While observing that rape is one of the most barbaric crimes against the holy body of a woman and soul of the society, the Delhi High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Amit @ Sonu Jaat v. State and other connected matters in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 112 pronounced on February 14, 2022 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. The Court was of the pragmatic 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. 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 2002.
To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who delivered the judgment via video conferencing first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that, “The instant criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 16th March 2016 and order on sentence dated 11th April 2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Southeast District, Saket Court, New Delhi wherein the Appellants/Accused persons were convicted and sentenced.”
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “Since the criminal appeals bearing number CRL.A.-692/16, CRL.A.-815/16, CRL.A.-892/16, CRL.A.-894/16, CRL.A.-897/16, and CRL.A.-1053/16 have arisen out of the same FIR, pertain to the same set of facts, and have been heard together, therefore the same are being decided by way of this common judgment.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that, “The brief facts and circumstances that have led to the instant case are as under:(i) On 19th May 2012 at about 4:45 P.M., information was received at Police Control Room that a lady had been raped by many persons in a truck near Gas Plant, Kalindi Kunj. On receiving the said information, police team reached on the spot at Agra Canal Road near Indane Gas Plant. The enquiry was made from the Prosecutrix/Complainant and her statement was recorded. In her statement, the Prosecutrix/Complainant stated that she was a rag picker and used to come from Najafgarh to JJ Colony, Madanpur Kahdar for rag-picking.
(ii) On 18th May 2012 at about 9:00 P.M., Prosecutrix/Complainant boarded Gramin Sewa vehicle from Jalebi Chowk, Madanpur Khadar for going to Nehru Place. The Gramin Sewa vehicle was driven by one co-accused namely Lucky, while the other coaccused Tehna was the helper.
(iii) After reaching Nehru Place, all the passengers got down from the Vehicle, Tehna took the Prosecutrix/Complainant near CNG pump, Nehru Place, where the Prosecutrix/Complainant was introduced to Vicky @ Vijay and Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte, who shifted the Prosecutrix/Complainant into a car forcibly by twisting her arms. Vicky @ Vijay drove the car and took her near a cinema hall at Nehru Place where the Prosecutrix/Complainant was allegedly raped in the car by Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte.
(iv) Thereafter, the Prosecutrix/Complainant was taken into a room at JJ Colony, Khadar where co-accused Lucky, Vicky @ Vijay, Yasin Khan @ Tehana and Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte allegedly committed rape upon her. Vicky @ Vijay called the co-accused Uma Shankar and the Amit @Sonu Jaat who also committed rape upon the Prosecutrix/Complainant. The Prosecutrix/Complainant also complained about an act of sodomy committed upon her by Vicky @ Vijay.
(v) Thereafter, the Prosecutrix/Complainant was taken in the Gramin Sewa by three of the co-accused. Near the gas plant, Kalindi Kunj, the vehicle went out of order. The co-accused Vicky @ Vijay again committed rape upon the Prosecutrix/Complainant. All the accused persons left the Prosecutrix/ Complainant there and threatened her to kill if she disclosed about the alleged incident to anyone. The Prosecutrix/Complainant sought help from a truck driver Abhimanyu @ Bantu. However, Abhimanyu @ Bantu took the Prosecutrix/Complainant into the truck cabin and committed rape upon her.
(vi) On the statement of Prosecutrix/Complainant, the instant FIR bearing No. 166/2012 dated 19th May 2012 was registered in Police Station Jaitpur against the Appellants/Accused persons. The Prosecutrix/Complainant was medically examined in AIIMS Hospital, wherein injuries were found on her body and internal parts.
(vii) On 20th May 2012, Vicky @ Vijay, Lucky, Yasin Khan @ Tehana, Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte, Uma Shanker, Abhimanyu @ Bantu and Amit @ Sonu Jaat were arrested upon the identification by the Prosecutrix/Complainant.
Be it noted, the Bench then enunciates in para 38 that, “It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of the Prosecutrix/Complainant inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court as such, the conviction can be made on the sole evidence of the Prosecutrix/Complainant 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.”
Of course, the Bench then states in para 48 that, “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.”
No doubt, the Bench then specifies in para 49 that, “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.”
To be sure, the Bench then postulates in para 50 that, “It is a settled law that unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused through reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.”
Most significantly, what forms the crown of this notable judgment is then elaborated upon in para 55 wherein it is held that, “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 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.”
As we see, the Bench then points out in para 56 that, “In the instant case, as already analyzed, the version of prosecutrix is ridden with contradictions, and the same wherever not backed by medical or circumstantial evidence cannot be held to be reliable. Applying the same in the case, there are two sets of accused – one against whom there is no medical evidence and the other consists of those who are implicated by the medical evidence.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then holds in para 57 that, “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the present appeals are decided in the manner as follows:a. CRL.A.-692/2016, CRL.A.-897/2016 and CRL.A.-815/2016:
In light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, and their application to the facts and circumstances in the instant case, this Court is of the view that firstly, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is read and considered in totality of the circumstances, along with other evidence on record, in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, her deposition qua the accused in the aforementioned appeals is ridden with contradictions and does not inspire the confidence of this Court. Secondly, Medical Reports also do not substantiate the involvement of these Appellants/Accused persons in CRL.A.-692/2016, CRL.A.- 897/2016 and CRL.A.-815/2016 respectively. Thirdly, neither the prosecution has been able to produce independent witnesses to substantiate its case. In light of the afore-stated, the burden of proving the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is not discharged. In such facts and circumstances, the Appellants/Accused persons, namely – Amit @ Sonu Jaat, Satyajeet Biswas @ Satte and Yasin Khan @ Tehna are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 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. Let the Appellants/accused persons be released from the jail forthwith. Accordingly, the appeals bearing number CRL.A.-692/2016, CRL.A.- 897/2016 and CRL.A.-815/2016 are allowed and disposed of.
b. CRL.A.-892/2016, CRL.A.-894/2016, and CRL.A.-1053/2016:
In light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, and their application to the facts and circumstances in the instant case, as well as the appreciation of the material and evidence on record, notwithstanding the fact that there are several contradictions in the version of prosecutrix as well as lack of independent witnesses, there is sufficient material on record in form of medical evidence and forensic report that incriminate the appellants named herein. Thus, this Court is left with no other option but to conclude that the offence as alleged has been committed by the appellants and the same having been substantiated by the medical evidence, the accused as named above have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. Thus, in such facts and circumstances, the Appellants/Accused persons Vicky @ Vijay, Lucky, and Uma Shanker in CRL.A.-892/2016, CRL.A 894/2016, and CRL.A.-1053/2016 respectively, are not entitled to any relief, their conviction is upheld and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the appeals bearing number CRL.A.-892/2016, CRL.A.- 894/2016, and CRL.A.-1053/2016 are dismissed.”
To say the least, the Bench then directs in para 58 that, “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.”
In conclusion, the single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh of Delhi High Court has sought to send a clear message to one and all that there has to be zero tolerance for heinous crimes like rape. The Court has also simultaneously sought to make it clear that in the absence of clear evidence, no accused should be convicted. It merits no reiteration that we all must always not just applaud and admire what has been laid down in this judgment but also abide by what has been laid down and always treat rape as one of the most barbaric crimes against woman’s holy body and soul of society. Only then we deserve to be called a civilized society!Sanjeev Sirohi,
