Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th October, 2024
STATE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State
Through: Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. Yajuvandra Singh, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.04.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Special Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 58060/16 arising out of FIR No. 71/11 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, for offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The learned ASJ, by impugned judgment, had acquitted the respondents.
3. The FIR in the present case was lodged following information about a quarrel on Street No. 4, Lal Bagh. The victim/prosecutrix and her mother were taken to the police station where their statements were recorded. The prosecutrix stated that her mother worked as a maid in several houses, and on 21.03.2011, when her parents were away at work, she and her younger brother were at home. Around 8:00 p.m., while retrieving a mattress from the rooftop, the prosecutrix alleged that Respondent No. 1, the landlord’s son, grabbed her and took her to a hut on the roof, and attempted to commit rape upon her and fled when an alarm was raised. The prosecutrix, then went downstairs and asked her younger brother to call their elder sister, who lived nearby. After disclosing the incident to her sister, they informed their parents.
4. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341/323/354/376/511 of the IPC against Respondent No. 1 and separate charges under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC were framed against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother and sister respectively, of Respondent No. 1.
5. 15 prosecution witnesses were examined before the Trial Court and the learned ASJ noted that the prosecutrix was examined-in-chief and cross-examined in part on 27.11.2012. In her examination-in-chief, she supported the case of the prosecution but in the cross-examination on the same day, she deposed that the dispute took place between her family and the family of the accused in regard to vacating the premises. On being asked by the learned Trial Court, she replied that false complaint was filed against the accused persons.
6. It was noted that the real dispute between the parties was with regard to the rent and the prosecutrix had stated that the accused/Respondent No.1 had not attempted to rape her.
7. The mother of the prosecutrix was also examined wherein she deposed that her daughter had told her on phone that the accused persons were beating her and had not allowed her to put the mattress on the roof to dry out in the sunlight.
8. The mother of the prosecutrix admitted that she had stated to the Police that her daughter had told her that while she was coming from the roof with mattress, the accused took her in a hut and tried to rape her. She volunteered that the said facts were told to the Police because the Police was not taking any action.
9. The learned ASJ also noted that the DD entry pursuant to a PCR call, only mentions that there was a quarrel and no allegation of attempt to rape was ever made.
10. The learned ASJ, thus, taking note of all the witnesses, held that there has been material contradictions between the statements which were given to the Police at the initial stage and then subsequently to the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
11. The learned ASJ took note of the affidavits filed by the prosecutrix and her mother which were also exhibited as Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW12/DB, wherein the deponents being the prosecutrix and her mother had deposed that the dispute was in regard to the rent and a false complaint was filed. Considering the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents.
12. It is trite law that this Court must exercise caution and should only interfere in an appeal against acquittal where there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. At the stage of grant of leave to appeal, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant or if such arguable points have been raised which would merit interference.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar: (2008) 9 SCC 475 held as under:
13. In the present case, the prosecution allegations are sought to be proved only on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix. It is an admitted case that that the same is not corroborated by any other independent evidence.
14. It is also important to note that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in the proceedings before the Rohini Courts, initially opined that the case was not suitable for appeal to the High Court. The Director of Prosecution also shared this view, concluding that the case did not warrant an appeal to the High Court.
15. However, it appears that the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs later proposed filing an appeal.
16. Based on the facts outlined above, no flaws are apparent in the impugned judgment. This Court is unable to understand the reasoning behind the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs recommending an appeal in this case.
17. It is trite law that the accused can be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of the complainant / victim as long as same inspires confidence and corroboration is not necessary for the same. The law on this aspect was discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court by Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260. The relevant portion of the same is produced hereunder:
13. This Court was tasked to adjudicate a matter involving gang rape allegations under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)5. The Court found totally conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in the complaint and what was deposed before Court, resulting in material inconsistencies. Reversing the conviction and holding that the prosecutrix cannot be held to be a ‘sterling witness’, the Court opined as under:
based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” (underlining ours, for emphasis)
14. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana[6], this Court laid down that although the victim's solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty, the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix's testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus:
15. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” (emphasis supplied)
18. The learned ASJ, in the impugned judgment, specifically noted that the prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, had admitted that false case was filed and the case essentially relates to dispute over rent. An affidavit to that extent was also filed by the prosecutrix and her mother. Various contradictions were also noted by the learned ASJ, which are set out below: “ S.N. BEFORE MAGISTRATE BEFORE POLICE
(i) My two younger brothers had accompanied me upstairs to bring mattress.
(i) After coming downstairs, I asked my younger brother to intimate my sister Pinki about the incident.
(ii) The accused caught me in the stairs.
(ii) He caught me on the roof.
(iii) Accused slapped my brother.
(iii) No such content.
(iv) The accused removed inner wears and started caressing my body. He told that if I tried to run away, it would not be good for me. He started doing Jabardasti with me, but I did not allow them to do so.
(iv) There are no such content.
(v) Thereafter he slapped me twice.
(v) No such allegation.
(vi) He again started doing Jabardasti with me and after sometime, her mother and sister came there. Her mother beat me with danda. His sister slapped me and started pressing my neck saying that I had taken her brother in a net.
(vi) No such allegation.
(vii) His mother and sister brought down stairs in a room and there
(vii) No such allegation.
(viii) No such allegations.
(viii) He tried to rape her against her will. ”
19. The filing of frivolous cases has a spiral effect on other litigations which are waiting for their turn to be heard before the Courts.
20. Although the present case clearly qualifies as one where costs should be imposed on the prosecution for filing a frivolous appeal, this Court has chosen to refrain from passing such an order with a direction to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs to exercise greater vigilance and sensitivity in deciding which cases to prosecute. The misuse of the legal process through frivolous litigation wastes judicial time and resources, and the Department must ensure that only meritorious cases are brought before the Court, avoiding unnecessary burden on the judicial system.
21. The filing of frivolous cases has a far-reaching, detrimental impact on the legal system. It not only clogs the Courts with unnecessary litigation but also delays the hearing of genuine cases that are patiently awaiting their turn to be addressed. Such delays undermine the efficiency of the judiciary, causing distress to litigants. Therefore, it is imperative that the prosecution and legal departments exercise due diligence before initiating cases, in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure timely justice for those with legitimate grievances.
22. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
23. A copy of this order be sent to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs for information. AMIT MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 8, 2024 ‘KDK’