IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J.

(SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No. 192/13
Unique Case ID No.02405R0257982013
State Vs.

Rajeev Kumar s/o Sh. Satpal Sharma,

R/o CM-203, Sainik Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

Date of Institution :07.09.2013.

FIR No.72/2013 dated 12.02.2013.
U/s.376/328/506 IPC
P.S. Bindapur.
Date of reserving judgment/Order :01.11.2014.
Date of pronouncement :14.11.2014.
JUDGMENT
1.

The accused Rajeev has been facing trial for the

offences u/s 328 IPC, u/s 376 IPC, u/s 506 IPC & u/s 354 IPC.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix

namely 'S' (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her
identity) was having love affair with accused's brother Pradeep. As
the prosecutrix was into the business of real estate, the accused
requested her in the month of July, 2012 to help her in finding a
100 sq. mtrs. Flat on Tonk Road, Jaipur. Accordingly, accused took
her to Jaipur in his car. Accused has offered a cold drink to her in
the car, upon taking which the prosecutrix felt drowsy and kept on
sleeping all the way up to Jaipur. On reaching Jaipur late at night,
they checked into the hotel and spent the night in the same room.
In the morning, the accused ordered some beer and forced the

SCNo.192/13

Page1of20

prosecutrix also to have beer. The accused also ordered viagra

tablets through a waiter and then raped the prosecutrix in the
hotel room at the point of knife. The prosecutrix started bleeding
and cried in pain. When she told the accused that she would
complain against him, he told her that in that case, neither his
brother nor anybody else would marry her. He kept on threatening
her and they returned to Delhi the next day. She did not tell
anybody at home about the incident. After two days' accused
invited her family to his house for dinner and asked her to stay
back at home for some reason. She had to oblige him as she was
under the pressure of his threats and stayed back at her house.
The accused came there and raped her. The prosecutrix then got
married to accused's brother Pradeep Kumar on 10.8.2012.
However, soon after the marriage, the accused told his family that
the prosecutrix does not have a good character and is having a
bad eye upon him. The prosecutrix was thrown out of the
matrimonial house. Thereafter also, the accused has been
harassing her by taking off her chunni or touching her private
parts wherever and whenever he sees her.
3.

The prosecutrix had submitted a written complaint

dated 12.2.2013 to the SHO, PS Bindapur which was marked to SI

Domnica for necessary action. She made inquiries from the
prosecutrix, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. She took
the

prosecutrix

to

DDU

Hospital

for

medical

examination.

Thereafter further investigation was entrusted to SI Nirmal

Sharma. She visited the Jaipur Hotel alongwith the prosecutrix on
5.3.2013 and obtained the relevant record regarding the stay of
prosecutrix with the accused in that hotel. Accused was granted
anticipatory bail by the High Court and hence he was formally

SCNo.192/13

Page2of20

arrested on 14.4.2013. He was got medically examined and the

exhibits given by the doctor were seized. His potency test was got
conducted on 30.5.2013.
4.

After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet

was prepared by the IO and submitted to the concerned court.

5.

Upon committal of the case to the courts of sessions,

charges u/s. 328, u/s. 376 IPC, u/s. 506 IPC & u/s. 354 IPC were
framed against the accused on 24.01.2014. Accused denied the
charges and accordingly trial was held.
6.

The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to bring

home the guilt of the accused. The accused was examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2014 wherein he denied the prosecution case and
claimed false implication. He admitted that he had accompanied
prosecutrix to Jaipur on 4.8.2012 in his Santro Car but denied that
he had offered her coke as soon as she boarded the car or that
she had felt drowsy or that he committed rape upon her in the
hotel room at Jaipur. He also denied that he committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix at her home twice after return
from jaipur. He admitted that prosecutrix got married to his
brother Pradeep on 10.8.2012 but denied that he had told his
parents that the prosecutrix does not possess a good character
and is having a bad eye upon him. He also denied that he has
been harassing prosecutrix after the marriage. He further stated
that the prosecutrix had demanded a loan of Rs. 8 to 10 lacs from
him and he expressed his inability to lend her such huge amount.
He also refused to arrange the loan amount for her from his
parents.

He stated that he did not know how and when did

SCNo.192/13

Page3of20

prosecutrix solemnised marriage with his brother and he came to

know about the same on receipt of a copy of marriage certificate
from the prosecutrix through MMS. He apprised his parents about
the said marriage who got annoyed from Pradeep and threw him
out of the house. He further stated that the prosecutrix used to
demand money from Pradeep also and used to blackmail him by
saying that she would implicate him as well as his family members
in false criminal case.
7.

The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

8.

I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for the accused and

have perused the entire material available on record.

9.

The prosecutrix PW6 and PW2, the Manager of Hotel

Mangal, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur are the two material

witnesses for the prosecution.
10.

Prosecutrix deposed that her family and the family of

the accused got acquainted with each other in the year 2011
during stay in each others neighbourhood in Sainik Nagar, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi. There was only one house between the
prosecutrix's house and accused's house. After some time, her
family shifted to another house in the same area i.e. Sainik Nagar
but their relations with the family of the accused continued. Both
used to visit each other and invite each other for dinner. Rajiv's
wife Monika told her that Rajiv's brother Pradeep likes her and
wants to marry her. She refused the marriage proposal as she was
pursuing MBA Course and Pradeep was only matriculate. Her
parents also rejected the said marriage proposal. However, after

SCNo.192/13

Page4of20

taking her into confidence, Monika made a fun of Pradeep by

telling him that she ( prosecutrix) has accepted the marriage
proposal. After some time, Pradeep's parents selected a girl for
him and Pradeep approached her saying that he would marry her
only. She told him that she is not serious about marrying him and
actually Monika had made a fun of him. Upon hearing this,
Pradeep became very depressed and made a bid to kill himself by
consuming rat poison. However, he was saved by immediate
hospitalization. Accused Rajiv then approached her again and she
told him that she would marry Pradeep after he completes 12th
class and English Speaking Course from British Council, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi. Accordingly Pradeep started studying for class XIIth
and also enrolled for the English Speaking Course. Regarding the
visit to Jaipur and the rape incident, she has deposed as under:Meanwhile, Rajeev was having some spare
money and he wanted to invest the same in real
estate. He knew that I am engaged in a real estate
business and sought my help in this regard. One day,
parents of Rajeev had gone to Nimrana, Rajasthan,
alongwith my parents to have a look at some property
to be purchased but the same was not to their liking.
Rajeev and his family had made up their mind to
make investment in only Rajasthan because of
upcoming Metro projects there. Rajeev proposed to
me that I should accompany him to Tonk Road, Jaipur,
where many Builders have come up with their
building projects and would help him in selecting a
suitable property. He told me that he does not want
to tell his family and my family in advance about the

SCNo.192/13

Page5of20

said investment and he wants to give them a surprise.

He told me not to tell my parents that I am
accompanying him to Jaipur for the said purpose.
Accordingly, on 04.8.2012 I and Rajeev
went Jaipur in his white colour Santro car. We left
Delhi in the afternoon and reached Jaipur at about 11
p.m. or 12 midnight. Soon after I had boarded his car,
Rajeev offered me Coke, which he was already having
in the car. I consumed the same and thereafter,
started having severe headache which continued
throughout the journey upto Jaipur. I was suffering
from drowsiness and did not know how we reached
Jaipur. On the way, Rajeev had stopped the car near a
Dhabha and asked me to have some meals. I was not
in a position to have anything to eat. I only took some
soup. When we reached Jaipur, Rajeev woke me up.
He took me to a hotel and we stayed for the night in
the hotel in the same room. Rajeev gave me some
medicines which I took and I slept throughout the
night.
Next morning i.e. 05.8.2012, Rajeev woke
me up. He asked me how I was feeling and I told him
that I am still not feeling well and need to see a
doctor. He called the waiter and ordered four Beer
bottles. It was about 10 a.m. at that time. When the
waiter came to our room with the Beer bottles, Rajeev
asked him to bring some chopped onions etc. and
some lemon. When the waiter brought these items,
Rajeev told him that he has not chopped the onions
etc. rightly and asked him to fetch one knife.

SCNo.192/13

Page6of20

Accordingly, waiter brought one knife and gave it to

Rajeev. It was a kitchen knife. Rajeev opened one
Beer bottles and poured the Beer in two glasses which
were already in the room. He insisted upon me to
take Beer. I refused to have Beer saying that I am
already not feeling well on account of drowsiness and
headache. He kept on insisting me to give company
to him by having small sips of Beer from the glass. On
his insistence, I started having small sips of Beers.
Meanwhile, Rajeev again called waiter. When the
waiter came, Rajeev took him outside the room and I
do not know what transpired between them. Rajeev
also did not share with me what had transpired
between him and waiter saying that it was something
personal. Later on, I got to know that Rajeev had
asked the waiter to fetch 'Viagra' for him. Since I was
not having the Beer as Rajeev wanted me to have, he
again insisted upon me to sip the Beer properly.
Thereafter I went to the washroom and on return
therefrom, I was lying on the bed with my back
towards the wall and in a half sleeping posture. At
that juncture, Rajeev came close to me and started
touching

me

inappropriately.

Then

he

started

removing my jeans pant which I was wearing. I

objected to his actions but he did not listen to me and
continued. I was feeling very weak and could not
resist forcefully. I kept on yelling upon him. I tried to
shout but he gagged my mouth with his hand. Rajeev
took the knife from the Salad plate which was on the
bed itself and threatened me that if I said a word or

SCNo.192/13

Page7of20

didn't do what he asked me to do, I would be gone.

Rajeev then started having sexual intercourse with
me. I resisted his moves and was moving away from
him and in the scuffle, my half portion of the body fell
from the bed. My lower portion of the body was on the
bed and upper portion was hanging from the bed.
Ultimately, Rajeev committed sexual intercourse with
me forcibly and against my consent. Thereafter he
apologized to me saying that he does not know how it
happened. I started bleeding from my private part
and there was swelling on my private part.
I told Rajeev that I will complain to his
parents and family about what he has done to me. He
told me that I am going to be married with his brother
and in case, I disclosed this incident to anybody in the
family, nobody not even his brother would marry me.
He also told me that I would be ostracized and
humiliated in the whole area. He told me that he just
could not control himself as I was slim and beautiful
whereas his wife is very fatty and not so beautiful. He
kept on pressurizing me not to disclose the incident to
anybody. He also told me that after marriage with his
brother, I and his brother can stay in a separate
house. This continued till late in the evening. We
started from Jaipur late at night around 11.30 p.m.
and reached here in the early morning. On reaching
Delhi, the accused Rajeev kept on moving the car
around Dwarka area for about two hours and
pressurizing me not to reveal the incident to anybody.
Finally he dropped me at Nawada Metro Station at

SCNo.192/13

Page8of20

about 7 a.m. and I reached my home on a cycle

rikshaw. On reaching home, I did not tell anybody
about the incident.
After about two days, Rajeev invited my
parents for dinner. Then he made a call to me saying
that he has invited my parents for dinner and asked
me to stay back at my home as he has to have some
talks with me. On the day, when my parents had gone
to his house for dinner, Rajeev came to our house at
about 8 p.m and told me that he wants to have sex
with me for the last time and thereafter he would not
bother me. I told him that he has already done it once
and he should not do it again as I am going to be
married to his brother. However, he insisted upon the
same and again committed sexual intercourse with
me forcibly and without my consent. Next day, Rajeev
again invited my parents to his house for dinner and I
was present alone in my house. He again came to our
house and raped me.
11.

She further deposed that she got married to accused's

brother Pradeep on 10.8.2012 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi and after the marriage she was brought to her
matrimonial house. However, just after two days, accused told his
parents that she is not having good character and has a bad eye
upon him. She discussed this with her husband Pradeep who
suggested her that he would drop her at her parental house where
she should stay for some days. Accordingly, Pradeep dropped her
at her parental house but never returned to take her back from
there. She stated that accused started harassing her and torturing

SCNo.192/13

Page9of20

her whenever he met her. He and his friend used to pass lewid
comments on her on the road and wherever they saw her. She had
made a complaint at telephone No.181 regarding this. Thereafter
she alongwith her mother visited Police Station on 12.2.2013 and
submitted a written complaint which she proved as Ex. PW6/A. She
also deposed that in March, 2013 she alongwith Nirmal Sharma
reached at the hotel and showed her the hotel in which she and
Rajiv had stayed. SI Nirmal Sharma made inquiries from the
Manager and the waiters of the Hotel and also seized the hotel
register. She also visited the room in which they had stayed and
prepared its site plan.
12.

In the cross examination, she admitted that she was

having a love affair with accused's brother Pradeep in the year

2012 and was on friendly term with accused also. She admitted
that she used to talk to accused on phone. They used to talk either
once

in

day

or

twice

or

thrice

depending

upon

the

circumstances. She stated voluntarily that they used to talk about

each others family members. She admitted that on 3.8.2012 and
4.8.2012 she was in Mumbai and she had gone there to meet her
friends Mohsin Bhat, Tarun Tyagi etc. She did not recollect their
mobile numbers. She returned to Delhi on 4.8.2012 by air. She
admitted that on reaching Delhi, she made a call to the accused.
She deposed that accused met her on Delhi Gurgaon road at about
6 pm. They reached Jaipur at about 11 pm. She had not intimated
her parents that she is going to Jaipur alongwith the accused. She
did not recollect the name of the hotel where they had stayed. She
had not visited Jaipur alongwith the accused before that date. She
stated that they took only one room in the hotel but did not
recollect the room number. The room was on the first floor and

SCNo.192/13

Page10of20

they had reached there by climbing the stairs. They did not talk to
each other in the hotel room as she was not feeling well and
straightaway slept.
13.

She further admitted that she is used to consume

alcohol but added that she drinks only occasionally with her
friends and when there used to be any function etc. and on one or
two occasions, she had consumed excessive liquor and became
intoxicated but could not tell the date when it happened. She had
started consuming liquor since 2006. She deposed that accused
woke her up next morning at about 8.30 am and ordered four beer
bottles at about 10 am. She did not complain to the hotel staff
regarding the incident of rape. They checked out from the hotel at
about 11 pm. She deposed that during the day on 5.8.2012, she
had received a call from her mother but she did not tell her that
she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused. She had received this call
after the rape incident. According to her, the accused committed
rape upon her between 12 noon and 1.30 pm. She did not take
anything other than water from 1.30 pm till 11 pm. She had made
a call to her parents at about 3 pm and told them that she is fine.
She did not tell them at that time also that she is in Jaipur at Hotel
at that time also. She made call to her parents again twice on that
day and told them that she is fine. She did not disclose the rape
incident to them. She did not make any call to her brothers or her
friends. She received a call from Pradeep in the evening but did
not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur alongwith the accused or
that the accused has committed rape upon her. She deposed that
upon return to Delhi, she did not disclose the incident of rape to
her family members. She told them that she was in Mumbai
alongwith her friends and did not tell them that she had gone to

SCNo.192/13

Page11of20

Jaipur alongwith the accused. On 6.8.2012, she and the accused

talked to each other three or four times during the day. Accused
was asking her whether she has narrated the rape incident to
anybody and she told him that she did not do so. She admited that
she talked to accused on 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 also. Accused
invited her parents for dinner on 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012. She
deposed that infact accused had invited her whole family for
dinner including her brothers. However, her younger brother was
in Chennai and her elder brother does not go usually to any other
house. She did not accompany her parents to the house of
accused for dinner and told them that she would join them later
on. She did not tell them that the accused has asked her to stay
back in the house as he would be coming there. Her elder brother
was not in the house at that time. She had talked to Pradeep on
6.8.2012, 7.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 but did not disclose the incident
of rape to him.
14.

She further deposed that on 8.8.2012, she told

accused that she would not stay back at home and would
accompany her parents to his house for dinner but the accused
insisted that she should stay back and upon his insistence, she
stayed back at her house. She told her parents on phone that she
is feeling highly depressed and hence would not go for dinner.
When her parents did not find the accused in his house, who had
invited them for dinner, they did not make any call tot he accused
as to where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's
house and returned home. She deposed that neither her family
members nor the family members of Pradeep were present at the
time of their mariage in Arya Samaj Mandir on 12.8.2012. It was a
love marriage. She stated that there was a dispute between her

SCNo.192/13

Page12of20

and her in laws within two days of the marriage and they wanted
to throw her out of the house as they did not like her. She left the
matrimonial home after two days and later on returned to her
parental house. She admitted having filed a complaint against her
husband and in-laws regarding the aforesaid harassment. She was
shown photocopy of complaint dated 7.9.12 by the ld. Cross
examining counsel and she admitted that it is in her handwriting
and bears her signatures and she had submitted the same in PS
Chhawla. The complaint is Ex. PW6/D2. She admitted that she had
filed a complaint before the ACP CAW Cell Sec. 9, Dwarka on
17.9.2012. She was shown photocopy of the said complaint and
she admitted that it is in her handwriting and bears her signatures.
The complaint is Ex.PW6/D3. She admitted that she has not
mentioned in any of these complaint that the accused Rajiv had
committed rape upon her on various occasions. She further
admitted that she had filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence
Act against her in laws including her sister in law and her husband
but she did not level allegations against accused Rajiv in that
petition.
15.

She further admitted that earlier also she had filed a

complaint of rape in the year 2010 against an NRI senior citizen

Manu Gurbakshini. She had filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
against Sh. Manu Gurbakshini, his brother and his servant and on
the directions of ld. MM, FIR No. 238/10 u/s 376 IPC was registered
in PS Fatehpuri Beri. She stated that Ex. PW6/D4 is the copy of the
said complaint. She stated that Ex. PW6/D4 is the copy of the said
complaint. She stated that she was having a love affair with Manu
Gurbakshini and they intended to marry each other. She admitted
that she was 17 or 18 years old when she met Manu Gurbakshini

SCNo.192/13

Page13of20

and he was around 59-60 years of age at that time. She admitted
that Manu Gurbakshini had lodged an FIR No. 235/10 u/s 448 IPC
against her in PS Fatehpuri Beri. She admitted that she told police
officials later on that she had submitted a false complaint against
Manu Gurbakshini in a state of depression and on the basis of her
statement, cancellation report was filed by the police in that FIR.
She admitted that during the year 2010 to 2012 she made calls at
telephone No.100 about 100 times. She admitted that she had
made a call at telephone No.100 on 16.1.2013 saying that a boy
has committed rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide
and when the police officials reached the spot, she was not there.
16.

She also admitted that she is in modelling profession

but denied that she has participated in Splitvilla reality show on

MTV. A video was shown to her by the ld. Cross examining counsel
in the witness box on the laptop and she admitted that this is her
video which she had uploaded in U tube for being sent to MTV
organizers for selecting her for the programmer Splitsvilla
Session-6. She admitted all the contents of this video. The pen
driver containing this video is Ex. X-1 and its typed transcript filed
by the ld. Counsel for the accused is Ex. PW6/D5. She deposed
that she had prepared this video at the studio of her friend. She
further denied all the suggestions put to her.
17.

PW2 is Mahavir Singh, who was the Manager of Hotel

Mangal, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur in August, 2012. He deposed

that on the night intervening between 4.8.2012 and 5.8.2012, he
was on night duty at the reception of the hotel. At about 11.30 pm,
a male and a female namely Rajiv and Jyoti came to the hotel for a
room and he alloted them the room No. 208 to them on the first

SCNo.192/13

Page14of20

floor of the hotel. They stayed in the room for the night and
checked out at abut 11.30 pm on 5.8.2012. He stated that Rajiv
had made entry in this regard in the hotel register at sl. No.2003
and proved its photocopy as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that
after about 5 or 6 months, police officials had come to their hotel
and seized the photocopy of their register vide seizure memo Ex.
PW2/B. He had detained a photocopy of the driving licence of Rajiv
as proof of his identity which he proved as Ex. PW2/C. There is
nothing worth mentioning in his cross examination.
18.

Undoubtedly, in a rape case, the conviction of an

accused can be ordered on the basis of sole testimony of the

prosecutrix, if the same appears to the court to be credible and
trustworthy and unimpeachable. In other words, the prosecutrix
should qualify as a sterling witness and her evidence should be
free from embellishments or prevarications. However, if the court
does not feel inclined to place implicit reliance on the testimony of
the prosecutrix, it may look for corroboration from other evidence
on record. It needs to be noted that like in all other criminal cases,
in a case of rape also, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal
evidence and such burden never shifts. It is not for the accused to
show why witnesses lied against him.
19.

In the instant case, the testimony of the prosecutrix

appears to be neither credible nor trustworthy. She does not

qualify as a sterling witness and hence this court does not feel
inclined to rely upon her testimony. The factors which weigh in the
mind of this court in discarding the testimony of the prosecutrix
are being discussed hereunder.

SCNo.192/13

Page15of20

20.

It is the case of the prosecution itself that the

prosecutrix was having a love affair with accused's brother

Pradeep and was to marry him. The accused was therefore her
would be brother-in-law (Jeth). She appears to have not raised any
objection in sharing the bed with the accused in the same hotel
room at Jaipur. She did not ask the accused to occupy a separate
room or atleast to sleep on a separate bed. She has admitted that
she consumed liquor occasionally since the year 2006. So,
therefore, there was no possibility of her getting drunk merely by
sipping one or two glasses of Beer. Evidently, she seems not to
have objected to the accused when he started undressing her. She
was as able bodied as the accused and thus was in a position to
offer fierce resistance to the sexual advances of the accused,
which she did not do. Further she has deposed that at the time
when the accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly
in the hotel room, her lower portion of the body was on the bed
and upper portion was hanging from the bed. It is really difficult to
fathom that a lady can be subjected to rape in such a posture.
21.

The prosecutrix has deposed in her cross examination

that the accused committed rape upon her between 12 noon and
1.30 p.m. and thereafter they remained in the hotel room till they
checked out at about 11 p.m. It seems that she remained peaceful
with the accused in the hotel room during this period of more than
nine hours. She did not try to leave the hotel room. She did not
complain to any hotel staff or the hotel Manager about the incident
of rape. She did not make a call at telephone no.100. She made a
call to her parents at 3 p.m. and told them that she is fine. She did
not tell them that she is with the accused in a hotel at Jaipur or

SCNo.192/13

Page16of20

that the accused has raped her. She received a call from her
mother also but did not tell her that she is with the accused in
Jaipur. She deposed that she had made calls to her parents again
twice on the date of incident i.e. 05.8.2012 from the hotel room
and every time she told them that she is fine. She did not disclose
the rape incident to them. She did not make any call to her brother
or her friends. She admits having received a call from Pradeep in
the evening but did not disclose to him that she is in Jaipur
alongwith accused or that accused has committed rape upon her.
Upon return to Delhi also, she did not disclose the incident of rape
to her family members. She did not even tell them that she was at
Jaipur with the accused and told a lie to them that she was in
Mumbai alongwith her friend. The prosecutrix admits having talked
to the accused three or four times during the day on 06.8.2012.
She again talked to him on 07.8.2012 and 08.8.2012. The said
conduct of the prosecutrix does not give any slightest indication
that she had been subjected to rape by the accused in the hotel
room at Jaipur. Her conduct is indicative of the fact that either no
act of sexual intercourse had taken place between her and the
accused in the hotel room at Jaipur or she was a consenting party
to the sexual act between the two.
22.

The prosecutrix has then deposed that the accused

again raped her at her house after two days of the aforesaid
incident i.e. on 07.8.2012 and the subsequent day i.e. 08.8.2012.
She has deposed that on both these dates, accused invited her
parents for dinner to his house and asked her to stay back at her
home. When her parents reached the accused's house for dinner,
accused came to their house where she was present alone and
raped her. In the cross examination, she deposed that in fact,

SCNo.192/13

Page17of20

accused had invited her whole family for dinner including her
brother. She did not accompany her parents to the accused's
house for dinner and told them that she would join them later on.
She did not tell them that the accused had asked her to stay back
in the house as he would be coming there. She further deposed
that on 08.8.2012 also when the accused asked her to stay back at
her house, she told him that she would not stay back at her home
and would accompany her parents to his house for dinner but
upon insistence of the accused, she stayed back at her house. She
told her parents on phone that she is feeling highly depressed and
hence would not come for dinner. She also deposed that when her
parents did not find the accused in his house, who had invited
them for dinner, they did not make any call to the accused as to
where he is. They simply took the dinner in the accused's house
and returned home.
23.

It is evident from the aforesaid conduct of the

prosecutrix that she had stayed back willingly at her house on

07.8.2012 and 08.8.2012 when her parents used to go to the
accused's house for dinner. Admittedly, the accused did not issue
any threat to her and did not use any force against her. She
appears to have readily accepted the request of the accused to
stay back at her house which gives an impression that she too was
willing to spend some time with the accused at her house in the
absence of her parents. There is nothing in her testimony to show
that the physical relations between the two on these two dates at
her house were forcible or against her consent. It is clear that she
waited for the accused to come to her house in the absence of her
parents and told her parents a lie that she would join them later on
or that she is feeling highly depressed and hence would not

SCNo.192/13

Page18of20

accompany them to accused's house for dinner. There is sufficient

indication that the physical relations between the two on these
two dates were consensual. It is also intriguing that her parents
did not get alarmed when they did not find the accused in his
house, who had invited them for dinner, which demonstrates that
they too knew about the intimate relations between their daughter
and the accused.
24.

The prosecutrix is stated to have been raped by the

accused in the hotel at Jaipur in the month of July, 2012 and then
at her own house on 07.8.2012 as well as on 08.8.2012. The
prosecutrix filed the complaint of rape on 12.2.2013. It has come
in her testimony that she had filed a complaint Ex.PW6/D2 against
her in-laws on 07.9.2012 in P.S. Chhawla and another complaint
Ex.PW6/D3 in CAW Cell, Sector-9, Dwarka, on 17.9.2012. In both
these complaints, she has nowhere mentioned that she has been
raped by accused Rajeev. She also admitted that she had filed a
petition u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act against her in-laws and in
that petition, she did not level any allegation against accused
Rajeev. This too suggests that the allegations of rape against
accused Rajeev are concocted and fabricated.
25.

From the own admission of the prosecutrix in her cross

examination, it is manifest that she is habitual of levelling false

allegations of rape against persons, with whom she developed
close relations. She admitted having filed a complaint of rape
against one Manu Gurbakshni in the year 2010, who was a senior
citizen and was about 40 years elder to her and later on told the
police officials that she has submitted a false complaint against
him in a state of depression and on the basis of her statement,

SCNo.192/13

Page19of20

cancellation report was filed by the police. She has also admitted
that during the year 2010 to 2012, she has made about 100 calls
to telephone no.100. She also admitted that on 16.7.2013 she
made a call at telephone no.100 saying that a boy has committed
rape upon her and she is going to commit suicide but when the
police officials reached the spot, she was not there.
26.

The scrutiny of overall testimony of the prosecutrix

reveals that there is no truth in her allegations of rape by the

accused. Her testimony does not inspire any confidence. Her
deposition is neither credible nor trustworthy. Her version does not
find corroboration from any other evidence on record. Various
facts, which have been discussed herein-above, have come out in
her cross examination which suggests that she has cooked up a
false and fabricated story of rape and that she is habitual of
levelling false allegation of rape against the persons with whom
she had developed intimate relations.
27.

Resultantly, the accused is liable to be acquitted and is

hereby acquitted as such.

28.

However, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, this court would be failing in its duty if the
prosecutrix is let off without punishment for giving false evidence
before this court. She is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of
perjury which is being done by way of a separate order.
Announced in open
Court on 14.11.2014.

SCNo.192/13

(VIRENDER BHAT)
Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

Page20of20