Rape One Of The Most Barbaric Crimes Against Woman's Holy Body & Soul Of Society: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Of 3 Of 6 Accused In Gang Rape Case

Observing that rape is one of the most barbaric crimes committed against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society, Delhi High Court has upheld conviction and sentence of three accused persons in connection with a gang rape case.

The Court, however, acquitted three other accused in the matter.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed thus:

"Rape is one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes that is committed not only against the dignity of the rape-victim but also against the society at large. Dignity of every citizen is one of the basic precepts of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, since these provisions are the "fons juris" of our Constitution. These crimes are against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society."

The Court was of the view that the object of the relevant penal law is to protect women from such offences and to keep alive the conscience of the society by weeding out such criminal proclivity.

"Hence, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. Therefore, regard being had to the gravity of the offence, reduction of sentence without any reasonable ground would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law, and hence in the facts of the case, no such relaxation can be granted," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with criminal appeals preferred by six accused persons challenging the order of sentence and conviction in relation to an FIR registered in the year 2012.

On 19th May 2012, an information was received at Police Control Room that a lady had been raped by many persons in a truck. On receiving the said information, police team reached on the spot and prosecutrix's statement was recorded. In her statement, she had stated that she was a rag picker and was gang raped.

She stated that she was raped by accused persons namely Lucky, Vicky, Yasin Khan, Satyajeet Biswas, Uma Shankar and the Amit. She had also complained about an act of sodomy committed upon her by Vicky. Furthermore, she also alleged that she was taken in the Gramin Sewa by three of the co-accused where Vicky again committed rape upon her. She also alleged that the accused persons left her there and threatened her to kill if she disclosed about the alleged incident to anyone.

The accused persons were convicted under the following offences:

- Vicky was convicted under sec. 366, 506, 377, 376(2)(g)and 34 of IPC.

- Lucky was convicted under sec. 366, 376(2)(g)and 34 of IPC.

- Yasin Khan was convicted under sec. 366, 376(2)(g)and 34 of IPC.

- Amit was convicted under sec. 376(2)(g) of IPC.

- Uma Shankar was convicted under sec. 376(2)(g) of IPC.

- Satyajeet Biswas was convicted under sec. 366, 376(2)(g) and 34 of IPC.

Analysing the material on record, the Court was of the view that prima facie, there were several contradictions in the statements of Prosecutrix recorded at different stages of investigation, enquiry and trial.

The Court said that it is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the Prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court as such, the conviction can be made on the sole evidence of the Prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Court for corroboration of her statement.

"Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The testimony of Prosecutrix/Complainant has to be appreciated on the principle of preponderance of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the Prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony," the Court added.

The Court was of the view that the material contradictions, omissions and improvements, though little in the statement and deposition of the prosecutrix, will prejudice the Appellant's case by affirming the wrongful conviction if overlooked or unappreciated.

"The Courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which are not of a substantial character," the Court said.

It added "However, even in rape cases, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively, each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish, and such onus never shifts. It is not the duty of the defense to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. The prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case from the side of the defense."

In view of the aforesaid, the Court concluded that there were two sets of accused in the matter– one against whom there was no medical evidence and the other consisted of those who were implicated by the medical evidence.

Accordingly, the Court granted benefit of doubt to accused namely Amit, Satyajeet and Yasin Khan and acquitted them.

"Already, the accused have spent a substantial portion of their sentence and despite such glaring loopholes in the case of the prosecution, it would be travesty of justice if the accused as named above are incarcerated any further. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellants/accused namely - Amit @ Sonu Jaat, Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte and Yasin Khan @ Tehna are acquitted in the present case," the Court held.

However, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Vicky, Lucky and Uma Shankar and dismissed their appeals.

"As per the latest nominal roll, as on 24th December 2021, accused Uma Shanker was yet to serve his remaining sentence of one month and eight days. As on date, the sentence ought to have been completed as fully served. Accordingly, the accused Uma Shanker is directed to be released as per the procedure under the Jail Manual. Other Accused persons, who have not been acquitted herein and are yet to complete their respective sentences, shall be released after serving their remaining sentence in accordance with the Jail Manual," the Court said.

Case Title: AMIT @ SONU JAAT v. State and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112

Click Here To Read Order