state of delhi vs rupesh and bhagirath mathur

26
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions Judge- Special FTC – 2 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi. Sessions Case No. : 09/2014 Unique ID No. : 02401R0046352014 State versus 1) Rupesh S/o Sh. Bhagirath Mathur  R/o H. No. A-1/44, Gali No. 28  Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar,  Burari, Delhi-110084  2) Sh. Bhagirath Mathur  S/o Sh. Sukh Ram R/o H. No. A-1/44, Gali No. 28  Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar,  Burari, Delhi-110084 Case arising out of: FIR No. : 61/2013 Police Station : Burari Under Section : 328/376/34 IPC Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2015 Judgment pronounced on : 02.09.2015

Upload: deepika-narayan-bhardwaj

Post on 21-Feb-2018

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 1/26

In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja

Additional Sessions Judge- Special FTC – 2 (Central)

Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.

Sessions Case No. : 09/2014

Unique ID No. : 02401R0046352014

State versus 1) Rupesh

S/o Sh. Bhagirath Mathur

  R/o H. No. A-1/44, Gali No. 28

  Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar,

  Burari, Delhi-110084

  2) Sh. Bhagirath Mathur

  S/o Sh. Sukh Ram

R/o H. No. A-1/44, Gali No. 28

  Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar,

  Burari, Delhi-110084

Case arising out of:

FIR No. : 61/2013

Police Station : Burari

Under Section : 328/376/34 IPC

Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2015

Judgment pronounced on : 02.09.2015

Page 2: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 2/26

JUDGMENT

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:-

1. Stating briefly, the facts of the case, as borne out from the

chargesheet are that on receipt of information on 21.02.2013 vide DD No.

36A to W. SI Neeraj, she alongwith Ct. Devender reached at H. No. A-1,

Block, Gali No. 27, Bengali Colony, Sant Nagar, Burari where SI Rajeev

was already present. SI Rajeev handed over counselling report and copy of

MLC of Prosecutrix 'J' to W. SI Neeraj.

2. Prosecutrix 'J' made her statement wherein she stated that she

is a student of B.A. [Pass]. She alleged that on 16.02.2013 at about 2 PM ,

Bhabhi of Accused Rupesh, who lives in front of his house, called her to

repair a bulb in her house. When she reached there Rupesh was already

present there. After sometime, father of Rupesh came there with a bottle

and handed over the said bottle to Accused Rupesh and left from there.

Thereafter, Accused Rupesh forcibly made her consume that bottle and

after consuming the same, she became unconscious. She regained her

Page 3: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 3/26

consciousness at about 4 PM and realized that she had been raped forcibly.

She came to her house but did not disclose anything to anyone.

3. Complainant 'J' further stated that on 19.02.2013 at about 8

AM she reached at house of Accused Rupesh, where tenant of Rupesh, his

sister, his Mausi and Mausa were already present. She asked Accused

Rupesh as to why he had committed rape upon her, on this Bhabhi of

Accused apologized from her. Upon this Accused Rupesh pushed her

stating that 'Tujhe jo karna hai, kar le'. Mausa of Accused also stated her

to commit suicide. Thereafter, she made a call at 100 number, but her

father and father of Accused compromised the matter on 20.02.2013

stating it to be 'cherkhani'. Prosecutrix 'J' further alleged that on

20.02.2013 at about 8-9 PM, on seeing her, Accused Rupesh taunted her

' Ab tu kati chipkali ki tarah ghoomegi'. She stated that she consumed 'All

Out' mosquito repellent out of depression and was admitted to Hindu Rao

Hospital. On 21.02.2013 she was discharged from the hospital made a

complaint against Accused Rupesh.

4. On the basis of aforesaid, the present case was registered

Page 4: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 4/26

under Section 328/376/34 IPC. During investigation, W. SI Neeraj

prepared site plan at the instance of Prosecutrix. Statement of Prosecutrix

was got recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Thereafter, further

investigation was transferred to W. SI Santosh Sirohi as W. SI Neeraj was

got transferred. SI Santosh Sirohi obtained NBWs of Accused Rupesh and

Bhagirath from court, but they could not be found. Thereafter, Accused

Rupesh surrendered before the court and he was arrested. Disclosure

statement of Accused Rupesh was recorded. One day police custody

remand of Accused Rupesh was obtained and at his instance, place of

incident was inspected. Accused was got medically examined. His blood

sample was seized and taken into police possession and deposited the same

in malkhana. Potency test of Accused was got conducted from Forensic

Expert, Subzi Mandi, Mortuary, Delhi. Thereafter, Accused was sent in

 judicial custody.

5. Anticipatory bail of Accused Bhagirath Mathur, Vinod and

Satyawati was granted. During investigation, SI Santosh Sirohi obtained

age proof of Accused Rupesh as per which the date of birth of Accused

Page 5: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 5/26

was 15.02.1995. Exhibits of Accused i.e. blood sample was sent to FSL.

Thereafter, W. SI Santosh Sirohi was transferred and further investigation of

this case was assigned to W. SI Mukesh Devi. W. SI Mukesh Devi arrested

Accused Bhagirath and released him as he was already on anticipatory bail.

Accused Vinod and Satyawati were kept in Column No. 12 as there was no

sufficient evidence against them for arrest. The learned MM directed

issuance of summons only against Rupesh and Bhagirth and committed the

case for Sessions trial after complying with provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC.

CHARGE:-

6. After committal of the case, on the basis of material on record,

Accused Rupesh was charged for offence punishable under Section 328/376

IPC while Accused Bhagirath Mathur was charged for offence punishable

under Section 328 r/w Section 109 IPC. Both Accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial when the charges were read over and explained to him.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-

7. The evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case can be

Page 6: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 6/26

categorized under the following heads for the sake of convenience:-

Public Witnesses:- 

8. Prosecutrix 'J' was the first witness examined on record. Her

testimony shall be discussed in detail later on in the course of the judgment.

9. PW-2 is Sh.S.S. (name withheld), father of Prosecutrix. He

deposed that on 19.02.2013, Prosecutrix informed him on phone that she

had made a call at 100 number regarding quarrel with Accused Rupesh and

his family. He called her at the shop at Chandni Chowk. Police called them

at PS, but they showed their inability to come to the PS on that day.

10. On 20.02.2013, he along with Prosecutrix 'J' went to PS.

Accused Rupesh and his father Bhagirath were present in the PS. Accused

persons apologized for their conduct in the PS and requested him to

compromise the matter. Thereafter, they did not make any complaint against

them and the matter was compromised between them.

11. PW2 further deposed that on 20.02.2013, in the evening,

Accused Rupesh came in front of their house and he taunted on Prosecutrix

Page 7: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 7/26

by saying that “tu kati chipkali ki tarah rahegi.” Thereafter, Prosecutrix 'J'

consumed 'All Out' liquid. He made a call at 100 number. Prosecutrix was

taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where she was admitted and was discharged

on the next day.

12. PW2 further deposed that when there were coming back after

getting Prosecutrix 'J' discharged from the hospital, on the way she told

him that Accused Rupesh had committed rape upon her on 16.02.2013 at

his house and also told the entire facts. Thereafter, they made a complaint

to the police and got registered the FIR. Prosecutrix was given

counselling. She was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by the police for

her medical examination. Police recorded his statement.

Medical Evidence:-

13. PW8 Dr. Vishakha Nagraj proved the MLC Ex. PW8/A of

Prosecutrix, prepared by Dr. Reema Mehta, who has since left the services

of hospital and her present whereabouts are not known.

14. PW10 Dr. Abhay Parkash deposed that he had medically

Page 8: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 8/26

examined Prosecutrix 'J' vide MLC Ex. PW10/A on 20.02.2013 when she

was brought to HRH hospital with alleged history of consuming 'All Out' at

home.

15. PW11 Dr. Geeta proved the Medico Legal Injury sheet No.

1161/13 dated 21.02.2013 Ex. PW11/A of Prosecutrix 'J', which was

prepared by Dr. Sohrab Khan.

Police Witnesses:-

16. PW3 Ct. Devender deposed that on 21.02.2013 he was posted

at PS Burari. On that day, at about 9.30 PM, DD No. 36A was received by

W. SI Neeraj. He alongwith W. SI Neeraj reached at A Block, Gali No. 27,

Bengali Colony, Burari. SI Rajeev of PS Burari alongwith one Ct. met

them there and he handed over some documents to W. SI Neeraj.

Prosecutrix 'J' was also present there. W. SI Neeraj made enquiries from

the Prosecutrix and recorded her statement and prepared a rukka and

handed over the same to PW3, which he took to PS for registration of FIR.

PW4 Ct. Devender handed over the rukka to Duty Officer. After

registration of FIR, Duty Officer handed over original rukka and

Page 9: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 9/26

computerized copy of FIR to him. He came back to the spot and handed

over the original rukka and copy of FIR to W. SI Neeraj. IO also recorded

statement of father of Prosecutrix. IO inspected the spot at the instance of

the Prosecutrix and prepared the site plan of the house of the Prosecutrix.

They also went to the house of Accused Rupesh, who lives nearby, but he

was not found there. Mother of Accused Rupesh was found present there.

Prosecutrix was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for her medical

examination where she was medically examined. They also made search

for the Accused Rupesh, but he could not be found. They came back to PS.

IO recorded statement of PW3.

17. PW4 W. SI Neeraj deposed that on 21.02.2013 she was posted

as SI at PS Burari. On that day, one receipt of DD No. 36A Ex. PW4/A,

she alongwith Ct. Devender reached at Gali No. 27, Bengali Colony, Sant

Nagar, Burari. SI Rajeev met her there. SI Rajeev produced the

Prosecutrix 'J' before her and also handed over MLC of Prosecutrix and

some other relevant documents to him. She recorded the statement of

Prosecutrix which is already Ex. PW1/A and prepared a rukka thereon

Page 10: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 10/26

which is Ex. PW4/B and handed over the same to Ct. Devender, who took

it to PS for registration of FIR and handed over the original rukka and copy

of FIR to her. W.SI Neeraj inspected the spot at the instance of the

Prosecutrix and prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW1/D and

took the Prosecutrix to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and her gynecological

examination was got conducted there. Thereafter, PW4 alongwith the

Prosecutrix came back to the house of the Prosecutrix and recorded the

supplementary statement of Prosecutrix and statement of her father. They

came back to PS and recorded the statement of Ct. Devender and SI

Rajeev.

18. PW4 W. SI Neeraj further deposed that on 27.02.2013,

statement of Prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 CrPC. She

collected the copy of the same. On 28.02.2013 Prosecutrix handed over

the copy of her marksheet of class X already marked as Mark PW1/X,

which she seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/C. On 20.03.2013

she handed over the case file to MHC[R] as she was transferred from PS

Burari.

Page 11: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 11/26

19. PW5 ASI Jaswant was the Duty Officer, who recorded FIR

No. 61/2013 PD Burari, computerized copy of which is Ex. PW5/A.

20. PW6 SI Rajiv deposed that on 20.02.2013 he was posted as SI

at PS Burari and was on night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. On

that day, at about 10.15 PM, he received DD No. 42A Ex. PW6/A that one

girl has consumed 'All Out'. On receipt of the said information, he along

with one Constable reached at A-1 Block, Gali No. 27, Bengali Colony,

Delhi. There, he came to know that the girl, who had consumed 'All Out'

has already been taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital by the PCR. He

reached at PS Bara Hindu Rao and collected the MLC of the Prosecutrix,

who had been declared unfit for statement by the doctors and returned to

the PS along with MLC.

21. PW6 further deposed that on next date 21.02.2013, he

received information that Prosecutrix is discharged from the hospital. He

went to her house and made enquiries from her and also got her counseled

through a lady counselor. PW6 called W. SI Neeraj from PS and handed

Page 12: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 12/26

over the counselling report and MLC of Prosecutrix to W. SI Neeraj and he

was relieved. IO recorded his statement.

22. PW7 W. SI Mukesh Devi deposed that on 23.09.2013, this

case was assigned to her for further investigation. She received the case

file from MHC[R]. On 18.10.2013, she formally arrested the Accused

Bhagirath vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A and released on bail as he was

already on anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation,

chargesheet was prepared against Accused Rupesh and Accused Bhagirath

and filed in court.

23. PW9 SI Santosh Sirohi deposed that on 10.03.2013, this case

was assigned to her for further investigation. She made search for the

Accused involved in this case and reached at the house of Accused at Sant

Nagar, Burari. The house was found locked. She got NBWs of Accused

persons Rupesh and Bhagirath issued from court.

24. PW9 SI Santosh Sirohi further deposed that on 07.05.2013

Accused Rupesh surrendered in court of Ld. MM. With the permission of

Page 13: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 13/26

the court, she interrogated the Accused Rupesh and arrested him vide

arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and conducted his personal search vide Ex.

PW9/B. PW9 SI Santosh Sirohi recorded the disclosure statement of

Accused vide Ex. PW9/C. Accused was taken on PC remand for one day,

but nothing incriminating could be recovered. Accused Rupesh was

medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW9/D and his potency test was got

conducted on 08.05.2013 vide report Ex. PW9/E. Examining doctor

handed over the blood sample of Accused in sealed condition which he

seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/F. Exhibits were deposited in

malkhana. PW9 recorded the statement of witnesses, thereafter, she was

transferred and further investigation was handed over to SI Mukesh.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313

CrPC:-

25. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, Accused

Rupesh pleaded innocence and false implication in this case by Prosecutrix

for taking revenge and extorting money from him and his family members.

Accused stated that Prosecutrix used to give tuition classes to him for XII

Page 14: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 14/26

class and she had love fantasy towards him, but he was not aware of the

same. On 15.02.2013, it was his 18th birthday, she gifted a teddy bear to

him and proposed him for marriage with her. He was surprised and

refused her proposal.

26. Accused Rupesh further stated that he was studying in Govt.

Boys Sr. Sec. School, CC Colony, Pratap Bagh, Delhi-9 and on 16.02.2013

it was his board examination of physical education XII class and it was

held till 1.30 PM. He and his friends were in school till 2 PM and they

took their photographs in school. Thereafter, they reached at China Town

Shop at Gupta Colony, Pratap Bagh, Delhi for taking refreshment.

Thereafter, they reached Camp Chowk by walking. From there his friends

boarded buses for Burari and other places and he also boarded a bus for

Jahangirpuri, Delhi, from where he took his married sister alongwith him

and at about 4.15-4.30 PM, he reached his house alongwith his sister as

some relatives were gathered at their house for his marriage talks with

daughter of Sh. Kunwar Pal. His marriage was fixed on the same day and

he got married with the daughter of Sh. Kunwar Pal on 16.02.2014.

Page 15: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 15/26

27. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, Accused Bhagirath

stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is

vegetable seller and on the date of incident, he was on his job.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE :-

28. Accused examined two defence witnesses. DW1 Daudayal

deposed that on 2012-2013, he was a student of Government Boys Senior

Secondary School, CC Colony, Delhi-9. He was a student of XII class and

Accused Rupesh was his classmate.

29. DW1 proved his mark-sheet and certificate of class XII, which

are Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B respectively. He deposed that on

16.02.2013, i.e. the date of alleged incident they had their Physical

Education Examination in school and from 10 AM to 12 Noon, practical of

physical education examination was conducted in playground and their

theoretical examination was conducted from 12 noon to 1.30 PM on that

day. As it was their last examination of class XII, they came to the

playground after the examination and took photographs with friends.

Page 16: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 16/26

30. DW1 deposed that he alongwith Accused Rupesh and other

boys namely Bablu and Sanjeev Pal remained in the school till 2 PM and

they took their photographs in school playground since it was their last day

of class XII. From school, they reached at China Town Fast Food Store

and thereafter, they proceeded towards Kingsway Camp Chowk. At about

3 PM, they all reached at Camp Chowk, Rupesh told them that he has to go

to Jahangirpuri for taking sister to home, as his some relatives are

supposed to come at his house for his marriage talks. Rupesh left for going

to house of his sister by bus and they left for their houses.

31. DW2 ASI Umed Pal brought the summoned record of DD No.

28B, DD No. 43B and DD No. 68B, all dated 08.05.2014, copy of which

are Ex. DW2/A, Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C respectively.

ARGUMENTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

32. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for

Accused as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and gone through the

evidence on record.

33. The testimony of the Prosecutrix is undoubtedly the most

Page 17: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 17/26

relevant piece of evidence in the present case. Upon stepping into the

witness box, the Prosecutrix PW1 'J' deposed that on 16.02.2013 at about 2

PM, she was called by Bhabhi of Accused to her house to fix a bulb.

Accused was present there and when she was trying to fix the bulb, father

of Accused also reached there and gave a bottle to Accused Rupesh and

thereafter, he left from there. Bhabhi of Accused also left stating that she

will return shortly. Thereafter, Accused Rupesh forced her to consume the

liquid which was in that bottle. It was having foul smell and she became

unconscious after consuming it. PW1 further deposed that upon regaining

consciousness, she found only Accused Rupesh was present there and she

was in naked condition and she realized that Accused had established

physical relations with her while she was unconscious. She further

deposed that Accused Rupesh told her not to disclose about it to anyone

stating that it will only bring bad name to her. She wore her clothes and

return to her house and did not disclose anything to any of her family

members.

34. On 19.02.2013 at about 8 AM, she went to the house of

Page 18: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 18/26

Accused Rupesh where his sister, his Mausa and his Mausi were present.

She enquired from Accused Rupesh as to why he had committed said act

with her. Upon enquiry, she also narrated the entire incident to the sister

of Accused, who asked Accused to apologize for his conduct, but Accused

Rupesh pushed and also abused her to do whatever she wanted to do. His

Mausa told her to commit suicide.

35. PW1 further deposed that, thereafter, she made a call at 100

number. Since the police did not come, she went to the office of her father

at Chandni Chowk and did not tell her father that Accused Rupesh had

raped her, but she had only told him that she had a quarrel with Accused

Rupesh. The witness was questioned as to why she did not tell to her

father about the incident of rape. She responded that she did not confide in

her father as she was afraid that he will scold her.

36. On 20.02.2013 the matter was compromised as her father went

to the house of Accused. However, Accused Rupesh while going from in

front of her house taunted her by saying that she have not been able to do

anything against him. He also stated that “ab tu kati chipkali ki tarah

Page 19: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 19/26

ghumegi.”  She deposed that feeling humiliated, she consumed  'All Out '

mosquito repellent. Thereafter, her family members took her to Hindu Rao

Hospital and she remained admitted there till 21.02.2013. Upon enquiry

by her father, she narrated all the facts to him and ultimately case was

registered on her complaint Ex. PW1/A.

37. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the testimony

of the Prosecutrix in the present case does not inspire confidence and her

statement is full of embellishments and improvements, as is apparent on

going through her cross-examination. It is submitted that Prosecutrix 'J'

has falsely implicated Accused in this case as he refused to marry her

though she was very much interested in marrying Accused Rupesh.

38. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP contended that testimony of

the Prosecutrix establishes the case of the Prosecution beyond reasonable

doubt and both the Accused should be convicted for the alleged offences.

39. A careful perusal of testimony of Prosecutrix in its entirety

would, however, reveal that she cannot be said to be a credible witness and

her statement is not worthy of reliance. During her cross-examination, she

Page 20: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 20/26

was confronted by her previous statements by Ld. Defence Counsel and

she certainly made various improvements upon stepping into the witness

box.

40. A perusal of cross-examination of PW1 'J' would also reveal

that she admitted in the course of cross-examination that there are other

residential houses near place of incident i.e. house of Bhabhi of Accused

Rupesh and the area is thickly populated. She did not raise any alarm or

made any attempt to escape from the house of Bhabhi of Accused when

Accused Rupesh allegedly forced her to consume foul smell liquid bottle

brought by co-Accused Bhagirath. As per Prosecutrix, she was studying in

B. A. Second year at the time of alleged incident. There is no explanation

as to why she did not even try to resist the alleged acts of Accused Rupesh,

who forced her to consume a foul smell liquid.

41. Be that as it may, it is extremely difficult to accept as to why

Prosecutrix did not reveal about the alleged rape to her family members,

but would go and talked about the incident on 19.02.2013 to the family

Page 21: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 21/26

members of the Accused. No reason has been furnished by the Prosecutrix

as to why she did not confide in her family members about the alleged rape

committed upon her by Accused Rupesh on 16.02.2013. Her claim that

Accused told her not to disclose it to anyone as it will bring bad name to

her, does not appeal to reason as she went ahead and talked to the family

members of the offender himself.

42. Moreover, surprisingly she did not utter a word about it to her

father even her father went to PS on 20.12.2013 and allegedly

compromised the matter with the father of Accused. PW2 father of the

Prosecutrix also deposed that on 20.02.2013 he alongwith Prosecutrix went

to PS where both Accused persons were present and matter was

compromised between them. Strangely, even when the matter was being

compromised in presence of Prosecutrix 'J', she did not utter any word

regarding alleged rape committed by Accused Rupesh upon her. More so,

when it is her own claim that on 19.02.2013 itself, she had gone to the

house of Accused at about 8 AM and narrated all the facts to his sister. It

is highly unnatural that a rape victim would not disclose the true facts to

Page 22: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 22/26

her family members, merely because of the reason that her father would

scold her and her father would go to the house of the Accused without

knowing the complete facts and compromise the matter with him and his

family.

43. I also find no force in the case of the Prosecution to the effect

that Prosecutrix consumed 'All Out' on 20.02.2013 when Accused Rupesh

while going from in front of her house taunted her by saying “ab tu kati

chipkali ki tarah ghumegi.” In this regard, my attention is drawn by Ld.

Defence Counsel to DD No. 42A dated 20.02.2013 PS Burari Ex. PW2/A.

As per this DD entry, it was reported at PS Burari that one girl has

consumed All Out in front of PS Burari on 20.02.2013 at 22:15 hours. In

view of the said DD entry Ex. PW6/A, it is apparent that contention of the

Defence is correct that Prosecutrix had in fact consumed All Out while

standing in front of PS Burari only to pressurize the police to register case

against Accused.

44. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 also admitted

that several other cases have been registered on the basis of complaint

Page 23: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 23/26

made by her against different persons. She also admitted that she got

registered case FIR No. 160/2011 under Section 376/342/506 IPC PS

Bhalswa Dairy against one Jinnha, copy of FIR is Ex PW1/DA; FIR No.

412/2011 under Section 341/354/323 IPC PS Jyoti Nagar against Jinnha,

the copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/DB; FIR No. 348/2011 under Section 363 IPC

PS Burari against Jinnha, the copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/DC; FIR No.

84/2012 under Section 509/506/34 IPC PS Bhalaswa Diary against

brothers of Jinnha namely Mohd. Naeem and Mohd. Hassan, copy of same

is Ex. PW1/DD. It was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that Prosecutrix

and her family members are habitual of filing false cases against different

persons only with a view to extort money from them and the Accused

persons in the present case have also been falsely implicated by the

Prosecutrix.

45. It is further, noteworthy that in the course of cross-

examination of Prosecutrix 'J', Defence put to her various text messages

sent on the mobile phone of Accused Rupesh from her mobile Nos.

8882093798 and 8527346190. Prosecutrix 'J' admitted that mobile No.

Page 24: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 24/26

8527346190 is mobile number of her house though she denied that mobile

No. 8883093798 belongs to her. When she was questioned about the

aforesaid text messages sent from mobile Nos. 8882093798 and

8527346190 to the mobile number of Accused Rupesh, she denied having

sent any message to him, but voluntarily added that it may be possible that

the said text messages Ex. PW1/D-2 were sent to Accused Rupesh by his

various girl friends. The aforesaid explanation put forth by the Prosecutrix

is not only highly improbable, but also apparently false.

46. I am also unable to accept the testimony of the Prosecutrix that

she was forced by Accused Rupesh to consume intoxicating liquid on

16.02.2013. It is also highly improbable that father of Accused Rupesh i.e.

co-Accused Bhagirath would bring the said intoxicating liquid in a bottle

in the house of Bhabhi of Accused Rupesh and forced to consume the

same. It is own claim of Bhabhi of Accused Rupesh that she was present

in the house. It has also come on record during her testimony that there

were other houses in the vicinity. There is no reason as to why she did not

try to raise an alarm against Accused Rupesh when he was forcing her to

Page 25: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 25/26

consume the intoxicating liquid when it is her own claim that it was foul

smelling. There is no explanation for this unnatural conduct of the

Prosecutrix and also makes her claim highly doubtful.

47. Considering the above discussion and the evidence on record,

it is evident that Prosecutrix 'J' cannot be termed as reliable and credible

witness. Her testimony does not inspire confidence. The Accused, in these

circumstances, cannot be convicted for the alleged offences on the basis of

such unreliable piece of evidence.

48. Consequently, upon considering the entire evidence on record,

Accused Rupesh S/o Bhagirath Mathur and Bhagirath Mathur S/o Sh. Sukh

Ram are hereby acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Sureties discharged.

49. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court

on 02nd

 day of September, 2015.

(Kaveri Baweja)

Additional Sessions Judge- Special FTC-2 (Central)

Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.

Page 26: State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

7/24/2019 State of Delhi vs Rupesh and Bhagirath Mathur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/state-of-delhi-vs-rupesh-and-bhagirath-mathur 26/26