Woman, who alleged that she was raped by the Taxi Driver actually fought with the man over fare of Rs. 500 which she refused to give. A fight followed in which both the driver and the woman attacked each other. Medical as well as Forensic evidence have established that there was no rape committed upon the woman. Judgment also mentions that the woman demanded Rs 5 lacs from the driver to settle the case.
In April 2015, shortly after Uber case, another news of rape in a taxi in the dark hours of the night, made headlines in Delhi. According to reports splashed across various news papers Times of India India Today DNA and also various leading TV channels, it was alleged that driver Ramesh Kumar had raped the woman, sexually assaulted her and threatened of dire consequences.
Six months into the incident, the case has reached it’s final judgment and the accused Ramesh Kumar has been acquitted of the said offence , where the judge has found the testimony of the complainant unreliable and untrustworthy because of various improvements and inconsistencies. Justice Virender Bhat says “The version of the prosecutrix is vacillating and her deposition before this court is not consistent with her statements recorded during the course of investigation. She has given contradictory, inconsistent and vacillating versions of the incident at every occasion when she was called upon to describe the incident. Her deposition before this court is replete with embellishments and inconsistencies.”
Medical evidence and forensic evidence collected during the course of investigation of the case have also pointed out that the case was fabricated and incident misreported as that of rape, though it was a quarrel between the driver and complainant over the taxi fare which the woman refused to give. The judge observes “The statement of the prosecutrix to the doctor that she was not subjected to vaginal or anal or oral sex by the accused clearly demolishes the case of the prosecution in totality. Neither medical evidence nor forensic evidence supports the version of the prosecutrix.”
There were a total of 18 witnesses presented from the prosecution side. Accused Ramesh Kumar claimed innocence and pleaded trial. After going through all evidence and testimonies while acquitting the accused, Justice Virender Bhat observes :
“It does appear from the evidence on record that some kind of quarrel and struggle had taken place between the accused and the prosecutrix inside the taxi as both had beaten and bitten each other. But to say that the accused has either raped her or attempted to rape her would not be in a justified conclusion. The prosecutrix has nowhere stated whether the accused had agreed to drop her at her destination for free or some amount of fare had been fixed and if so, how much. This lends credence to the defence raised by accused that the quarrel had taken place as she was refusing to pay his taxi charges of Rs.500/-. Further, the deposition of DW1 and DW2 (the wife and sister of the accused) too gives an indication that a demand of Rs. 5 Lacs was made from the side of prosecution to them for settlement of the case which also brings the case of prosecution within the sphere of doubt.”
Despite looking at all the aspects of the case, Ramesh Kumar has just been given benefit of doubt by the court even though evidences point towards the fact that the woman was not raped. While the case got covered widely when it was reported, it has not found a mention yet anywhere in the news though the judgment was pronounced on September 16, 2015. Ramesh Kumar would still be considered as a rapist by most people of this country while the woman faces no consequences for misreporting a heinous crime as rape.
This is not just one case. This is one among many being reported everyday. But media doesn’t find them worthy of reporting – may be they know the reason better!
I would urge the media to report the acquittal of this man and if possible at least now ask for his side of the story.
Here’s the judgment in the case as pronounced in the Open Court of Justice Shri Virender Bhat:
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0054482015.
State Vs. Ramesh
S/o Sh. Kulbir Singh,
R/o House No.13, Bhagat Panna, VPO Nangli Sankrawati,
Date of Institution : 13.5.2015.
FIR No. 296 dated 10.4.2015. U/s. 376/506/342/323 IPC. P.S. Dwarka North.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 08.9.2015. Date of pronouncement : 16.9.2015.
1. Accused Ramesh was chargesheeted by the prosecution for having committed the offences u/s. 376/506/342/323 IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix namely ‘S’ (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) and a male person had hired the taxi of the accused on 09.4.2015 at about 10.20 p.m. from Dwarka More Metro Station. The male passenger got down at Rajapuri, whereas the prosecutrix had to reach her residence in Bharat Vihar. The accused then stopped the taxi at little distance from that place and committed forcible
SC No.33/15. Page 1 of 19
sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix inside the taxi.
3. Further case of the prosecution, as is revealed from the perusal of the Charge Sheet and the documents alongwith the same, is that a caller had made call at telephone no.100 on 09.4.2015 at 11.56 p.m. from his mobile no. 9868959203 stating that somebody is beating a lady in Maruti Eco vehicle of black colour bearing registration no.DL-1T-7516 which is going from Rajapuri Red Light towards Madhu Vihar and when he went near the vehicle, it was sped away. The said information was transmitted to P.S. Dwarka North where it was recorded as DD No. 54A. The DD was handed over to SI Manju Chahar for suitable action. She alongwith Lady Const. Geeta and Const. Vijender reached the spot where they found that PCR Van Z-79 had already reached and a Eco Taxi no.DL-1T-7516 was at the spot and the prosecutrix ‘S’ was sitting on its rear seat. Incharge PCR Van HC Ravinder produced accused Ramesh Kumar before WSI Manju Chahar. She made inquiry from the prosecutrix, recorded her statement, made endorsement on the same and got FIR registered. She sent the prosecutrix alongwith Lady Const. Geeta to DDU Hospital for medical examination as well as counselling. The exhibits given by the doctor were seized by her and then deposited in the Malkhana. She interrogated and arrested accused Ramesh at the spot and sent him alongwith Const. Virender to DDU Hospital for medical examination. Exhibits given by the doctor were seized by her and then deposited in the Malkhana. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on the next day. The team of experts from the FSL Rohini and the Crime Team inspected the said taxi. The articles lifted from inside
SC No.33/15. Page 2 of 19
the taxi were seized by the IO. All the exhibits were then sent by the IO to FSL for forensic examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, IO prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same to the concerned court.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charges u/s.323 IPC, u/s.342 IPC, u/s.506 IPC and u/s.376 IPC were framed against the accused on 01.6.2015. The accused denied the charges and hence trial was held.
6. At trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Ld. APP also tendered in evidence the DNA report Ex.PA. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on 13.8.2015 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. He stated that the prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint of rape against him in order to avoid payment of Rs.500/- as taxi charges to him. He also stated that he had only demanded his charges of Rs.500/- from the prosecutrix, upon which she raised hue and cry, started quarrelling with him and bite his right hand index finger. He denied having committed rape upon her.
7. The accused examined his wife and his sister as the two witnesses in his defence.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record.
SC No.33/15. Page 3 of 19
9. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW1. She deposed that she was working in a Mall in Rajouri Garden. She left the Mall on 09.4.2015 at 9.30 p.m. as usual and reached Dwarka More Metro Station in Metro Train. She could not find any public transport at that place to reach her residence in Bharat Vihar, Rajapuri. Meanwhile, a Maruti Eco vehicle being driven by the accused reached there. An elderly male person asked the accused whether he would take him upto Rajapuri and the accused replied in affirmative. She realized that the car is going in the direction of her residence and hence asked the accused whether he would take her upto Madhu Vihar. The accused replied in affirmative and accordingly she too boarded the car. She and the elderly person sat on the rear seat of the car. The elderly person got down at Rajapuri. The accused then drove the taxi further and after crossing the traffic light, stopped the taxi. He got down from the driver seat and came to the rear seat where prosecutrix was sitting saying that he has to check the gas level in the cylinders. He locked the door of the car and started checking something on the back of rear seat. When the prosecutrix asked him to keep distance from her, he got furious and started beating her with fists.
10. The prosecutrix further deposed that the accused beat her mercilessly. Then he took out his male organ (penis) and inserted the same into her mouth. He also bite her on the back and under her arm. She also bite him on his hand. She was crying and shouting in pain. In the meanwhile, a passer-by came near the car and asked them why they are quarrelling. She shouted from inside the car that she is a passenger in this car and accused is the
SC No.33/15. Page 4 of 19
driver of the car and is sexually assaulting her. The accused also shouted in loud voice that they are husband and wife and it is their private affair. Upon hearing this, the passer-by left. Thereafter, the accused took off her Salwar and inserted his male organ (penis) into her female organ and did so for some time. Meanwhile, they saw a police gypsy coming towards them and the accused immediately jumped to the driver seat and started the car. She tried to pull him by his shirt but soon became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found the police officials near the car and accused on the driver seat of the car.
11. The prosecutrix further deposed that the police officials apprehended the accused. There was a lady police official who helped her putting on the Salwar and also offered her water. Police officials brought her and the accused to P.S. Dwarka where her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. Then she was taken to DDU Hospital where her medical examination was conducted. The Salwar, she was wearing, was taken into possession by the doctor. She proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/B. She also deposed that she showed the spot of incident to the police officials vide pointing out memo Ex.PW1/C. She identified the Maruti Eco car of the accused inside which she had been raped, from the photographs Ex.PW1/D (colly). She also identified the Salwar Ex.P2, a pair of black colour hair clips Ex.P3 as well as pieces of blue and black colour ladies hair clips and as black colour hair clutcher which had been lifted by FSL team from the taxi.
12. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, she denied that she had asked accused to take her only
SC No.33/15. Page 5 of 19
upto Rajapuri and not upto Madhu Vihar. She also denied that when she got down from the taxi at Rajapuri, she refused to pay the fare of Rs.500/- to the accused and quarrelled with him. She admitted not having mentioned in her statement to police Ex.PW1/A and in statement to Ld. M.M. Ex.PW1/B that accused inserted his male organ into her mouth and that the accused had bitten under her arm also. She also admitted not having mentioned in her statement Ex.PW1/A that she had become unconscious on account of assault of the accused.
13. PW16 HC Ravinder was the Incharge, PCR Van Zebra 79 on 09.4.2015 and is stated to have reached the spot first of all alongwith his staff. He deposed that he received call from Control Room at about 10.32 p.m. on that day to the effect that a lady is crying in a taxi which is going from Dwarka to Rajapuri. They were near Rajapuri traffic light at that time and as soon as they crossed the traffic light, they saw a black colour Maruti Eco taxi bearing no.DL-1T-7516 being driven in slow speed towards Palam. They intercepted the same at some distance. The driver of the taxi tried to escape but could not succeed and had to stop the taxi. The driver then opened the door of the taxi and tried to run away but they overpowered him and apprehended him. He deposed that a lady was sitting on the rear seat of the taxi and was weeping. She was not wearing her lower garment and disclosed her name as ‘S’. He further stated that meanwhile the local police reached the spot and Lady Const. Geeta helped the lady to put on her Salwar. He handed over the taxi, taxi driver as well as the lady to the local police and left. He identified accused Ramesh to be the taxi driver.
SC No.33/15. Page 6 of 19
14. Lady Const. Geeta has been examined as PW2. She deposed that on the intervening night of 09.4.2015 and 10.4.2015 upon receipt of a call of rape, she alongwith Const. Raju and Const. Vijender reached Rajapuri Chowk where they found a taxi no.DL-1T-7516 parked on the road. PCR officials had already reached the spot. The prosecutrix ‘S’ was sitting inside the car and accused Ramesh was standing outside with the PCR officials. She stated that meanwhile SI Manju Chahar also reached the spot and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she alongwith SI Manju Chahar took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for medical examination. The doctor gave her one sealed pullinda and one sample seal after the medical examination of the prosecutrix which she handed over to SI Manju Chahar who seized those vide memo Ex.PW2/A. They then brought the prosecutrix to police station where she was counselled by an NGO counsellor. The prosecutrix then took them to Dwarka More where she pointed out the spot wherefrom she had boarded the car of the accused. In the cross examination, she specifically stated that she did not help the prosecutrix to wear her clothes. She deposed that she did not do any other thing at the spot.
15. PW4 Dr. Nikita had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix in DDU Hospital and proved her observations on the MLC as Ex.PW4/A. She had found the following external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix:
(1)bruise with swelling and abrasion over forehead (3 X 3 cm approx.).
(2)bruise over back (left shoulder) (3 X 3 cm approx.). (3)abrasion over left upper eyelid.
Page 7 of 19
(4)abrasion on right wrist joint.
16. She further deposed that she did not obtain any sample of the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix did not give any history of vaginal, oral or anal sexual intercourse. She only took into possession the Salwar of the prosecutrix and handed over the same to the Lady Constable accompanying her. In the cross examination, she deposed that she did not notice any injury marks upon the private part of the prosecutrix. She also stated that the prosecutrix was not having any injury marks on her legs and feet.
17. PW18 was the Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, South West District, New Delhi. He deposed that they had been summoned to P.S. Dwarka North on 13.4.2015 to inspect the Maruti Eco van. He alongwith fingerprint expert ASI Kulbhushan, Const. Sandeep (photographer) and a driver reached P.S. Dwarka North at about 1.45 p.m. IO SI Manju Chahar showed them the black colour Maruti Eco van bearing registration no.DL-1T-7516 parked in the premises of the police station. He inspected the vehicle and found certain pieces of hair clip on its rear seat which he handed over to the IO. On his directions, the photographer Const. Sandeep took photographs of the vehicle from various angles. He prepared his report Ex.PW18/A and handed over the same to the IO. In the cross examination, he deposed that the IO had told him that the FSL team has already inspected the vehicle. He stated that the FSL team did not inspect the vehicle in his presence.
18. Const. Sandeep, the photographer in Mobile Crime
SC No.33/15. Page 8 of 19
Team appearing as PW8 deposed that they inspected the Maruti Eco van bearing registration no. DL-1T-7516 on 13.4.2015 in P.S. Dwarka North. He took five photographs of the vehicle from outside as well as from inside. He had brought negatives of these photographs and proved those as Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A5. However, the photographs were not found either on record or in the police file.
19. Constable Virender has been examined as PW15. He deposed that on 09.4.2015, he alongwith SI Manju Chahar, Lady Const. Geeta and Const. Raju reached near Rajapuri Chowk and they found a PCR van and a black colour Maruti Eco taxi at the spot. He did not recollect registration number of the taxi. He further stated that PCR officials had apprehended a person. HC Ravinder, Incharge PCR van, told them that the person apprehended has committed rape upon the lady namely ‘S’, who was sitting in Maruti Eco taxi. He further deposed that SI Manju Chahar made inquiries from that lady, recorded her statement, prepared rukka and sent it through Const. Raju to the police station for registration of FIR. She also interrogated and arrested the person apprehended by PCR officials i.e. accused Ramesh. In the cross examination, he deposed that they had left the police station at about 10.30 p.m. and reached the spot in 10 to 15 minutes.
20. The doctor, who had examined the accused in DDU Hospital after his arrest, has been examined as PW10. He proved his MLC as Ex.Pw10/A and deposed that he found a multiple linear abrasions over his neck and chest, abrasion over his upper lip and
SC No.33/15. Page 9 of 19
abrasion over his right hand. In the cross examination, he admitted that the injuries found on the body of the accused could be sustained in a quarrel.
21. PW12 is Ram Gopal Siroha. He deposed that on 09.4.2015 at about 10.15 p.m. when he was on his evening walk alongwith a pet dog, he found somebody banging on the windshield of a Maruti Eco taxi which was parked on the side of the main road. He went near the taxi and found its door closed from inside. All its windshields had also been closed and there was no light inside the taxi. However, he could see from the light emanating from the street light nearby that a lady had been laid on the rear seat of the taxi and a male person was over her and beating her. He shouted as to what was happening in the taxi but no reply came. He banged the windshield of the taxi with a small stick which he was having in his hand and the male person stood up, went on to the driver seat of the taxi, started the engine and drove off. He noted the registration number of the taxi as DL-1T-7516. Since he was not having mobile phone with him, he asked the persons who had gathered nearby for their mobile phone so that he can make a call at telephone no.100 but nobody amongst them was having mobile phone. He then rushed to his house but on the way saw a PCR van coming from the opposite side. He stopped the van and narrated the whole incident to PCR officials and also apprised them about the registration number as well as colour of the taxi. Thereafter, he went home and made a call at telephone no.100 from his mobile no. 9868959203.
22. IO SI Manju Chahar has appeared as PW17. She
SC No.33/15. Page 10 of 19
deposed that on 10.4.2015, on receipt of DD No.54A, she alongwith Lady Const. Geeta, Const. Raju and Const. Vijender reached the spot of incident near Rajapuri traffic light. They found that PCR officials had already reached the spot and had apprehended a person named Ramesh. A black colour taxi bearing registration no.DL-1T-7516 was at the spot and a lady named ‘S’ was sitting on its rear seat. There were bruises over her face and neck. She made inquiries from the lady ‘S’ and recorded her statement as Ex.PW1/A. She prepared rukka and sent it through Const. Raju to the police station for registration of FIR. She interrogated the accused Ramesh and arrested him at the spot. She also recorded his disclosure statement. She further stated that on her directions Const. Raju drove the taxi to the police station. She sent the prosecutrix alongwith lady Const. Geeta to hospital for medical examination. She also sent accused Ramesh alongwith Const. Vijender to hospital for medical examination. She seized the exhibits given to her by lady Const. Geeta and Const. Vijender upon return from the hospital.
23. She further deposed that a counsellor from an NGO counselled the prosecutrix in the police station. She alongwith prosecutrix visited the spot, from where prosecutrix had boarded the taxi of the accused and prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW1/C. She then again visited the spot of incident and prepared its rough site plan Ex.PW17/C. She produced the prosecutrix before the concerned Ld. M.M. in Dwarka Court who recorded her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC. She also deposed that a FSL team came to the police station on 13.4.2015 and inspected the taxi. The team lifted five samples from the taxi and handed over the same
SC No.33/15. Page 11 of 19
to her which she seized vide memo Ex.PW17/D. She further stated that on the same day, the District Crime Team also inspected the taxi and they lifted seven pieces of back clips and two hair clips (one of black colour and another of blue colour) from the rear seat of the taxi and handed over the same to her which she seized vide memo Ex.PW17/F. She sent all the exhibits to FSL for forensic examination.
24. In the cross examination, she deposed that she had received DD No.54A at about 12 midnight. She admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW17/d does not bear the signature of any member of the FSL team. She stated that the FSL team did not furnish their report to her on the day of inspection and the report was sent to her later on after she had already filed the Charge Sheet, for which reason, she did not annex report alongwith Charge Sheet. She also admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW17/F does not bear the signature of any member of the Crime Team.
25. Undoubtedly, In cases involving the offence of rape, the testimony of prosecutrix is the most vital and material piece of evidence. Her statement, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and conviction can be based upon her sole testimony. However, if for some reasons, the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in case of an accomplice. If the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial,
SC No.33/15. Page 12 of 19
which would lend assurance to her testimony. At the same time, it is to be kept in mind by the court that like in all criminal cases, in the case of rape also, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively all the ingredients of the offence which it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is not for the accused to explain as to why and how the victim and other witnesses have testified falsely against him. There is initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offences against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt.
26. In the instant case, the prosecutrix in her statement to police Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of which FIR has been registered, has narrated the incident in the following words :
“……………………. that the person got down from the taxi at Rajapuri. Then taxi driver stopped the vehicle. He got down from the driving seat and came to the rear seat. He started taking off my clothes forcibly. I resisted, upon which he started beating me. He slapped me and hit on my head with fists. He bite on my back and threatened that if I would shout, he would kill me. He then took off my Salwar and committed the wrong act (Galat Kaam) with me. Thereafter, he started the taxi and drove towards Madhu Vihar but the taxi was stopped by police officials after travelling some distance. The taxi driver attempted to run away but was apprehended by the police. ………………..” (Free translation from Hindi).
SC No.33/15. Page 13 of 19
27. In her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B, the prosecutrix has stated that the accused opened the string of her Salwar, took off his pant and started inserting his male organ forcibly into her vagina. He told her that she would have to have sex with him or otherwise, he would kill her. She has further stated that meanwhile police vehicle came there and the accused immediately went to the driver seat and started driving the vehicle.
28. It is for the first time in her deposition before this court that the prosecutrix stated that after beating her mercilessly, the accused took out his male organ (penis) and inserted the same into her mouth. It would be apposite to reproduce here her exact version of the incident contained in her examination in chief:
“The elderly person got down from the car at Rajapuri. Thereafter the accused moved ahead. He crossed the traffic light and stopped the car after moving 10 or 15 feet. He came down from the driver seat and came to the rear seat where I was sitting saying that he has to check the gas level in the cylinder. He locked the doors of the car and started checking something on the back of the rear seat. While doing so, he was very close to my body and I asked him to remain at a distance from me. However, he got furious and started beating me with his fists. He beat me mercilessly. Then he took out his male organ (penis) and inserted the same into my mouth. He also bite me on my back and under my arm. I resisted his act and bite him on his hand. I was crying and shouting in pain. In the meanwhile, a passer-by perhaps heard my shouts and came near the car. While standing near the car, he told us why we are quarrelling on the road. I thought that since we are able to hear him, he would also hear me. I shouted that I am a passenger in the car and the accused is a
SC No.33/15. Page 14 of 19
driver of the car and is sexually assaulting me. However, the accused shouted in loud voice that we are husband and wife and it is our private affair. Upon hearing this, the passer-by left. Thereafter, the accused took off my Salwar and inserted his male organ (penis) into my female organ (vagina). He did so for some time. Meanwhile, we saw a police gypsy coming towards us. The accused immediately jumped to the driver seat and started the car. I tried to pull him by his shirt but soon I became unconscious. When I regained consciousness, I found the police officials near the car and the accused on the driver seat of the car. The accused then opened the door locks of the car on the asking of police officials.”
Therefore, the version of the prosecutrix is vacillating
and her deposition before this court is not consistent with her statements recorded during the course of investigation. She has made improvements and embellishments in each of her statements.
30. In the FIR, she has stated categorically that the accused committed wrong act (Galat Kaam) (which can be construed as rape) with her. However, her statement Ex.PW1/B gives the impression that the accused was about to insert his private organ forcibly into her vagina when police vehicle reached there and he had to go to the driver seat. A bare reading of the said statement of the prosecutrix does not indicate that the accused had inserted his male organ into the vagina of the prosecutrix. Her version in the examination in chief before this court that the accused had inserted his male organ into her mouth is neither found in her statement Ex.PW1/A nor in her statement Ex.PW1/B.
SC No.33/15. Page 15 of 19
31. Further in her statement Ex.PW1/A, she has mentioned that after committing rape upon her, the accused started the taxi and drove towards Madhu Vihar and the taxi was stopped by police vehicle after travelling some distance. However, in her statement Ex.PW1/B and in her deposition before this court, she has stated that while the accused was about to rape her or was raping her, they saw a police gypsy coming towards them whereupon accused immediately jumped to the driver seat and started the taxi. Hence there is no consistency in her statements in this regard also.
32. The prosecutrix has deposed before this court that when they saw a police gypsy coming towards them, the accused immediately jumped to the driver seat and started the car. She tried to pull him by his shirt but soon became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found police officials near the car and the accused on the driver seat of the car. Her version in this regard also is a clear improvement upon her previous statements as she did not say either in statement Ex.PW1/A or in statement Ex.PW1/B that she had become unconscious during the struggle with the accused. Further, none of the police officials, who had reached the spot, have stated that they found the prosecutrix in unconscious state inside the taxi. PW16, the Incharge PCR Van, was the first person to see the prosecutrix inside the taxi after intercepting the taxi. He has deposed that the prosecutrix was weeping on the rear seat of the taxi. Similarly, IO (PW17) and PW2, who was alongwith the IO also have not stated that they found the prosecutrix in unconscious state.
SC No.33/15. Page 16 of 19
33. The deposition of the prosecutrix that the accused had taken off her Salwar and later on a lady police official had helped her to put on her Salwar also appears doubtful. PW16 too has deposed that the prosecutrix was not wearing her lower garments when he saw her and later on lady Const. Geeta helped her to put on her Salwar. However, lady Const. Geeta (PW2) nowhere deposed that she helped the prosecutrix to put on her Salwar. A specific question was put to her in the cross examination in this regard and she denied that she had helped the prosecutrix to wear her clothes. In fact, none of the police officials i.e. PW2, PW7, PW15 and the IO PW17 have deposed that the prosecutrix was not wearing any Salwar and that PW2 had helped her to wear the Salwar.
34. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the prosecutrix had been taken to DDU Hospital for gynecological examination where she was examined by PW4 Dr. Nikita. The observations of PW4 on the MLC show that the prosecutrix had told her that the accused tried for vaginal intercourse but was unable to do it. The prosecutrix did not give any history of anal or rectal or oral intercourse and for this reason, her vaginal, oral and anal samples were not collected by the doctor. The statement of the prosecutrix to the doctor that she was not subjected to vaginal or anal or oral sex by the accused clearly demolishes the case of the prosecution in totality. PW4 has also admitted in her cross examination that she did not notice any injury marks upon the private parts of the prosecutrix or on her legs and feet.
SC No.33/15. Page 17 of 19
35. The prosecutrix has deposed in her cross examination that she was not wearing any underwear at the time of incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Salwar which she was wearing at the time of incident was taken into possession by the doctor PW4 and had been later on sent to FSL Rohini for forensic examination. The DNA report Ex.PA shows that no semen was detected on the said Salwar of the prosecutrix or on the samples of seat cover of the taxi which had been lifted by FSL team during its inspection of the taxi on 13.4.2015. Hence neither medical evidence nor forensic evidence supports the version of the prosecutrix.
36. It is thus manifest that the prosecutrix does not qualify as a sterling witness. She has given contradictory, inconsistent and vacillating versions of the incident at every occasion when she was called upon to describe the incident. Her deposition before this court is replete with embellishments and inconsistencies. Therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon her testimony. She has clearly stated to the doctor (PW4) who had conducted her gynecological examination that she was not subjected to vaginal, anal or oral sex by the accused at all. No semen stains were found either upon the Salwar which she was wearing at the time of incident or upon the pieces of seat cover lifted by the FSL team from the rear seat of the taxi, upon which she is stated to have been raped by the accused. Therefore, the medical evidence as well as forensic evidence also does not lend any assurance to the truthfulness of her deposition. There is no evidence on record which either corroborates the version of prosecutrix or lends assurance to her testimony.
SC No.33/15. Page 18 of 19
37. It does appear from the evidence on record that some kind of quarrel and struggle had taken place between the accused and the prosecutrix inside the taxi as both had beaten and bitten each other. But to say that the accused has either raped her or attempted to rape her would not be in a justified conclusion. The prosecutrix has nowhere stated whether the accused had agreed to drop her at her destination for free or some amount of fare had been fixed and if so, how much. This lends credence to the defence raised by accused that the quarrel had taken place as she was refusing to pay his taxi charges of Rs.500/-.
38. Further, the deposition of DW1 and DW2 (the wife and sister of the accused) too gives an indication that a demand of Rs. 5 Lacs was made from the side of prosecution to them for settlement of the case which also brings the case of prosecution within the sphere of doubt.
39. Hence the prosecutrix has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution is neither credible nor trustworthy.
40. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted as such.
Announced in open Court on 16.9.2015.
(VIRENDER BHAT) Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Page 19 of 19
Editor’s Note: The reason to report this judgment is the wide coverage that this case got in media and no investigation or reporting of the case after court’s verdict. We all heard what media told us and what woman told cops and media. The judgment reports all facets of the case. Shouldn’t the media bring a case to a conclusion after it’s verdict comes out? The case which added to the scare among public , should be reported with its final verdict/if appealed too. If the acquittal has any lacunae report it then too. At least it would not be passed as lack of evidences for something for which there could be no evidences.