Delhi High Court
Rohtash vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 May, 2019
$~10.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 13.05.2019
% W.P.(C) 453/2019
ROHTASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.C. Yadav & Ms. Neha Gupa,
Advocates for respondent No.1.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Ms. Sakshi
Shairwal, Advocates for respondents
No.2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no forensic report was
produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. In these circumstances,
she has advanced her submissions and we have heard learned counsels.
2. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) by preferring O.A.
No.4410/2013, wherein he had assailed rejection of his candidature for the
post of Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police on the premise that the petitioner
was involved in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC. The Tribunal has
not found favour with the petitioner's Original Application and dismissed
the same by the impugned order dated 21.05.2015, and consequently, he has
approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been
acquitted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind in Sessions Case No.92 of
20.11.2012 vide judgment dated 08.02.2013. The acquittal was premised on
the finding that the prosecutrix had not been able to bring on record any
incriminating material against the accused/ petitioner. The prosecutrix had
not supported the prosecution version at the trial. She had exonerated the
petitioner by stating that she did not know him and that he had not
committed rape on her. She was declared hostile by the prosecution.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, she denied having made her
statement Ex. PA before the police. However, she admitted her signatures
on the said statement and stated that her signatures had been obtained in
blank. She, however, denied that she had stated to the police that at around
02:30 a.m. in the morning of 23.09.2012, she was sleeping with her mother
and grand-mother on the first floor of the house on separate cots and that her
mother was in deep slumber due to illness as she was injected with a heavy
dose of medicine by the doctor. She also denied that some persons pressed
her mouth resulting into her awakening and she identified the accused as the
person gagging her mouth, or that the accused had lifted her from the cot
and took her in the adjacent room and while giving her threat of dire
consequences in case she would cry, he committed rape upon her. She also
denied that her grand-mother had awaken in the meantime and had started to
call for the prosecutrix and she came to the spot where the incident took
place and also tried to catch the accused. She denied that he pushed the
grand-mother away in which the grand-mother suffered injuries and
thereafter her mother woke up and the entire incident was narrated to her.
She denied her earlier statement. Even the grand-mother of the prosecutrix
(PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Father of
the prosecutrix (PW-3) also turned hostile and did not support the version of
the prosecution.
4. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, since the
petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid case, no ground to cancel his
candidature was made out.
5. When the State undertakes the process of recruitment, particularly to a
sensitive post in the Police Department, the State is entitled to screen the
applicants to ensure that the person with completely unblemished record are
inducted into the force, whose primary duty is to protect the citizens against
breach of law, order and crime. The State would be well within its rights to
leave out candidates, about whom there could be doubt - based on cogent
materials. The present case is to be examined in the aforesaid light.
6. No doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court in view
of the aforesaid circumstances. At the same time, there was a medical
examination report of the prosecutrix prepared contemporaneously which
shows that she had been subjected to violence, and also her hymen was
found torn. She also made her statement incriminating the accused/
petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not given any
explanation as to why the prosecutrix and the other prosecution witnesses
namely her grand-mother, mother and father implicated him in the first
instance. Interestingly, the statement of the prosecutrix in Court - to the
effect that she did not know the accused does not explain how the petitioner/
accused was named as the perpetrator of the crime, if he was a complete
stranger to the prosecutrix.
7. It is seen that in cases of rape, the prosecutrix and other family
members often do not support the charge at a subsequent stage, particularly
when the victim is a young unmarried girl, so as to save the reputation of the
prosecutrix and the family, and so as not mar the prospects of getting the
prosecutrix married and settled in life.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, while it is fact that the petitioner
stands acquitted, in our view, the respondents were completely justified in
cancelling of the candidature of the petitioner since there is still a serious
doubt remaining with regard to his involvement in the case. There are
thousands of other applicants vying for the post and the State is not obliged
to entertain an application by a person about whom there is a lurking doubt
about his criminal past. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
9. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
MAY 13, 2019
B.S. Rohella
