Vijay v. State

1 These appeals are (iirectCd aiiiI hi: ini1iugned judgimcni wind order on sentence driIccl 27.1. 1.2012 id 17, 12.2012 1 e:I)eu.lIve.Iy wherein the appellants iiaincl And (h l.Oilii \/ijny rind \/hviy K stood convicted under Section 370 (2)() ul lie I PC i.e. Rw 10 O hnior of gang rape Each of diem had hecn reri creed to undcrt:!. 1.[1] III pei-iocl of 10 years and H pay a We O P iOr.3,000/- and in dehiiill 1)1 payment of One to undergo SI Hi 1 ynirr. /\ ertired A nd (H I H hr mu Vinay had also been convicted n nde.r See iii; 506/31 iii tIle. I Ii which the sentence Unposed upon ( h em was S[1] 2 yen [5 Liii i.I P Ii nY ii Rs.[5] ) 000 and in defsnit ol payment o One lii nndcrgu 0 immoimllms Accused Vi jay was also conhic!cd mmdci AS= 366001 or i i,( I [1 for which the sentence.i imposed ujon him w i:; 10 10 yca ir; amid;m Ii me 01 11s.[5] 7 000/- and in default of payment of Iiiic In underco SI Inn 1 yc.mnr for the two offences respectjvely. Bench t iii 2cc] ion 42d cC 11-i(: (V I V had been granted to the a.ppcl arts.

2 The version of the prrmsccn lion wa,; lhi;iI iii I[6].06.2010 1)1) Nc. 19-A was got recorder] by M ish.ni De\'i (iH\/-7) the mother ci the virliiri Cr!. A ppeal Nos 110 1/2013, 30l/20 3 & 515/70 I 3 14gr ) W 3 [I O(/170[ I I O/! O SO I\! iI I D ''' ! H ( v/ I\'\:I >) V( I I \ l 11(1 [H pftWIJ [Iq I OL[1] S?Lj 'HI I ) IH 1L1( I LI3JLI WI It;cI)LIi7\ ILIH!l3CIdI[9] °H JO jupq U O c 1)3 OLIOJ ()J U IDTh'DJ 113U PUP lJOIDIALTOO wom SLIJ [cIcI UJ 1c,,iiir.'1 I)1.I[1] 101) H"I 3IIO I )i / \3 I ) I 0Lb0 J U OLfl ]IO i\3EA tIJ 3:WD )Li'DU3JCI 3Lfl LII P3TCfLLP rI"I 43(( 'H,cOL[1]) •I III H P[1] - I1II)IU OOLI300LILI[1] p3DB3jCi pi3q fJ d'3 I I, I(MlooS jopun )3pJ 0D3J posmou LH JO 1Li3LL10U O-L(I UT I I LIV jlO JO Li Full? ().III),\'\ )1111 01.[1] LIOI1!H f101 0I.J '3 - I'D sl. litOs UOLLIOS 'YV tP, UTA. I' i:it II) II) 11)01 J H-I Jill HO P II I OHIO OJOOL HL[S LIO1LTOH W1OTA I U A \ l lUJ OLI[1] LII) O p0011.[1] Hi)L 010L JeLp puido pLJ I '.i).14 ILIOJ SY 3PPA PH H oqj poZIOH LI3O o, -) IB pLq s j uPj[@dc1c gLp.:31.) -)-I[1] DLIH HOILIILL1UU I I)00 1P OLII 1ft1[3X[3] 1Oj.

ISJH OUJ )LIS pi.i I i) IOU I LI II pOZv OH OJOA-\ H0 I.I I) HO ci LLI[1])H pOO 'qs JP[I ti\. PH'i'l LI OIL I k\ HIIP1LI>L': I LIHOJ UIJOL LIOLLI/cLI -131- [ poJdo[1] S)UY[ DIV I Il fIII3OIP01II HUA'\ wi 3I /\ OLIII LIOIIII)PL1H0AUI jo oHJ1100 OLT

1. • l IOi 1(.[1] 1) L11.IH li i \ ' \,L\ I II I I LI I ) P°P s (-d) L000TA OLI[1].10 l.IJ[1].II.JIHIU OlUIHUIOPI0l t I L1IlLi I.) j3t 1.111(110:IiI.LInj JcO[TTA P[1] /cHrA H) I I1I \/ O[1] II l.

1. ILLIJ)0 ''•I 1iI.1!/\1I1I SHIVY.10 - 3piOU ilL UiEI3-1 find mention; INS isacic;ii ease H Hire. iH[1] i, iitin qua hr. i]]iciHIi Its defence all along Was Him I to \ri[5] rut nn u cHeery shop ti a ii I of Rs.30/ was owed by the cont 1 diiic siil and her isunily H Inni and cii Ws asking this led to sqiialahic v\'hieii \VH[5] (he censoii hu iiH hilar implication. ihe veisiOii ci the j onacciork is nh ci C0il1IIi(iitl ions. There 1500 explanation as H\Viiy ii Here \Vi. in iet oh hiucihir rapt.., injury was noted Upon Tier person.

6 On behalf of appellant ij jay, lea rued couture[1] Or (lie appcli:tnl submits that he has heeiu Hisel y ini1uhii:.;ulrd The relsucu or huc. On prosectitnX is eontind.ictoi\0 rc'licl iir.i shc, was known lo the. up11ei lai ii or not insmvn to him is tot des rfrttri Or deposition. she \v;is rutnhiis.b liii her conflicting stands entities the iuppeiiaut 0 a Neneht oh: th)iihl and a consequential acqui oH. Therc is Aso no ei phi i iii ion as in why W:.ar 0 no injuries upon the person of the v el i Hi. In nippon his I iH. nil argument, learned counsel rocHe appeiiint has placed cc] sure i.ipii hw j udgments of the Apc C cia I rcpamd as (2007) 0 S,,( ( 0 A1ni (I) ul H 4 7\[cu'cin Jih State ofRciiihooi, (2000) 9 2CR' I (ii LciH_c2L±yI.°1°° IA S/ranker and AIR 1998 kG 2691 iso/deep (i.!\ 11-1 ( 1 c/Y. Iri/ ?./ / 1'°'k Submission being i;hat where Here was uc iuupuuuy i.ipoii lie pci scii ii lu Cr[1]. Appeal No[5].201/2013, 304/2013 0515/2003 (5 H 'ictim, it could safeb' be. l)rctaliiic( l that the \'i(SiHi was 1 (.iiIiSCHtIIiP party.

7 Cu behalf of the third a.ppeHwit Viiriy Ki.imnr, lc.rii ncd;iiHcir; curiae submits that the role attxihulcil to \/ j iiay Kuiiwr was (Hit lie wa:; standing outside when the alleged act \'V eciiH iiiit tcd it is iiet I lu. case. of the prosecution that he had coiiini [ted rape upon her VAN pics'.rier. outside by itself would not hes a P He; it to na l l the N ppClkHd ii iii In support this propOsi[iOii he has p1mcd eli a icc. U pon IN ii Its reported as (2011) II 4 5 CCd 99 Oiii 1ic1c.ttIo I'.; 2/oLe /I-d jriii 000 (3) ICC 1347 Pardw. Y2j±ltos±YLtIP[' (Iioi'a /i, iii; also another judgment of Tin Apex Court icpi at cd as 2009 ().[1] ( S 1 71H) Jdender Ifs. State. Subiiiisor be.iiiu ([nit hi 1ho care or (On Ii ala i.;l[1] (supra), the Apex Court had gonc er to iRm lhA cve.ii wli.ii: IN, prosecutrix had used tile woodL guard' in her deposition while:itti;hH iii, a role to a particular person, the /\pcx LwiiI had held Hit thin \\;is;i i.uere presence and this could not establish th;it lie:niid ir.isuii ccl cornn.aon intention with the other en-accused H ratio [lie piaini'ciiti a hs convicO on under Sectioiri 370 (2)(g) 0r the. IN ' had been set is dli:.

8 Needless to state that these aisiimeiil:; li;ive hcen ietuted. CH. Appeal Nos.201/2013, 301/2013 C. e515/20I I twc 5t Ii.[1] II ()Z/(-£ E I O!I7O E 'El OIl OS0N. 1LI1Lt.I2X I[1] i. pm SLJ t[ OTJOd /l(.0. LRD LLI I I]S D I oci [iOO[ L[ UT iOLU t[ Aq u d WOO L/V[5] Ui LI S 5.5.[1] flC:iq O Up1OU g Cjj. pfSU '00 fl0- 0L iq[5]:1101:1 AC 1c101 b ITO t1TTSJOl1P P- T S !' J34 '5P i°J 01-11 LLiS(JSpLW C)I 0fl. tOW 1l I.IDp0U OLfl )i.LI pp OLIS oLLio L { iB3S Si[5] uosicT /t.W II 110U OLI1I 1)1T H °I ]L I I i) °i p-[ 01] (Si U LLIOI) )]/ 0] OLH L MOLTSLT 1OL O OOpTA )LII0M. A0)ip 'WOLP Lflh/(S 1UflXOS OLTi. OctU1IJOIjIJ ].OU pip t[S j.T TI. Tt OS [i 0.10 L{i LLf rIT IS LU L[1])j iT ffi A p JT 1itT t4/\I I iV\I UOLIU 11.[1] pOl.I LI LLIOO Ai d !'J)i.OA josp.oiq J0t pU TO-L[ j 0I 0)..S -ii F LsP11lLi S Lj IA'\ LiiSO LLI.J 01] pSSJcT -11100-1U0A S.I]Ij AiC1l0.l0i WLI ()1)1(O 111)0515 i.IT TII ct OLfl AtTh A posrIDo 1051]dLLL.......... LI 1O ' sss t[S uot OT o9O ci fc.) jtLjOPj. Cap LI.IOL[ LIL]LiI) OA.O [lAO 01-1 T°' 4) iIt A pOSI(l Lji. Old) Li N 511)113 Lii 1cjoo OT] UT UUl0' 55/\. otjS pOSOClO {) SI Li Li ' L[1].ITTO UI p0 LT1tLLS)C SS 0t[.XUTflO050d p 551V\ O(j[] -I\(cl S iOl.I lI0050ILt oip SSOLT11c[1]:57S A\ 1-lo-xi S.)LI011)d0V P055d toq proo57]i OT I I FW[3] was sub0ected[1] in a len g thy cii ar- er am in! oil Slit ad ni that she was working in the Helm y \vitli li-i airier u/lien: (In.;itriirm Vijay was aHo workiig since the Li.;! 'i-h rinitiha She mcd In ON In Vijay sometimes due to prolerrional ieaaOiir. (. Yii an e.;nliei oe(riawn,:;iw had made an oral comp laint against Vijay ic he.r lacinry ownen i)iIrili!r the incident, Vinay Kun:iar had told her khal lie war pi-cpariHg;i vitien filni of the act of rape and if she. cliselttaccl ihi iteident in any pcirnn, he would show this film in the colony. In a hid-cl pai -i. H hci examination, she admitted (ha! (he itt/mien! l;iriccilnr;ibntitIctittii(ow hout.. She had gone to the police a! a ii it w (it lit r 1110! lien !II \\;tr; tat medically examined; she i;vrts;Ttceoi 1 ipa wet! hy IlCr i other a! 111411 11111C, she knew the house of accused Anil (di Balk hut he did 10! l ciitw (lie house of other persons. She dciiic.d (lie riirye;;tioct thai cite ii;id purchased ceii:airi grocery Pci-na lioni tiicchctp td Vinay Kiim;ii;iiid owed some money to On pursuam to which;t ciiarrcl hurl taken place i; this money has not been retiirnecl by her and i:lii;; \vnr; (lie rcmnjl Inc lilac implication of Way. She denied the suPgwil(wi (hat the au.eii,;e.d had been falsely implicated.

12 The testimony of the posoN p rix a;; liirliln,hied;;itpr;u doe.; lini CO. Appeal Nos.20 1/20 13, 304/20 13 A 53512i.i Iogu 7 OF a discredit her version qua her.ta[c.riiciit iewided uiidci he.r iou 101 1 the CFTC. On oath in Court, the wl(rieli[5] hod rLilcd [lvit a video Will ii her was being recorded by secured ViiilC' mid hr iliics[cned to oliow IC. same in the neighbourhood i[;lic did na (CV hriui the 0C,ii0l 1(1 \\.'ith [hc. appellant and this part of her vcirioii did iii l'iiirl ony iiciiluuiii iii Ex.PW-3/A for which reason., the lri:iI Ccvii! left[1] Vii[4] lii 13' ic1eiheil liii:; part of her version. The eri:uftino[i iii 1-11 1-11 e;l1c( I I )Y th0 vie.! i ii ii [his regard was that her statemert was re.ordcd I n' HW poiiec (odir tiedi y there was no statement recorded or lie \'ietiiii or dci' dcc! on Ind o[ We CnPC); she being illiterate, she had diocluoccl tlic incident, to Icc polim. but she did not kasow what. was eroc[i y rccorded H' the iovlipotuicp, Officer.

13 The narration Of the lIi -nrccii[ r > as direiio-;ecl rupra 0! iiei wire H Mar and cogent. She has hccri cons irt ont ii cot it IQ I i mc whe.i i rio'. going to nin.rket at about OROO prri on.[1] 5.0(i.d(i lb. occurred \/ijoy who was working in the san.ie ractory and who Hid cvii eyes 111mil her iiisi.ust to '\'l]icla she iii.dl Cuisri lodged sic owl ('iiinpliirll OIV,aiiirt liii liicl taken her to a vacant room where he lorcibly ci) iii [ii it (.0(1 rMC ui ciii MY mouth had been gagged and l:i'iFit is why she 'cold nofl. rose cii Ci'!. A pjiea t No[5].20 1/20 I 3. 304/20 i S &:i351201 II i';iri 0 i)i She was threatened that if rim. ri clrrc.d the iiieideiiI to my Hill,.;he. and her family would be killed /-\nil ( Bihr mmd \/inily lKiimir Hid ilmi reached at the spot by that mc. /-\iid ( Bmiii Hid ilSo eoii di lied nipe upon her. Alt three of them hid thicitciicd icr iii iii cic the (iilnee.d this incident, she would heehi.m ccl

14 The role attributed in Vinay Kiiinar erie thit he \i'r; the accomplice With Vijay and AndI (/) thilir he vee hilly iwili: Hr 111c illegal act which was bei n coi ml I I ripen tIl( iH )i;ceii iix;i I I iii I he along with his accomplices had Iliieiicmie.il 111c prri:;ecmitiix Hit iii she disclosed the incident to; iii y wi ii. she miii lii he killed I li'. II to kill the prosecutrjx, her mother mid hi-other \ViR ciiiiriiIiiit tdiW ill three and this is ciear from her Icstiiiiriny. I- icr:;Iilenicm 1 h0 q, ymiI and coheiert, the Trial Court hecl rightly rd ed uiunn lie sure

15 Apart Corn her oral version, Hic rne(heii cvideiie.e &;() this stanch The nsedicril e.viclencc \\hiie.11 erie Ihc NAI E H lie \iitiiii (ExPW-i 1/A) shows ths.t hcr hynier nv-in Iiirmi blie mu:- vrkmil Ii Gynecologist. The m5tynecolnmyisi. 1)1. Mcmlii wi:; e.;euiiiiined is HA' -I There eras no fresh injury upon Or \'ietimn nuid tin:; hue been hui',IuIiu:lulei r'ehemently b y the appel rim ii to advonm iii;uI - yLiii ciii. II iii erie i CrL Appeal Nos.20 1/2013, 304/2013 535/20 Ii idiw Kil o A wl LI 01LL[4] N LI OZ/ I7O[ EI oz/ IO0I\L lE o dclv I'D Jo IIII)i\ JIIlDlLY} Thi!\\I)I() I:IJJ ploil 0] JJ0I[1] IC[ T00 uitto-I B (oil )JI1H) LLIIL)1A OLJI lAM ]0lIIIllii JioALlBCJ ' 00T)pE U[1] L JJf BC *I. J )J lI((A\ A[1] iLIJIAJ iOU pt -lu OU Ile S1[Jl CJLL10O01-I o:j. IOU LI1L1O1OIU[ 0.[1] DA'\ 1:1:0 (1 [[10001: joqps.11 L A'\ Role W >1 1L[1] A pu p IOU uocln odo I n:Ai )HlO.IOJ LOU) pDLIILUILIIOO I) l iI 0LJiU\.Jl(Li[ ) tMV pu SUM It jull I- \J J0 1,10100\ 111.0101 - Oql ! l0UI pi JiJ13 0LIVO 10010iTi I mu Ai /\ JYIYAII JO).Il?U/UMIO()Hl[1] T0L) [10 P0l010P 01:T SBAU UOUUOS:lJII: Hiol:111-"Ll JLAUJ 1(0 1A[1]:)I 1:1 'P UliiU\0JJ0j. 1:10 UO)JA31 2LiU 4OiLJiU;p(1:U: illil/\ j0l pojoolOp 001:1 WIT, 000IOS (LL1C[ Q[j II1IA'\UJp(J U1i[1] LII) JYI)1(.Ii.l LliU\ J0J411II Jill AH1A j/J: Th-"°° P[4] HOJ)iOIII iI) ILILI LiAMIi\0-IUI JIJI 1P[4] H HIIAJIl:00 BU OqS IThI II[1]: Jl 1klAJ) OUI1A\MJJ[1])J OIJI Il() polio[1]: [1004 p114 I1A[1]:\{111: S1IJI LuTIO{i\. IlA\J[1] lUll [II) (110(1(4;lU\ J.LAIJ) jcUjj pIOLIOpIAB 41:4 (j1idXJ) ) All. 1JOCIO.I.11 pUlL [1(111 lIADAMJUI RIP-) LlOiSJOi\. OUJI p0100dC11-Is 1:11 All Ij OUJJ:yoUiopif\.) I::)1 p IUU LO L II ULI0l 4BC{V LLTO) pUllOj. SBAU 11AIIIAIJ.IOI-J 041: JU) 000( II 1:IA\\ (Ill Ii\ 01JI

1041. 1:O0U Jfl0 S Tt L ULIT:Io1z \. 1: j:o L1LOUUT0O ®11JI IIIIOUIJIA'\ )U II L11'111 II iUIHIi lIiUJUl lP JIll IAHXOS 1131:11 U1LUtflSOJCl p wo which is supported not only b y ho incdical evidence, hut iHi H' the scent[1].0evidence is to b e cliscard(CI. In this context, the ohsc,rVat)1iC nf W. Apcx Coui i. in Phi H) ACR 2252 Ao Girl jH.HH±y±C±t17(lbSJH[1] il/:. /CICVu//I H It was next Contented i/-ic/i f/wi C n/-c no Kill lc.! ott 1/i, 1),,ci,ifci: 10,,',/rm / cm i T'hece is no i7lCi'if ill this C0l7iCi71101' /17 'In I II?' icf 1/1(11 the /)(//.c/ifI /,\ I/C/V 0 inai'incd wOii i Cin and was 0vci[7])O'i" cc In' o'm','CO/ /1/1/I li//ui'.1//C i/'(IX 1(1/1(1/ 0//i' was obviously not in ci pc/sit/oIl /,[7] i,, /is.',',','i I iticie vi,' hod thi-eatcned liec with death in cc,,vc c/ic ci ic'/ ott!. 77c'i,' Il /1(,II'('/'C/, Ond of i-ape in vievi' of the /0cc/u/c I'C/)imCf I'c/.'i/ I // ''/,C f/ic,'h,t/,c.' H f//c /1/(151/ en" / those of the Appellant. The i'C/?Oi'I c/cn/'/y i/IS' '//).VIiX I/ic /)/'c.s(''/i(;v / ic/i/cl' v/tO/V 1/1(7 huiiicin.,vpecni on the clothes of f/ic oc,:H.v:7 l/'mc'/Hv//m m,j i/n A7i7ic1Ini if ell/(l f/ic oseci.ifiix.7Iw ente eviciencc iliu.r coI7c'( 'ci 0/0)/C I/f/i f/ic prO/ii'/ (111(1 ( /(. (II' identification of the O.CCi,I.VCd (if i/('Iifi//C(i1i'1/i /u (II 1(7 in f/',c Co tic! hi.' lii prO5CCLitClX leaves no niantiec,i/,.lti u/if 07, 11 ((Ill I/It/itO / (1/ f//c A//pc// II/if Ii I /' '/7 fouinc7ecL"

19 The mother of the pIc./ ueC/itrix \SC/5 r.n',iiiiincd us OW-'! Slir cv;mu the complainant Her evidence was to the ellen!. lvi! on I (POd.?!) I I), ln'r daughter was not felling well and was Lmc:'!1lc'1'(t. H iilq/HL'11, ulic disclosed the incident 10 her uI.a.tinr Iliul. \i1iy;iiicl Anil 0) lSmlii li;i,l committed rape upon her and 11 tay had di Ii.i I cl ',cd (hem in W H; it t. 20 p/_7 also subjected to a leiiptl'iy,ci'cc;-eveinhii'e,ltiOn wlici', i'm She stuck to her stand.. She udniit'Ied Ilm!. hoe d;'iupl'itcr clii.'.lie';cd 1hu CH. Appeal Nos.20 1/2013, 304/20 13 &,.335/20 LI ''till' I I tI incident to her on the fol.]owing -1 lol Im i ri ";1 1 (. look pmpL id i.ia feeling shamed. She also denied li:it the icciiced li ve U(..c'ii (lILlY imp1cated. She had in facL \'OlUiitCC(i(l tIit iii ccc raced pci coin \-VcIL threatening them for seLti Ciii c I ii (1 WC.iC. pi ccc I I ric,i ii g, Lii ciii 21 DD-19 A reflects that this compliii( was lodged il. 1)1.3(1 liii IL.. after victim who was both i.irder lear arid cliaiae had Wc.loccd (lie incident to her mother (PW-7)

22 The defence of the appellant Is iiioonchiiic. i'hc dc..hcrcc. iii is that he has been falsely iiiiplicaied We has IN den ccl Writ (ic. unknown to the prosecutcW or that lie,vw:; not working iii (l)e ciiiiic: factory where the victim was also wnrkin. Vpay was i.ire.,;Le.cl at I I (It) pm in the presence of the prosecu Li-i which i oh s co rrohoia L( I H' I ci i'ersioia Accused Vina3' was also arrested on 11w., cc lie Clay His a icc was also witnessed by the proccciitric. And (f Ihalir was iii c:;tc.cl mi 1120 pm; the victim was present iherc. liic has been coirolirateil in the version of the victim. ' 23 The defence of '/inay Lhif. because HF;i clijIurici (o'er a cain cci Rs.3504, he has been fslseiy implicrcLe.d is ilcic a deldnce nn(c.d Pc he rejected. The victim wciuirl riot paL lieu lionoiii it slake (or a iiiii ci CH. /-\ppeal Nos.20 /2013, 30'l/20 IS S 333/20 i i F[5].ccc I H Rs.350/- and fiat too when there war (fl her (loc.11lnenlnly evideji eIlilil from her oral version i.e. the report nk the. (iL. In nil the appelHiil Vinay. There is also no e<plaration riven hy ai 1 peHanl. And (ol Peilir aa to how his nicker had semen sliii ns.