Posted On by &filed under Criminal Law News.


Uber cab rapist reminded victim of Dec 16 gangrape: Court

Uber cab rapist reminded victim of Dec 16 gangrape: Court

The victim of the Uber cab rape case was reminded of the horrific December 16, 2012 gangrape incident after the driver of the US-based service provider had threatened to insert an iron rod in her body and also tried to strangulate her while committing the act, a Delhi courtsaid.

The court held that threat perception was very much real in the mind of the 25-year-old victim when convict driver Shiv Kumar Yadav, 32, had intimated and threatened her that too at an isolated spot in the late hours of December 5, 2014 night. The special fast track court set up to deal with cases of sexual offences against women said Yadav had endangered her life by forcefully pressing her neck while raping her.

“It must be borne in mind that when accused threatened the victim by saying that he will insert ‘saria’ (iron rod) inside her body, she was reminded of gangrape case of December 16, 2012 and thus the threat perception was very much real in her mind at that point of time and offence under section 506 IPC thus stands duly proved against the accused,” Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja said in the 99-page judgment.

“In view of the aforesaid evidence, there is thus no room for doubt that accused, by forcefully pressing the neck of the prosecutrix while committing rape upon her in the aforesaid manner, endangered her life and thereby committed offence punishable under section 376(2)(m) of IPC,” the court said.

It rejected the contention of Yadav’s counsel, Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, that the offence of criminal intimidation cannot be made out against the driver as he had not shown any rod to the victim while extending this threat.

While holding him guilty of offences, the court relied on the victim’s testimony saying she was a “reliable and truthful witness” and despite lengthy cross-examination, her deposition remained “unimpeached”. The court observed that allegations against Yadav that he had attempted to commit unnatural sex with the victim was duly proved by the DNA and other scientific reports.

“To my mind the testimony of the prosecutrix that accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and even attempted to do unnatural sex with her is completely fortified by the scientific evidence by way of DNA examination report,” the judge said.

The court has convicted Yadav for offences under sections 376(2)(m)(while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or disfigures or endangers life of a woman), 366 (abducting with an intent to compel her for marriage), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (causing hurt) of the IPC. The court would hear on November 3 arguments on quantum of sentence in the case.

The court said that DNA profiling report proved that the driver’s semen was found in the victim’s clothes and private part, noting that the accused had refused to give his sample at the time of his medical examination.

While convicting the driver of charge of abduction, the judge said it was established on record that he took her to an isolated spot instead of her destination Inderlok when she had dosed off while sitting on the rear seat of his cab.

“It stands proved that accused took her to the isolated spot that is the place of incident in order to sexually assault her and thus thereby committed offence punishable under section 366 IPC,” the court said.

“To my mind, the testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was given beating by the accused and that he caused injuries on various parts of her body by scratching is credible, trustworthy and sufficient to conclude commission of offence punishable under section 323 IPC by the accused,” the judge said, adding it stands proved that Yadav had overpowered the woman and confined her in a cramped space i.e the rear seat of the cab.

The court refused to agree with the defence counsel that the injuries on the woman’s body were either self-inflicted or fabricated by her during the intervening period between her two medical examinations. The court also rejected the contention of defence counsel that the second doctor, who examined the victim and mentioned scratch marks on her neck, made improvement or manipulation in the medical reports.

“There is no reason to hold that scratch marks could not have been caused during the process of strangulation or that neck of a person can only be pressed without the use of nails and no scratch marks can be caused while doing so,” it said.

“From the testimony of prosecutrix, it stands proved that accused had overpowered her and confined her in a cramped space i.e the rear seat of the cab,” it said.

 

( Source – PTI )


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz