL.A.1284/2014Page42of65
age;orwoman,commits
(g)commitsgangrapeonsuch
rape,shallbewoman;or
punishedwith(l)commitsrapeon
rigorousawomansuffering
imprisonmentforafrommentalor
termwhichshallnotphysicaldisability;
belessthantenyearsor
butwhichmaybefor(m)while
lifeandshallalsobecommittingrape
liabletofine:causesgrievous
Providedthatthebodilyharmor
Courtmay,formaimsordisfigures
adequateandspecialorendangersthelife
reasonstobeofawoman;or
mentionedinthe(n)commitsrape
judgment,imposearepeatedlyonthe
sentenceofsamewoman,shall
imprisonmentofbepunishedwith
eitherdescriptionforrigorous
atermoflessthantenimprisonmentfora
years.termwhichshallnot
Explanation1.--belessthanten
Whereawomanisyears,butwhich
rapedbyoneormoremayextendto
inagroupofpersonsimprisonmentfor
actinginfurtherancelife,whichshall
oftheircommonmeanimprisonment
intention,eachofthefortheremainderof
personsshallbethatperson'snatural
deemedtohavelife,andshallalso
committedgangrapebeliabletofine.
withinthemeaningofExplanation.--For
thissub-section.thepurposesofthis
Explanation2.―Womesub-section,--
n'sorchildren's(a)"armedforces"
institution‖meansanmeansthenaval,
institution,whethermilitaryandair
calledanorphanageforcesandincludes
orahomeforanymemberofthe
neglectedwomanorArmedForces

CRL.A.1284/2014Page43of65
childrenorawidows'constitutedunder
homeorbyanyotheranylawforthetime
name,whichisbeinginforce,
establishedandincludingthe
maintainedfortheparamilitaryforces
receptionandcareofandanyauxiliary
womanorchildren.forcesthatareunder
Explanation3.―Hospitthecontrolofthe
al‖meanstheCentral
precinctsoftheGovernment,orthe
hospitalandincludesStateGovernment;
theprecinctsofany(b)"hospital"means
institutionforthetheprecinctsofthe
receptionandhospitaland
treatmentofpersonsincludesthe
duringconvalescenceprecinctsofany
orofpersonsinstitutionforthe
requiringmedicalreceptionand
attentionortreatmentofpersons
rehabilitation.during
convalescenceorof
personsrequiring
medicalattentionor
rehabilitation;
(c)"policeofficer"
shallhavethesame
meaningasassigned
totheexpression
"police"underthe
SectionPoliceAct,1861(5
of1861);
(d)―women'sor
children's
institution‖means
aninstitution,
whethercalledan
orphanageora
homeforneglected
womenorchildren
orawidow'shome
oraninstitution

CRL.A.1284/2014Page44of65
calledbyanyother
name,whichis
establishedand
maintainedforthe
receptionandcare
ofwomenor
children.
(3)Commitsrapeon
awomanwhenshe
isundersixteen
yearsofage.

114A,PresumptionastoPresumptionasto
Evidenceabsenceofconsentinabsenceofconsent
Actcertainprosecutionsincertain
forrape.-Inaprosecutionfor
prosecutionforraperape.-Ina
underclause(a)orprosecutionforrape
clause(b)orclauseunderclause(a),
(c)orclause(d)orclause(b),clause
clause(e)orclause(c),clause(d),

(g)ofsub-section(2)clause(e),clause(f),
ofSectionsection376oftheclause(g),clauseSection
IndianPenalCode(45(h),clause(i),clause
of1860),where(j),clause(k),clause
sexualintercourseby(l),clause(m)or
theaccusedisprovedclause(n)ofsub-

andthequestionissection(2)of
whetheritwasSection376ofthe
withouttheconsentSectionofIndianPenalCode
thewomanallegedto(45of1860),where
havebeenrapedandsexualintercourse
shestatesinherbytheaccusedis
evidencebeforetheprovedandthe
courtthathedidnotquestioniswhether
consent,thecourtitwaswithoutthe
shallpresumethatsheconsentofthe
didnotconsent.womanallegedto
havebeenrapedand
suchwomanstates
inherevidence

CRL.A.1284/2014Page45of65
beforethecourtthat
hedidnotconsent,
thecourtshall
presumethatshedid
notconsent.

Explanation.-In
thissection,―sexual
intercourse‖shall
meananyoftheacts
mentionedinclauses
(a)to(d)ofSectionsection
375oftheIndian
PenalCode(45of
1860).‖

61.Theamendmentscarriedoutbythe2013SectionAmendmentActdo
notsignificantlyimpacttheapplicabilityofSection375oftheIPC,to
thefactsofthepresentcase,thoughtheydohavetheirimpactonthe
applicabilityofSection376oftheIPCandSection114Aofthe
EvidenceAct.

62.InsofarasSection375oftheIPCisconcerned,saveandexcept
forcaseswhichfallunderclause(d)supra,ofthesaidSection,
penetration,clearly,isthesinequanonforrapetobeheldtohave
takenplace.Clause(a)ofSection375dealswithpeno-vaginal
penetration,whereasclauses(b)and(c)dealwithotherformsof
penetration.Thereisneitheranyallegation,noranyevidence,tobring
thepresentcasewithintheambiteitherofclause(b)orofclause(c);
ergo,thisCourtneedsconcernitselfonlywithclause(a)ofSection

375.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page46of65

63.Atthisstage,beforeproceedingfurther,onemaydirectly
addresstheallegationof―gangrape‖,aslevelledagainsttheappellant,
andhistwo―unknown‖compatriots,bytheprosecutrix.―Gangrape‖
necessarilyinvolvesrape,ofawoman,byoneormorepersons.The
forensicevidence,asitemergedfromtheFSLreport(Ex.PA),clearly
establishedthatthesemenoftheappellant,alone,wasfoundinthe
vulvalandvaginalswabsoftheprosecutrix,asalsoonhersalwarand
onthebedsheetseizedfromtheroomwheretheoffencewasalleged
tohavetakenplace.Nosemen,ofanyotherperson,wasfoundinany
oftheseexhibits.

64.ThelearnedASJhaschosentoupholdtheallegationof―gang
rape‖solelyonthebasisofthefinding,intheFSLreport,thatthe
semenfoundinoneusedcondomdidnotmatchtheDNAprofileof
theappellant.Inthiscontext,aseriousdiscrepancybecomes
immediatelyapparent,whenoneviewstheevidenceholistically.The
testimonies,duringtrial,ofPW-4SILokeshandPW-7SIPramila,
clearlystatethatabag,containingusedcondoms,wasseizedfrom
HouseNo303.TheSeizureMemo(Ex.PW-4/A)alsorefersto
seizureofabagcontainingusedcondoms.Accordingtothetestimony
ofPW-3Const.ChattarMal,hehadtransportedthepullandas,as
receivedbyhim,totheFSL.However,theFSLreport(Ex.PA)refers
to―oneusedcondomalongwiththecoverwrappedinapolythene
bag‖.TheresultsoftheDNAanalysis,too,referredto―used
condom‖.Thereisnoexplanation,whatsoever,astohow,whenabag
ofusedcondomswasseizedfromHouseNo.303,onlyoneused
condomwascontainedintheexhibitprovidedtotheFSL.Thisis,in

CRL.A.1284/2014Page47of65
theopinionofthisCourt,anextremelyseriousdiscrepancy,especially
astheDNAanalysisofthesemenfoundonthesingleusedcondom
receivedbytheFSLconstitutesthesolebasisforthedecision,ofthe
learnedASJ,toconvicttheappellantunderSection376DoftheIPC.
Giventhefactthattherewasadelayoftwoweeksinforwardingof
theseizedexhibitstotheFSL,theinferencethatthebagofused
condomis,seizedfromtheplaceofincidentatHouseNo.303was
tamperedwith,beforeitwasforwardedtotheFSL,isinescapable.
Evenonthissoleground,intheopinionofthisCourt,theappellant
wouldbeentitledtobeacquittedofthechargeunderSection376Dof
theIPC.

65.Thatapart,thefindingofsemen,onthesaidusedcondom,
whichdidnotmatchwiththeDNAprofileoftheappellant,was,in
theopinionofthisCourt,entirelyinsufficienttojustifyafindingof
gangrapehavingtakenplace,farlessaconvictionforthesaid
offence.Ifnothingelse,thepresenceofsemeninacondomdoesnot
necessarilyindicatepenetration.Theevidence,onthebasisofwhich
thelearnedASJhasconvictedtheappellantunderSection376Dofthe
IPC,therefore,intheopinionofthisCourt,istootenuoustosupport
theconviction.

66.ThisCourtis,therefore,oftheviewthatthecharge,againstthe
appellant,ofhavingbeenaparticipantin―gangrape‖and,therefore,
havingexposedhimselftoconvictionunderSection376DoftheIPC
has,necessarily,therefore,tofail.Theappellantwould,therefore,be
entitledtobeacquittedofthesaidcharge.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page48of65

67.Havingsaidthat,asthisCourthasalreadyobserved,
hereinabove,thefactofsexualintercourse,betweentheappellantand
theprosecutrix,havingtakenplace,standsestablishedbytheforensic
evidenceonrecord.GiventheschemeandstructureofSection375of
theIPC,therefore,thequestionofwhetherthesaidact/actsofsexual
intercourse,constituted―rape‖,ornot,wouldfalltobedeterminedon
thebasisofwhethertheprosecutrixcouldbesaidtohave
―consented‖,tothesaidact/acts,ornot.

68.Section376oftheIPC,asitstoodpriorto,aswellasafter,its
amendment,w.e.f.3rdFebruary,2013,bythe2013SectionAmendmentAct
supra,containedtwosub-sections.Forthesakeofbrevityand
conveniencealone,sub-section(1)ofSection376maybereferredto,
asdealingwithcasesof―rapesimplicitor‖,whereassub-section(2)of
Section376dealwithmore―aggravated‖casesofrape,asisapparent
fromthefactthattheminimumpunishmentprescribed,incasesof
rapefallingunderSection376(2)ishigherthanthatprescribedin
casesfallingunderSection376(1).

69.Thisdistinctioncaseofsomeimportance,inthefactsofthe
presentcase,astheallegation,oftheprosecutrix,wasthatshewas
beingcontinuouslyraped,onadailybasis,from15thJune,2012till
22ndMarch,2013.AreadingofthevariousclausesinSection376(2)
oftheSectionIPC,asitstoodbefore,andafter,itsamendmentw.e.f.3rd
February,2013,revealsthatnoneofthesaidclauses,astheyexisted
priorto3rdFebruary,2013,wouldapplytothepresentcase,whereas,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page49of65
after3rdFebruary,2013,assumingtheallegationoftheprosecutrixto
becorrect,theoffencecommittedbytheappellantcouldconceivably
bebroughtwithintheambitofclause(n)ofSection376(2),which
dealswithcommissionof―raperepeatedlyonthesamewoman‖.The
casecouldalso,conceivably,attractclause(k)ofSection376(2),
whichdealswithcasesinwhichtheoffenderis―inapositionof
controlordominanceover‖thewomanonwhomhecommitsrape.

70.Neitheroftheseclauses,however,figuredinSection376(2)of
theIPC,asitstoodpriortoitsamendmentw.e.f.3rdFebruary,2013.
Thepositionthatemergesis,therefore,that,fortheperiod15thJune,
2012till3rdFebruary,2013,theactofsexualassault,ifany,
committedbytheappellantontheprosecutrixwouldfallwithinthe
ambitofSection376(1),whereas,fortheperiod3rdFebruary,2013till
23rdMarch,2013,thecasewouldattractSection376(2)oftheIPC.

71.Thisdistinctionassumessignificancewhenonerefersto
Section114AoftheEvidenceAct,onwhichthelearnedASJhas
chosentoplaceconsiderablereliance.Section114Acreatesa
―presumptionofabsenceofconsent‖,wheretheprosecutrixso
alleges,therebyshiftingtheonus,toprovepresenceofconsent,onthe
accused.TheprotectionofSection114AoftheEvidenceActwould
not,however,beavailabletotheprosecutrix,inthepresentcase,for
theperiodpriorto3rdFebruary,2013,astheoffencecommittedbythe
appellant,evenifitweretobedeemedtohavebeensocommitted,
wouldfallwithinSection376(1)oftheIPC,priortothesaiddate,and
notunderSection376(2)thereof,andtheapplicabilityofSection

CRL.A.1284/2014Page50of65
376(2)oftheSectionIPCisthestatutorysinequanon,forSection114Aof
theEvidenceActtoapply.

72.Thepositionthatwouldemergewould,therefore,bethat,for
theperiodpriorto3rdFebruary,2013,theonuswouldbeonthe
prosecutrixtoprovewantofconsent,whereas,fortheperiodafter3rd
February2013,theonuswouldbeontheappellanttoprovethe
existencethereof.

73.Thisdistinction,however,ismoreoneofform,thanof
substance,inthefactsofthepresentcaseas,intheopinionofthis
Court,viewedanywhichway,theallegationoftheappellanthaving
continuouslyrapedher,overaperiodofoverninemonths(from15th
June,2012till22ndMarch,2013),purportedlythreetofourtimesa
day,cannot,onthefactsofthepresentcase,bebelieved.Thecase,as
soughttobebuiltupbytheprosecution,onthebasisoftheallegations
oftheprosecutrix,bristleswithimprobabilitiesand,even,
impossibilities.Amongthefactors,whichinclinethisCourtto
disbelievethatcase,oftheprosecution,regardingtheprosecutrix
havingbeensubjectedtocontinuousrape,bytheappellant,overthe
aforesaidperiodofninemonths,maybeenlistedthefollowing:

(i)Thereisnoexplanationforthemannerinwhichthe
prosecutrixreachedHouseNo.303,wheretheappellantis
allegedtohaverapedhercontinuouslyforoverninemonths.
Theallegationoftheprosecutrixhavingdraggedher,byplacing
ahandkerchiefoverhermouthand,thereby,renderingher

CRL.A.1284/2014Page51of65
unconscious,inthetraininwhichshewastravellingbetween
KanpurandRaebareli,asalreadybeenfound,bythisCourt,
hereinabove,tobeunbelievable.Neitheristhereany
explanationfortheconveyingoftheprosecutrix,fromthesaid
traincompartment,toHouseNo.303.Theallegationthatthe
prosecutrixwasforciblybroughttothesaidhouse,inan
unconsciousstate,therefore,doesnotinspireconfidence.

(ii)Though,accordingtotheprosecutrix,shewasrepeatedly
beatenandbelaboured,bytheappellant,overtheaforesaid
periodofninemonths,totheextentthat,accordingtoher
allegation,theappellanthadbeatenherseverelyevenafterhis
twounknowncolleagueshadrapedherandleft,noevidenceof
anyinjury,onanypartofherbody,wasfound,eveninher
MLC.ThePolicewitnesses(PW-7,PW-4andPW-6),too,
deposed,inonevoice,didnotnoticeanyinjuryonthebodyof
theprosecutrix,whentheyreachedHouseNo.303.Itishighly
improbablethat,iftheprosecutrixhadbeensubjectedto
repeatedrape,foroverninemonths,aswellasthephysical
assaultduringthecourseofcommissionofrape,therewouldbe
noexternalinjury,whatsoever,onaperson.

(iii)Ithasalsoemerged,inevidence,asnotedhereinabove,
thatthehouse,inwhichtheprosecutrixwasthusbeing
repeatedlyrapedonadailybasis,foroverninemonths,housed
asmanyastentotwelveothertenants,andthatallotherrooms
wereoccupied.Noneofthetenantshasbeenco-optedasa

CRL.A.1284/2014Page52of65
witness.Thatapart,PW-4(SILokesh)acknowledged,incross-
examination,thatnoneofthetenantswasawareoftherapeof
theprosecutrix.

(iv)Ithasalsoemerged,inevidence,thatallthetenants
sharedacommontoilet,whichwasatsomedistancefromthe
roomwhereshewasconfined.Infact,theprosecutrix,incross-
examination,deposedthatshewasconfinedinaroomonthe
groundfloorofthehouse,whereasthetoiletwaslocatedonthe
thirdfloorthereof.Theprosecutrixmust,therefore,have
necessarilyvisitedthesaidtoiletseveraltimes,overthe
aforesaidperiodofninemonths,anditisinherently
unbelievablethatshewouldneitherinformanyoftheother
tenantsinthebuildingaboutwhatwastranspiringwiththe,nor
wouldanyofthetenantsbebecomeawareofthefactthatshe
wasbeingsubjectedtorapeandphysicalassaultona
continuousanddailybasis.

(v)Itwasadmitted,bytheprosecutrixherself,thatshehad
visitedtheshop,withtheappellant,forpurchasinganew
televisionset,andthatthenewtelevisionset,whichwas
purchased,wasasperherchoice.Thesefacts,too,militate
againsttheallegationofcontinuousphysicalassaultandrape,
bytheappellant,oftheprosecutrix.

(vi)Similarly,theprosecutrixalsoacknowledgedthefactthat
theappellanthadtakenhertothedoctor,onvariousoccasions.
Noattempthasbeenmadetoidentifythesaiddoctor,ortoco-

CRL.A.1284/2014Page53of65

optthedoctorasawitnessintheproceedings.Evenonsuch
occasions,theappellant,asperherversion,remainedsilent
abouttheallegedatrocitieswhichwerebeingcommittedwith
her.

(vii)Duringthecourseofhercross-examinationbeforethe
learnedASJ,theprosecutrixdeposedthat,aftershewas
releasedfromtheNariNiketan,sheagainvisitedtheroom,in
HouseNo.303,inwhichshehadallegedlybeensubjectedto
rapebytheappellant,withherhusband,tocollecther
belongings,andthatthelandlordofthesaidpremises
demandedrentfromher,againstwhichherhusbandpaidin₹
3200/-asarrearsofrent.Thisfactremainstotallyunexplained.
Theadmission,oftheprosecutrix,thatherhusbandpaid
arrearsofrent,forthesaidpremises,indicatesthat,contraryto
herversion,shewasnotanalientotheroomortoHouseNo.

303.

(viii)Accordingtotheversionoftheprosecutrix,theappellant
usedtoadministersomekindofsedative,toher,andtotake
advantageofherwhileshewasinasemi-consciousstate.
Thoughthispracticecontinued,accordingtoher,fornine
months,theprosecutrixclaimsthatshedidnotknowthenature
ofthedrugs/sedativewhichwasbeingadministeredtoher.No
suchdrugorsedativewasrecovered,eitherfromtheappellant
orfromHouseNo.303.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page54of65

74.Theabovefacts,whenseenholistically,makestheentire
narrative,aspropoundedbytheprosecutrix,adoptedbythe
prosecutionandaccepted(inpart)bythelearnedASJ,impossibleto
believe.Thechronicleofthetale,assoughttobepropoundedbythe
prosecution,isthat,inanovercrowdedGeneralclasscompartmentof
atrainrunningbetweenKanpurandRaebareli,theappellantmanaged,
somehow,torendertheprosecutrixunconscious,inthetoiletofthe
compartment,withthenumberofpersonsstandingoutsideandin
somemysteriousandinconceivablemanner,transporthertohishouse
inDelhi,andlockherinaroom,takingcarethatsheremained
unconsciousthroughoutandregainedconsciousnessonlyaftershe
waslockedintheroom.Astohow,inacrowdedtraincompartment,
theappellantmanagedtoexecutesuchacoup,remainstotally
unexplained.Itisnotknownwheretheappellantalighted,fromthe
train,carryingthesupposedlyunconsciousprosecutrix.Equally,itis
notknownastohow,fromthesaidreport,theappellantmanagedto
transporttheprosecutrixtotheroominHouseNo.303,keepingher
unconsciousthewholetime.Asforthehusbandoftheprosecutrix,he,
accordingtotheprosecutrix,wasinformed,bythepersonsinthe
compartment,thattheprosecutrixhadbeenrenderedunconsciousand
takenawaybytheappellant,andheneitherchosetomakeanyfurther
enquiry,noranycomplainttothePoliceauthoritiesinthatregard.
Withnearsuperhumantenacity,heboretheabsenceoftheprosecutrix
tillninemonthslater,when,supposedlythroughtheagencyofthe
Police,shewas―returned‖tohim.IntheroominHouseNo.303,the
storybecomesevenmorefantastic.Accordingtotheprosecutrix,she
wassubjectedtounwelcomesexualintercourse,bytheappellant,

CRL.A.1284/2014Page55of65
threetofourtimeseveryday,foroverninemonths,generallyafter
administeringsomedrug-ofwhichsheneitherknewthenamenor
theidentity-whichrenderedhersemi-conscious.Whether,overa
periodofninemonths,itwouldhaveevenbeenphysicallypossible
fortheprosecutrixtobearintercourse,bytheappellants,threetofour
timeseveryday,isitselfdoubtful.Thoughthehousehadtento
twelverooms,withtenantsinalltherooms,noneofthetenantswas
awareofthefactthattheirfellow-lodgerhadkept,inhisroom,the
prosecutriximprisoned,andthathewasrapingherthreetofourtimes
everyday.Admittedly,therewasonlyonecommontoiletforallthe
rooms;yet,noneofthefellow-lodgersinthebuildingwaseveraware
oftheplightoftheprosecutrix,oroftheatrocitiesbeingperpetrated,
onher,bytheappellant.Theprosecutrixusedtogooutwiththe
appellant,totheextentthat,whenthetelevisionsetintheroomhadto
bechanged,itwastheprosecutrixwhochosethenewtelevisionset.
Theappellantalsopurchasedclothesfortheprosecutrix,asperhis
choice.Whentheprosecutrixfellill,theappellantusedtotakeherto
thedoctor.Allthistime,however,nooneevergottoknowaboutthe
factthattheprosecutrixwasbeingsubjectedtodailyunwelcome
sexualassaultbytheappellant.Neitherdidtheprosecutrixevergeta
chancetoalertanybodyofhercondition.Suddenly,oneday,more
thanninemonthsafterthissupposedthatordealhadstarted,the
appellantbrought,withhim,twoofhisfriends,whoalsorapedthe
prosecutrix.Theprosecutrix,however,claimstobeignorantaboutthe
identityofthesaidtwopersons,statingthattheirfacesandheadswere
covered.Aftercommittingsexualassaultonher,thesaidtwopersons
left,whereafter,accordingtotheprosecutrix,theappellantagain

CRL.A.1284/2014Page56of65
committedrapeonher.Allthroughthistime,theprosecutrixalso
allegesthattheappellantusedtobeatherseverely.Thedayafterthe
alleged―gangrape‖occurred,theprosecutrixfoundtheappellant's
mobilephoneunderhispillow,andmanagedtostealit.Concealing
thesaidmobilephone,theprosecutrixrequestedtheappellantthatshe
desiredtovisitthetoilet.Theappellantaccompaniedhertothetoilet.
Theprosecutrix,then,requestedtheappellanttoreturntotheroom
andbringhertoothpaste,andleavingtheprosecutrixalone,the
appellant,allegedly,returnedtotheroom.Atthistime,theappellant
managedtofleeand,fromthenearbyRailwayStation,makeacallto
thePolice.

75.Severalquestionsarethrownup,fromtheabovenarrative,to
noneofwhichthereisanyanswerforthcoming,viz.

(i)Howdidtheappellantmanage,inacrowdedtrain
compartment,torendertheprosecutrixunconsciousby
coveringhermouthwithahandkerchief,withnooneraisingan
alarm?

(ii)Howdidtheappellantmanagetocarrytheallegedly
unconsciousprosecutrix,intherunningtrain,withouther
familybecomingaware,andwithallotherpassengers
remainingsupposedlyunconcerned?

CRL.A.1284/2014Page57of65

(iii)Wheredidtheappellantalight,carryingtheunconscious
prosecutrix?Again,howdidhemanagetodoso,withoutthe
appellant'shusbandandchildrenbecomingawareofthefact?

(iv)Whendidthehusbandoftheprosecutrixenquireabout
herabsence?

(v)Whenhewasallegedlyinformed,bythepassengers,that
hiswifehadbeencarriedawaybytheappellant,whydidthe
husbandoftheprosecutrixnotraiseanyalarm?Whydidhenot
makeanycomplainttothePoliceauthorities?

(vi)Howdidtheappellantmanagetocarrytheunconscious
prosecutrixtohishouseinDelhi?Whatmeansoftransportdid
headopttotravelfromthestationwherehealightedfromthe
train,tillDelhi,andhowdidheensurethattheprosecutrix
remainedunconsciousthroughout?

(vii)Howdidtheappellantmanagetoachievetheabovefeat,
withoutanyperson,eitherinthetrain,orinthestationwhere
theappellantmusthavealightedfromthetrain,carryingthe
unconsciousprosecutrix,orenroutebetweenthesaidstation
andDelhi,raisinganyobjectionoralarm?

(viii)Inahousecomprisingtentotwelverooms,allofwhich
weretenanted,andallofwhichshareacommontoiletsituated
somedistanceawayfromtherooms,howcouldtheappellant

CRL.A.1284/2014Page58of65
managetosubjecttheprosecutrix,onadailybasis(threetofour
timesaday,iftheprosecutrixistobebelieved),tounwelcome
sexualassault,withoutanyofthetenantsbecomingaware
thereof?

(ix)Isitbelievablethat,having,forsomereason,remained
incapableoffleeingfromthespotforoverninemonths(though
shemusthavevisitedthetoiletseveraltimesduringthesaid
period),theprosecutrix,on23rdMarch,2013,managedto
escapebysimplyaskingtheappellanttogobacktotheroom
andfetchhertoothpaste?

(x)What―belongings‖hadtheprosecutrixleftbehind,inthe
room,forcollectingwhichshereturnedtotheroom,withher
husband,afterhavingbeenreleasedfromtheNariNiketan?

(xi)Whydidthehusbandoftheprosecutrixpay―arrearsof
rent‖,of₹3200/-,tothelandlordofHouseNo.303,onthesaid
occasion?

76.Itistruethat,incasesofsexualoffenceandsexualassault,the
testimony,oftheallegedlyassaultedprosecutrix,carriesgreatweight,
andmay,inmanycases,justifiablyconstitutethesolebasisfor
conviction.Itisequallytrite,however,that,attheveryhighest,such
testimonyremainsintherealmofpresumption,howsoeverstrong
suchpresumptionmaybe.Law,however,doesnotrecognisethe
irrebutablepresumption,andtheexpression,thoughoftenused,must

CRL.A.1284/2014Page59of65
remainanoxymoron.Thelawdoesstylecertainpresumptionsas
―irrebutable‖;that,however,onlymeansthatthelawwouldnotallow
therebuttalofsuchpresumptions,andnotnecessarilythatthe
presumptionsthemselvesareincapableofrebuttal.

77.Itisnotnecessary,however,toenterintothissomewhat
involvedjurisprudentialthicket,forthepurposesofthepresentcase,
asthepresumptionoftruth,whichattachestothetestimonyofevery
victimofallegedsexualassault,isnot,inlaw,irrebutable,thoughthe
evidence,whichwouldberequiredtobeadducedinordertorebut
suchapresumptionwouldbeofanextremelyhighstandard.Inthe
presentcase,therecanbenodisputeregardingthefactofsexual
intercourse,betweentheappellantandtheprosecutrix,havingtaken
place.Thequestion,therefore,isoneofconsent,and,evenifSection
114AoftheEvidenceActweretobetreatedasapplicable,theusage
ofthewords―shallpresume‖,inthesaidprovision,readwithSection
4oftheEvidenceAct,wouldallowarebuttal,albeitwithadequate
evidenceandmaterial,ofthepresumptionoflackofconsent,which
Section114Acreates.

78.Provingthepresence,orabsence,ofconsent,isalwaysatricky
affair,asitrequirespsychoanalysisofthevictimoftheallegedsexual
assault.Itbeingimpossibletoconclusivelydeterminethestateof
mindofanyperson,thecourtisalwaysrequired,wherethe
determinationofsuchstateofmindisnecessaryinlaw,toholistically
considerthecircumstancesofthecase,andarriveataconclusionin
thatregard.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page60of65

79.Acomparisonofthestatementsoftheprosecutrix,asoriginally
recordedbytheI/OunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.,aslaterrecorded
bythelearnedMMunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,andastendered
inevidenceduringtrial,isrevealing.InherstatementunderSection
164,theprosecutrixdeposed,forthefirsttime,thatshehadstarted
surreptitiouslydisposingofthetabletswhichtheappellantdesiredto
administerher,asshegottoknowthatthetabletsrenderedher
unconscious.Itwas,similarly,thefirsttime,inthesaidstatement,that
theprosecutrixchosetodetailthemannerinwhichshemanagedto
escape,bystatingthat,whensheawokeon23rdMarch,2013,she
foundthattheappellantwaswatchingtelevision,purloinedhismobile
phonefromunderneaththepillow,requestedhimtoallowhertovisit
thetoilet,andaskedhimtoreturntotheroomandfetchher
toothpaste,seeingwhichopportunityshefled.Asagainstthis,inher
statementunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.,theprosecutrixhad
deposedthatshe―somehow‖managedtoescape,at11:00AMon23rd
March,2013.Inherevidence,astenderedduringtrial,theprosecutrix
alleged,forthefirsttime,that,beforeadministeringthetabletstoher,
theappellanthadsexwithherwithoutherconsent.Similarly,itwasin
thesaidtestimonythat,forthefirsttime,theprosecutrixstatedthat
shehadearlierbeenconfinedinanotherhouse,fromwhichshewas
broughttoHouseNo.303byfoot.Evenso,shedeposedthatshe
couldnotrememberthedistancebetweenthesaidtwohouses.Again,
itwasinthisdeposition(duringtrial),thattheprosecutrixalleged,
againforthefirsttime,thattheappellantusedtohaveunwelcomesex,
withher,threetofourtimeseveryday.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page61of65

80.Itisalsosignificantthat,though,inherstatementunderSection
161oftheCr.P.C.,theprosecutrixallegedthattheappellanthad
indulgedin―unnaturalsex‖withher,nosuchallegationfindsplace,
eitherinthestatementunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,orinher
testimonyduringtrial.ItisverydifficultforthisCourttobelievethat,
andtheappellantactuallyindulgedin―unnaturalsex‖withthe
prosecutrix,shewouldrefrainfrommakinganyreference,thereto,in
herdepositioneitherunderSection164,orduringtrial.Significantly,
theMLCoftheprosecutrix,too,didnotdiscloseanyevidenceofany
such―unnatural‖sexualassaulthavingbeenperpetrated,onthe
prosecutrix,bytheappellant.ApartfromthefactthatthelearnedASJ
has,inthecircumstances,rightlyacquittedtheappellantofthecharge,
againsthim,underSection377oftheIPC,thisinconsistencyis
serious,andconsiderablydiminishestheevidentiaryvalueofthe
variousstatementsmadebytheprosecutrixfromtimetotime,aswell
asoftheallegationscontainedtherein.

81.Suchembellishmentsandinconsistencies,betweentheformer
statementandthelatter,thoughunquestionablyoflimitedvaluein
casesofallegedsexualoffence,whenseeninthecontextofthe
overallcircumstancesofthepresentcase,servestothickenthehazeof
improbabilitywhichcloudsthecaseoftheprosecutrixand,
consequently,oftheprosecution.

CRL.A.1284/2014Page62of65

82.Aproposthetestimonyoftheprosecutrixduringtrial,andher
cross-examinationthereon,thefollowingtwofeaturesarealsoof
significance,inthepresentcase:

(i)Accordingtothetestimonyoftheprosecutrix,inthe
―secondhouse‖,inwhichshewaslodgedbytheappellant,i.e.
HouseNo.303,shewasconfinedinaroomontheground
floor,whereasthebathroomandtoiletwereonthethirdfloorof
thebuilding.Thisrendersitallthemoreimprobablethatthe
prosecutrix,ifshewasactuallysufferingunwelcomesexual
assaultthreetofourtimeseveryday,couldascendtwofloorsto
usethetoilet,withoutanyoftheotherinmatesofthehouse
becomingawareofhercondition.

(ii)Itwasonlyduringcross-examinationthattheprosecutrix
acknowledgedthatacasehadbeenfiled,incourt,inhername,
againstherhusband.Itisunfortunatethatnofurtherenquiryor
investigationwasdone,bytheinvestigatingofficers,regarding
thisaspect.Onthismattercomingtolight,theprosecutrix
soughttowishawaythesaidfact,byallegingthattheappellant
hadforgedhersignatureinthepetition.Owingtothe
regrettablelapse,onthepartoftheinvestigatingofficers,to
inquireintothisaspect,thisCourtishandicappedfrom
returninganyfurtherfindingsthereon.Sufficeittostate,
however,that,seeninconjunctionwiththefactthatthe
husbandoftheprosecutrixneverevenchosetocomplain
againstherabsence,tothePoliceortoanyothercompetent

CRL.A.1284/2014Page63of65
authority,aftershehadallegedlybeenkidnapped,the
complaint,oftheprosecutrixagainsttheappellant,ofhaving
kidnappedherandperiodicallysubjectedhertounwelcome
sexualassault,overaperiodofoverninemonths(though,in
hertestimonyduringtrial,theprosecutrixalleged,again
incorrectly,thatthesaidperiodwastwotothreemonths),
completelyfailstoinspireconfidence.

83.Thecaseoftheprosecutrix,assoughttobesetupagainstthe
appellantis,therefore,repletewithinconsistencies,improbabilities
andimponderablesandcannot,therefore,intheopinionofthisCourt,
sufficetoconvicttheappellantofhavingcommitted―rape‖onthe
prosecutrix,orevenofhavingassaultedherinanyothermanner.The
findingsofthelearnedASJ,tothecontrary,intheopinionofthis
Court,cannot,therefore,sustain,anddeserve,consequently,tobeset
aside.

84.Beforepartingwiththiscase,thisCourtnotices,fromthe
record,that,undercoverofanapplication/letterdated15thMarch,
2014,theappellanthadsoughttoplace,onrecord,aswornstatement
(halafnama),signedbytheprosecutrix,inwhichshehasstatedthat,
asshewasunabletocopewiththevagariesofherhusband,shehad
decidedtoenterintoarelationship-infact,anunofficialmarriage-
withtheappellant,withaprayerforpermissiontoexaminethe
prosecutrixinconnectiontherewith,soastobeabletoprovethe
document.Unfortunately,thelearnedASJdidnotpassanyorderson
thesaidapplication,andthedocumentremainedunexhibited.Inview

CRL.A.1284/2014Page64of65
thereof,thisCourtisnotinapositiontostateanythingfurtherinthat
regard.

Conclusion

85.Asasequituroftheabovediscussion,theappealofthe
appellanthasnecessarilytosucceed.Theappellantisentitledtobe
acquitted,consequently,ofallchargesagainsthim.Theimpugned
judgmentofthelearnedASJ,aswellastheorderonsentence
pronouncedasaconsequencethereof,are,therefore,quashedandset
aside.

86.Theappealisallowed.Theappellantshallbereleased
forthwith,unlesshisincarcerationisrequiredinanyothercase.

C.HARISHANKAR,J
JULY01,2019/HJ

CRL.A.1284/2014Page65of65

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation