Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State on 17 May, 2016
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~R-37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : May 17, 2016
+ CRL.A. 90/2014
PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
SI Dinesh Kumar, PS Nabi Karim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.4119/2016
Allowed as prayed for. Since appellant surrendered after availing
interim bail, the FDR in question furnished by the surety is discharged with
a direction that the endorsement thereon be cancelled.
Crl.M.(Bail) No.407/2016
Since the appeal has reached for hearing and is being heard today
instant application which seeks suspension of sentence is dismissed as
infructuous .
Crl.A.No.90/2014
1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having raped the
prosecutrix, who happened to be the wife of the friend of the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant's fate would be
decided with reference to the testimony of the prosecutrix, who being a
married lady was accustomed to sexual intercourse with her husband and
therefore her examination as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-7/A would be
useless. As was expected, it records nothing adverse against the appellant.
3. Examined as PW-2, in harmony with her statement Ex.PW-2/A dated
October 01, 2012, prosecutrix had deposed that appellant was a friend of her
husband and used to frequent their house and in the absence of her husband
came to their house on September 30, 2012. Since she was unable to
conceive, appellant told her that if she established physical relations with
him she would conceive. She got angry and refused. The appellant bolted
the door and committed rape upon her. When her husband returned she told
him of what had happened and he took her to the police station where her
statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded. From her house the blanket Ex.P-2
was seized. After she was examined by the doctors her clothes were taken
in the hospital, a green coloured saree and an orange coloured petikot Ex.P-1
collectively were hers.
4. The tenor of the cross-examination is interesting. It moves in the
direction that the prosecutrix voluntarily had sex, evidenced by the
suggestion, which prosecutrix denied, that on September 30, 2012 she had
called the appellant to her house. To the suggestion that she was falsely
deposing of being raped, the lady gave a very interesting answer : 'izzat ka
koi mol nahi hai'. And rightly so.
5. DNA analysis report Ex.PW-12/A show that due to
inhibitors/degradation of samples DNA could not be generated.
6. The argument that since DNA report exonerates the appellant he is
entitled to be acquitted is noted and rejected because the DNA report does
not exonerate the appellant. It has yielded no evidence and therefore is not
incriminating evidence against the appellant, but that does not mean that it
exonerates the appellant.
7. It is settled law that testimony of a rape victim does not require
corroboration. If the testimony inspires confidence there is no reason not to
disbelieve the prosecutrix.
8. There is no reason why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the
appellant, who is a friend of her husband. The suggestion by the appellant
to the prosecutrix that it was she who called him to her house on September
30, 2012 is an admission that the appellant was present in the house.
9. The question : Why would the prosecutrix tell a lie and in the process
tarnish her reputation in the Indian society before her husband? Begs an
answer.
10. I find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed noting that the
sentence imposed upon the appellant is the minimum for the offence of rape
i.e. 7 years rigorous imprisonment.
11. TCR be returned.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the jail record.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
MAY 17, 2016
mamta
