State v. Vipin Bansal

1. The present matter was listed in the category of “Old/Targeted Cases” before the Predecessor Bench on 15.07.2025, and since no one entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent through the concerned I.O., returnable on 03.11.2025. The matter has been listed before this Bench today under the category of “Oldest Targeted Matters”, and the listing of the present matter was duly communicated to the parties by the Registry. However, once again, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. In view of the same, this Court has gone through the Trial Court record with the assistance of the learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. assails the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned ASJ-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 54/2013 CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 2 of 9 arising out of FIR No. 190/2010 registered under Sections 363/376/34 IPC at P.S. Vikaspuri, qua which the appellant herein was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363/34 and Section 376 IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the intervening night of 11/12.07.2010 the appellant with three accomplices kidnapped the prosecutrix aged 15–16 years in a car and later in a park, committed rape upon her. On the statement of the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered. She was medically examined, and at her instance, the appellant was arrested on 12.07.2010. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was subsequently recorded.

4. Upon committal, the Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 363/34 IPC and Section 376 IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case, with the material witnesses being the prosecutrix herself, examined as PW-2; her mother, examined as PW-1; Dr. Shaifali Jain/PW-4, who examined the potency of the respondent; Dr. Jimmi Solanki/PW-5, who medically examined the prosecutrix; Dr. Rachna Pandey/PW-7, who conducted the medical examination of the respondent; and the I.O. W/ASI Sushila, who was examined as PW-15. The remaining witnesses were formal in nature.

6. The prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that on 11.07.2010 at about 8:45 p.m., she had come out of her house to walk her dog. On reaching the main road, an Alto car came from behind; two boys got down, gagged her mouth and pushed her into the car, where two others were already seated. She stated that they drove her to a park, where three of them left, leaving CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 3 of 9 her with the fourth boy, i.e. the respondent. She stated that he removed her clothes and committed rape upon her. She further stated that the respondent forcibly took her to his house, where his father, sister and brother were present. She correctly identified the respondent in Court. She stated that she did not tell the sister of the respondent that he had raped her. The father of the respondent thereafter called the mother of the prosecutrix, and soon her mother arrived at the respondent’s house and took her back home. She told her mother that the respondent had raped her in a lonely park, whereafter she, along with her mother, went to the police station and her statement (Ex. PW-2/A) was recorded. She was taken to DDU Hospital for her medical examination, and her clothes were seized by the doctor. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Before the Trial Court, she duly identified her salwar and shirt, exhibited as Ex. P[1], as the clothes she had been wearing at the time of the incident and which were seized during her medical examination. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she knew the respondent from before as her elder sister used to work with him in arranging marriages, and she would also accompany them to assist and earn money. She stated that on 11.07.2010 she had gone with the respondent to a marriage function with the permission of her parents and of her own will, as her elder sister had already gone there. On the way, since her period started and the respondent’s house was nearby, he took her to his house. She stated that she met the respondent’s father and sister there. On seeing her condition, the father of the respondent quarrelled with the respondent, suspecting some wrong act, and called her parents. A CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 4 of 9 quarrel ensued between her parents and the father of the respondent, after which her parents took her home. She further stated that the respondent had not committed rape upon her. She also stated that she did not give any statement to the police of her own accord, and that the police recorded it on their own as she was under fear. On re-examination by the learned APP, the prosecutrix stuck to her statement made in cross-examination. She reiterated that she had given her examination-in-chief on 08.04.2011 under fear and had deposed whatever was told to her. She denied the suggestion that she was not under fear on that day. She admitted that she had not informed the Court, the police officials present, or the Magistrate who had earlier recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in chambers, that she was under fear or under any pressure, but volunteered that she was perplexed at that time. She volunteered that she was under fear and had stated what was told to her by the police. She denied the suggestion that she had not been tutored by any police officials, though she stated that she could not name them, and further denied that she was deposing falsely in Court after being won over by the respondent or his family members.

7. The mother of the prosecutrix/PW-1 stated that, on 11.07.2010 at about 8:40 p.m., her daughter had taken their pet dog for a walk but did not return home, although the dog did. Her husband was away at Meerut. After searching for her daughter, she went with her nephew to P.S. Tilak Vihar to lodge a complaint, where the police advised her to continue searching and return in the morning if the prosecutrix was not found. At about 1:00 a.m., she received a call from the respondent’s father CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 5 of 9 informing her that the prosecutrix was with them. She, along with one relative, went to Paushangipur, where she found the respondent, his father, his sister, and her daughter present, and noticed that the prosecutrix’s clothes were soaked in blood. She further stated that the prosecutrix had told her she had been forced into a blue car by four boys, and that three of them later left her alone with the respondent, who committed “galat kaam” with her.

8. The MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW-5/A) was proved by PW5/Dr. Jimmi Solanki, who deposed that local examination of the prosecutrix revealed bleeding through vagina, however, her hymen appeared to be intact. In her cross-examination, Dr. Solanki stated that there was no external injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. She further stated that she could not opine whether the bleeding was due to internal injury or a natural menstrual period.

9. PW-15 W/ASI Sushila, the Investigating Officer of the case exhibited the FSL report (Ex. PW-15/E) and the Biology Division report (Ex. PW-15/F).

10. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations of abduction and sexual assault, terming them a false story fabricated by the parents of the prosecutrix. He admitted that he had taken her to his house but stated that it was only because she was feeling ill and bleeding. He stated that he had been falsely implicated as the prosecutrix CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 6 of 9 was under the influence of her parents and police officials. He opted not to lead defence evidence before the Trial Court.

11. Learned APP for the State contends that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent, as the prosecutrix consistently implicated him. She further pointed out that the prosecutrix’s mother had supported the prosecution case, and referred to the testimony of PW-5, who stated that it is not necessary for hymen to be torn after sexual intercourse.

12. On a careful perusal of the record, it is noted that while in her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix alleged kidnapping and rape, in crossexamination she admitted that she had gone with the respondent of her own will to a marriage function with parental permission, that he had taken her home because she felt unwell, and that no offence was committed. She further stated that her police statement was not voluntary, and in reexamination added that even her examination-in-chief had been given under fear and as told. This was not a minor discrepancy but a complete reversal on core facts.

13. The medical evidence also did not advance the prosecution case. PW- 5/Dr. Jimmi Solanki proved the MLC (Ex. PW-5/A), which recorded bleeding through vagina with the hymen intact. In cross-examination she stated that there was no external injury and that she could not say whether the bleeding was due to injury or a regular menstrual period. The medical evidence was, therefore, inconclusive and did not corroborate the case of the prosecution.

14. The forensic evidence was equally inconclusive. The FSL report (Ex. PW-15/E) detected semen on the prosecutrix’s salwar and underwear, but no CRL.A. 215/2016 Pg. 7 of 9 DNA profiling was conducted to connect it to the respondent, and the Biology Division report (Ex. PW-15/F) did not advance the prosecution case. No expert was examined to elaborate upon the findings.

15. It is well settled that the appellate Court must be slow to interfere in an appeal against acquittal unless the Trial Court’s view is perverse. The law pertaining to double presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused at the appellate stage, after his acquittal by the Trial Court, is settled. A gainful reference may be made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported as (2022) 8 SCC 536, wherein it was observed as under: