Delhi High Court
State vs Arvind on 25 August, 2014
$12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 368/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP with
SI Meena Yadav, PS Inderpuri.
versus
ARVIND ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 25.08.2014
Crl.M.A.8588/2014
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 32 days in filing
the petition is condoned.
Crl.L.P.368/2014
1. By the present petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the
judgment dated November 20, 2013 whereby Arvind has been acquitted of
the charge for offences punishable under section 366/376 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the State contends that delay in filing of the FIR
ought not to be a ground for discarding the testimony of the prosecutrix.
The prosecution has placed the record of the telephone calls to show that the
prosecutrix and Arvind were working in a factory and had become friends
due to which prosecutrix went to the house of Arvind when he forcibly raped
her. It is only after the prosecutrix was raped by Arvind even after his
marriage that the FIR was lodged, which cannot belittle the offence
committed on the prosecutrix. Hence, leave to appeal be granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
4. The investigation was set into motion on receipt of a PCR call
Ex.PW16/A on September 5, 2012 at 3.24 PM informing that "Ek ladka
kuch samay pehle rape karke bhaga tha jise yahan par pakad rakha hai".
On reaching the PCR officials found that Arvind aged 31 years had been
apprehended and it was informed that on the night of August 25/26, 2012 he
had taken 'R' to his house and there forcibly raped her.
5. W/ASI Meena Yadav recorded the statement of the prosecutrix at the
police station and got her medically examined. In her statement Ex.PW4/A
the prosecutrix stated that she had studied upto 10th class and was residing
with her parents, brothers and sisters. Now she was staying at home. In
September, 2011 she was working in a factory where envelops were being
made. In the same factory Arvind was also working. During work she
developed friendship with Arvind and both of them started talking on phone.
On September 21, 2011 while she was going to factory, Arvind met her on
the way and stated that he was unwell. He took her to his house at Inderpuri.
After taking medicine Arvind closed the room and gagged her mouth with
his one hand and from the other he forcibly took out her clothes and had
intercourse with her. He threatened her that in case she informed her parents
he would kill her. So she did not tell anything to her parents. Arvind
continued making phone calls to her. On August 26, 2012 which was a
Sunday at about 8 PM when she went to purchase vegetables, Arvind met
her and took her to his room forcibly and had sexual intercourse with her
and threatened her not to tell the facts to anybody. She informed about the
incident to her mother who told to her father. Her father followed Arvind
and finally caught him at Sonia Vihar.
6. Subsequently, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C. by Sh. Ajay Singh Shekhawat, learned MM PW-13, which is in
sync with the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. In the witness
box also the prosecutrix stood by her statement.
7. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecutrix it is alleged that Arvind
had forcible sexual intercourse with her twice i.e. once on September 21,
2011 and secondly on August 26, 2012. A perusal of the MLC of the
prosecutrix Ex.PW10/A shows no external injury was present obviously
because the incident took place around nine days prior to the date of medical
examination. However, surprisingly the hymen was noted to be freshly torn.
This belies the version of the prosecutrix that the first sexual intercourse
took place on September 21, 2011.
8. From the mobile phone record it is evident that the prosecutrix and the
respondent were in constant touch with each other even after the incident
dated September 21, 2011.
9. The defence of Arvind was that though the prosecutrix was working
in the same factory in the year 2011 but they were not friends. He had
complained about the prosecutrix to the contractor as she was not doing her
work properly pursuant to which her service were terminated as a result of
which her father bore a grudge against him and thus falsely implicated him.
There are some traces of this version being correct from the testimony of the
prosecutrix herself as she has admitted that of late she was not working in
the factory and was at home only, however his version that the prosecutrix
and he were not friends is incorrect.
10. The mother of the prosecutrix PW7 has admitted that the prosecutrix
used to receive calls from Arvind and her husband made enquiries from the
prosecutrix. Her husband made further enquiries and started beating the
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix informed that she was raped by Arvind twice.
They started searching Arvind and after one month her husband found him
and took him to the police station. This version of the mother belies the
version of the prosecutrix, who stated that the second time Arvind
committed sexual intercourse with her on August 26, 2012 because
according to the mother, after being informed it took around one month for
the father of the prosecutrix to search Arvind.
11. The version of father of the prosecutrix PW9 is that in the month of
September, 2011 his daughter and Arvind were working in the same factory
at Nirvana. On September 5, 2011 a friend of his daughter informed that
Arvind had passed some comments upon the prosecutrix. He visited the
factory on November 6, 2011 and scolded Arvind. He also discontinued the
job of the prosecutrix and thereafter she used to stay at home. However, in
cross-examination PW9 stated that he never visited the factory where the
prosecutrix was working either prior to joining the factory or after till the
case was registered.
12. Thus, there are material contradictions in the testimony of the three
main prosecution witnesses.
13. The prosecutrix has deposed that after the incident Arvind continued
to call her. Though she never disconnected his call, however, she requested
him not to call her. She further stated that when her father came to know, he
made her speak on the phone to Arvind with the speaker on and thereafter he
went in search of the respondent. It is thus evident that the father of the
prosecutrix was annoyed with her friendship with Arvind and thus got him
arrested.
14. In view of the fact that FIR was registered belatedly, the medical
evidence does not support the version of the prosecutrix and inherent
contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses, we find no infirmity
in the impugned judgment acquitting Arvind. We find no reason to grant
leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.
15. T.C.R. be returned.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 25, 2014
vld
