State v. Ram Singh

8/12/2019 State v. Ram Singh

1/237

-:: 1 ::-

IN THE COURT OF SHRI YOGESH KHANNA,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,SPECIAL - FAST TRACK COURTS,

SAKET DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Unique ID N. !"#!$R!!"!%""!&'SC N. &("!&'FIR N. #&'("!&"P.S. ) *++n *i+/, Ne0 De1i.U( ) &"!2 IPC 3 U( '$% ( '$$ ( '4$5"6576 ( '44 ( '!4/ '!" +n8 ( / '9$ ('9% IPC /e+8 0i e:in '94 ( "!& ( #&" /e+8 0i e:in &"!2 IPC.

S+e5 G;e/n


2/237

-:: 2 ::-

'. A@+ Ku


3/237

-:: 3 ::-

and reached unir"a us !tand at P in an auto, $here

the' $ere lured to (oard a $hite coloured chartered (us ('

its conductor. oth of them (oarded the (us. The' sa$

=u/(o's in the dri&ers ca(in and 0(o's sitting (ehind

the dri&ers ca(in i.e one on the left and another on the right

side. The complainant and the prosecutrix (oth sat on the

left side - second seat in the (us and paid fare of s.20/-.

As the (us reached near Airport l'o&er, three

(o's came out of the dri&ers ca(in. T$o of them started

a(using the complainant, as"ing him as to $here he $as

ta"ing the prosecutrix in the night. ne of them hit the

complainant. As the complainant resisted, t$o other (o's

oined the assailant in (eating the complainant $ith iron

rods l'ing in the (us. As the prosecutrix came for$ard to

sa&e the complainant, t$o of the assailants pushed her to

the (ac" seat. 3hile the complainant $as caught and (eing

(eaten 4 the other assailants too" their turn to ha&e sexual

intercourse $ith the prosecutrix. The' (rutall' ra&ished her

(' raping her 4 doing unnatural sex and also damaged her

internal organs and genitals (' inserting iron /84 hands

State vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013

FIR No. 413/2012 Page No. 3 of 23P.S. : !asant !ihar" Ne# $e%hi./home/reader/Praveen Singhania/304-S&%. F'C/2013/Se&tem(er" 2013/)*dgment +Se&." 12,/Ram Singh and another114-13 !asant !ihar.odt


4/237

-:: 4 ::-

into it and causing inuries 8+n7e/uto her life.

The assailants e&en ro((ed the complainant of

his mo(ile phone, his purse containing s.1000/- 4 his (an"

cards 4 made him na"ed (' ta"ing a$a' his clothes and e&en

his (lac" hush pupp' shoes. !imilarl' the mo(ile phone of

the prosecutrix, her AT card, $as +11ro((ed.

The assailants then tried to thro$ (oth the

complainant and the prosecutrix out of the mo&ing (us from

its rear door (ut since it could not open, so the' (rought

them at the front door and thre$ them out of the mo&ing

(us at #ational 5igh$a' #o. ) near ahipal Pur fl'o&er ('

the side of the road.

The' (oth $ere noticed (' the passer('s. Police

$as informed and the' $ere (rought to !afdarung 5ospital,

#e$ %elhi for their medical examination. The statement of

the complainant $as recorded.

n the (asis of a(o&e statement of the

complainant, as also considering their 78s9 4 : #o.

#&'("!&" under section '$%('$$('4$5"6576('44('9#('#

:P7 at P.! Vasant Vihar, #e$ %elhi $as registered.




5/237


6/237

-:: ::-

deceased, $as found sitting in it and he $as interrogated

and arrested. 5e led to reco&er' of his (loodstained clothes,

iron rods and the documents concerning the (us and also

disclosed that he thre$ the !: card of complainant=s mo(ile

in the morning of 1>/12/2012 in the area of #oida, $hich

$as later sei?ed from one @ishan, $ho found it in !ector-+>,

#oida, P.

The (us $as inspected (' 7! Team and exhi(its

$ere sei?ed. Accused am !ingh, since deceased, refused to

participate in T:P. 5e led to the arrest of other accused

person namel' accused Vina' !harma and accused Pa$an B

;alu.

%. Accused Vina' !harma got reco&ered his

(loodstained clothes, hush pupp' leather shoes of the

complainant, the mo(ile phone ma"e #o"ia odel +110 of

lac" gre' colour (elonging to the prosecutrix. !imilarl'

accused Pa$an ;umar got reco&ered from his huggi his

(loodstained clothes, shoes and also a $rist $atch ma"e

!onata and s. 1000/- ro((ed from the complainant. oth of


FIR No. 413/2012 Page No. of 23P.S. : !asant !ihar" Ne# $e%hi./home/reader/Praveen Singhania/304-S&%. F'C/2013/Se&tem(er" 2013/)*dgment +Se&." 12,/Ram Singh and another114-13 !asant !ihar.odt


7/237

-:: ::-

these accused refused to participate in the T:P.

n 1)-12-2012, accused u"esh $as

apprehended from his nati&e &illage ;aroli , aasthan and a

!amsung Calax' Trend %! lue lac" mo(ile (elonging to

the complainant $as reco&ered from him. 5e $as (rought

to %elhi and $as arrested after interrogation. ater on

2+.12.12, he got prepared the route chart of the route

$here he dro&e the (us at the time of incident. esides that,

he got reco&ered his (loodstained clothes from the garrage

of his (rother at Anupam Apartment, !aidulaa(, !a"et, #e$

%elhi. 5e $as i8eni=ie8 (' the complainant in the Test

:dentification Parade .

n 21.12.2012, the u&enile $as apprehended

from :!T and an AT de(it card of the prosecutrix and a

mo(ile phone, (esides his !: $ere sei?ed.

n 21.11.2012, accused A"sha' $as also arrested

from Auranga(ad, ihar. 5e led to his (rother=s house in

&illage, #aharpur, Curgaon, 5ar'ana and got reco&ered his

(loodstained clothes. 5e $as i8eni=ie8(' the complainant

in the T:P proceedings. 5e also got reco&ered a ring




8/237

-:: ::-

(elonging to the complainant, t$o metro cards and a #o"ia

phone $ith !: of Vodafone compan'.

$. The mo(ile phones of the accused person, as also

of the complainant and the prosecutrix $ere all sei?ed and

call details records $ith reDuisite certificates u/s 6E- of

:ndian F&idence Act $ere o(tained (' the police.

4. The prosecutrix on 16.12.12 ga&e a (rief histor'

of the incident to the doctor in her 7. n 21.12.12, on

(eing declared fit, she ga&e her statement under section

16< 7r.P.7 to the !%. F&en on 2E.12.12, her statement

under section 16< 7r.P.7 $as recorded (' !hri Pa$an ;umar,

d. (' putting her multiple choice Duestions and

through gestures. n 2>.12.12, she $as shifted to t.

Fli?a(eth 5ospital, !ingapore for her further treatment.

nfortunatel', on 2.12.12, she expired 8ue e>i 0i

1e /7+n =+i1u/e 0i 1e inBu/ie.

. 5ence sections +0> / 201 / +6/+02 :P7 $ere all




9/237

-:: ::-

added. The 7s $ere collected and medical opinion $ere

o(tained from the doctor as also their opinion on the

$eapons used. The %#A profiles $ere made of all the

accused, of the &ictims and its reports $ere o(tained and

accordingl', on 0+.01.201+ charge sheet $as filed (' the

prosecution under section +6E/+>68298g9/ +>>/ +0>/ +E/

+>/ +02/ +6/ -1-201+ it $as committed to this court.

CHARGE

&!. n 2.2.201+, the accused person $ere directed to (e

charged for the offences u/s &"!-2 IPCand under section

'$% ( '$$ ( '!4 ( '4$ 5"6576 IPC ( '44 IPC read $ith

section &"!-2 :P7. urther the accused persons $ere

charged for the offences u/s. '9$ IPC read $ith section

&"!-2 IPC+n8 ( / u/s. '!" IPCread $ith section &"!-2

IPC 4 further u/s. '9% IPC read $ith section '94 IPC read

$ith &"!-2 IPCand also u/s. "!& IPCread $ith section &"!




10/237

-:: 10 ::-

IPCand lastl' for the offence u/s. #&" IPC.

E*IDENCE

&&. The prosecution thereafter led its e&idence.

efore proceeding further, it $ould (e appropriate to discuss

the nature of e&idence gi&en (' the $itnesses.

&". Prosecution examined as man' as %$itnesses.

The $itnesses in&ol&ed in /e:ueof &ictims and lodging of

: are *

(i)P3E> A!: ;apil !ingh

(ii)P36E 7t. ;ripal !ingh

(iii)P3>0 !hri am Pal !ingh.

(iv)P3>2 !hri a ;umar

(v)P3>+ 57 am 7hander

(vi)P3>< !: !u(hash 7hand

The doctors in&ol&ed in preparation of MLCare *

(i)P32 %r. A"hilesh a

(ii)P3+ %r. 7hetan ;umar




11/237

-:: 11 ::-

(iii)P36 %r. ;ul(hushan Prasad

(iv)P3> %r. !hashan" Pooni'a

(v)P310 %r. ohit Cupta

(vi)P31E %r. ;amran aisal

(vii)P3E1 %r. !achin aa

(viii)P3E :nspector a ;umari

(ix)P362 !: ahesh harga&a.

The d. s $ho recorded the +e !mt sha 7hatur&ed.

(ii)P3+0 !hri Pa$an ;umar

(iii)P36 !hri Prashant !harma.

The doctors $ho accorded the =ine Dua the

prosecutrix for recording of her statement under section 166 !hri Cautam o'

(vii)P3> !hri P.; Cotam.

The N8+1 O==i:e/56are *

(i)P31 !hri Vishal Caura&

(ii)P320 7ol. A.; !achde&a

(iii)P321 !hri Amar #ath !ingh

(iv)P322 !hri !hishir alhotra

(v)P32+ !hri %eepa", and

(vi)P32< !hri a"esh !oni.

The MHC5M6$as examined as PW44.

The $itnesses from Se1e: Ci M+11 +==are *

(i)P32E !hri aender !ingh isht, and

(ii)P326 !hri !andeep !ingh 4




15/237

-:: 1 ::-

The C/i


16/237

-:: 1 ::-

:t is pertinent to mention that during the course

of trial accused am !ingh committed suicide in Tihar @ail

and hence proceedings against him, stood a(ated.

. Accused person examined the follo$ing $itnesses

in their defence *-

Accused Pa$an Cupta B ;aalu examined *

i. %31 !hri al 7hand

ii. %32 !hri 5eera al

iii.%3+ !hri am 7haran

iv.%3< !hri C'an 7hand

v. %316 !hri 5ari ;ishan !harma

Accused Vina' !harma had examined *

i. %3E !mt 7hampa %e&i

ii. %36 !hri 5ari am !harma

iii.%3> !hri ;ishore ;umar hat

iv.%3) !hri !ri ;ant

v. %3 !hri anu !harma

vi.%310 !hri am a(u




17/237

-:: 1 ::-

vii.%31> !hri %inesh

Accused A"sha' ;umar !ingh B Tha"ur had

examined *

i. %311 !hri 7ha&inder

ii. %312 !hri !aru !ingh

iii.%31+ a ohan !ingh

iv.%31< !mt. Punita %e&i

v. %31E !mt !arita %e&i

&%. efore coming to the contentions raised as also

the la$ cited, it $ould (e appropriate to find the crux of the

e&idence so recorded 4

&$. *ICTIMS, RESCUE +n8 FIR

The entire incident is enumerated in the

deposition made (' the complainant as PW&$ho stated,

inter alia, that he is an engineer (' profession and that on

16-12-2012 at a(out +*+0 P he too" the prosecutrix from

(us stand of !ector-1, %$ar"a, #e$ %elhi and $ent in an




18/237

-:: 1 ::-

auto to !elect 7it' all, !a"et, #e$ %elhi. There the'

$atched mo&ie Gife of PiH. After $atching the mo&ie, at

a(out ).+0P, the' left !elect 7it' all, !a"et, #e$ %elhi.

As the' could not get an auto for %$ar"a so the' hired an

auto for unir"a (us stand from $here the' could get a (us

of route no. >6< for %$ar"a. At a(out P the' reached at

unir"a (us stand and found a $hite colour chartered (us

on $hich Iada& $as $ritten. The (us had 'ello$ and green

lines / strips on it. 5e also noticed the entr' gate of the (us

(eing ahead of its front left t're, as is there in the luxur'

(uses and that its front t're $as $ithout a $heel co&er. A

(o', in the (us $as calling for commuters for %$ar"a /

Palam od.

oth the &ictims (oarded the (us and sa$ that

(esides the (o' $ho $as calling the passengers, t$o other

person $ere sitting in dri&ers ca(in along $ith the dri&er of

the (us. P31 noticed that it $as a + x 2 seater (us i.e.,

three seat=s ro$ (ehind the dri&ers seat and the t$o seat=s

ro$ on its other side. 5e also noticed a person sitting on the

left side i.e. on the ro$ of t$o seats and the another on the




19/237

-:: 1 ::-

right side i.e. on the ro$ of three seats, ust (ehind the

dri&ers seat. oth P31 and the prosecutrix sat (ehind the

person sitting on the left side i.e. in the ro$ of t$o seats.

P31 noticed the seats co&ers of the (us of red colour and its

curtains of 'ello$ colour and that it had a (lac" colour film

on its $indo$s. The $indo$s $ere at Duite a height as in

luxur' (uses. P31 also noticed the person8s9 sitting in the

dri&ers ca(in $ere coming and returning to the dri&ers

ca(in. P31 paid s. 20/- to the conductor as fare. P31

identified accused u"esh to (e the dri&er of the (us E.P&

and accused am !ingh and accused A"sha' to (e the

person sitting in the dri&ers ca(in and accused Pa$an

;umar $as sitting in front of him in t$o seat=s ro$ of the (us

and $hereas accused Vina' $as sitting on three seat=s ro$,

ust (ehind the dri&ers seat. The conductor $as the @7.

After (oarding the (us, PW&had a =ee1in7 that

accused person did not allo$ an'one else to (oard the (us

and the' mo&ed the (us and left unir"a us !tand.

Accused person put of the lights inside the (us. Then

accused am !ingh, accused A"sha' Tha"ur and the @7




20/237

-:: 20 ::-

came to$ards the complainant and started a(using him

as"ing as to $here he $as ta"ing the girl in the night. The'

started gi&ing fist (lo$s on his face. As the complainant tried

to resist them, the' called their associates &i?., accused

Vina' and accused Pa$an (' calling their names and as"ed

them to (ring iron rods. Thereafter all these accused started

gi&ing (eatings to the complainant (' iron rods, thus inuring

him on his head, (oth legs and on other parts of his (od'.

The prosecutrix $as shouting and calling for help. As she

tried to call police (' her mo(ile, the accused person

snatched a$a' their mo(iles. P31 $as carr'ing t$o mo(iles

ha&ing sim nos.E1>>20 $hereas the

prosecutrix $as carr'ing onl' one mo(ile. oth the mo(iles

of the complainant $ere of dual !:s facilit' (ut at that time

he had onl' one !: in each mo(ile.

ecause of the (eatings, P31 fell on the floor of

the (us and that accused Pa$an and accused Vina' pinned

him do$n. The accused person ro((ed the &ictims of their

mo(iles (esides ro((ing him of his purse carr'ing a 7it'

an" credit card, :7:7: an" de(it card 4 his identit' card




21/237

-:: 21 ::-

issued (' his compan', a metro card 4 s. 1000/- in cash 4

his $atch of Titan, a golden ring studded $ith e$els and a

sil&er ring studded $ith pearl 4 (lac" colour 5ush Pupp's

shoes 4 (lac" colour numero -uno eans, a gre' colour

pullo&er 4 a (ro$n 8 "ha"i9 (la?er.

As the complainant $as pinned do$n (' accused

Vina' and accused Pa$an ;umar, the others &i?., accused

am !ingh, accused A"sha' and the @7 8not (eing tried ('

this court9 too" the prosecutrix to the rear side of the (us.

PW&heard the cries of the prosecutrix li"e Gchor

do, (achaoH as if she $as (eing (eaten up. The complainant

$as also gi&en leg and fist (lo$s. The prosecutrix $as

cr'ing and shouting in a loud &oice and her &oice $as

oscillating. Accused am !ingh, since deceased, accused

A"sha' and the @7 8 not (eing tried (' this court9 then

committed rape upon the prosecutrix one (' one. After

committing rape, those accused came to$ards the

complainant and pinned him do$n and $hereas accused

Vina' and accused Pa$an then $ent to the rear side of the

(us and raped the prosecutrix. P31 noticed that earlier the




22/237

-:: 22 ::-

(us $as mo&ing in a fast speed (ut after some time he felt

that the speed of the (us $as reduced and he sa$ that

accused u"esh $ho $as dri&ing the (us came near him

and hit him $ith the rod and he also $ent to the rear side of

the (us and raped his friend. 5e also heard one of the

accused sa'ing Gmar gayee, mar gayeeH.

The prosecutrix $as carr'ing a gre' colour purse

ha&ing an Axis an" AT card and other (elongings. The

accused person ro((ed her of her (elongings and too" a$a'

her clothes and also of the complainant $hile (eating him

$ith iron rods. The accused $ere exhorting that (oth the

&ictims (e not left ali&e. The' then pulled P31 near the

rear door and put him on his friend, the prosecutrix. The rear

door $as closed and it could not open despite (eing tried ('

the accused. The accused person then pulled him and his

friend, the prosecutrix, (' their hairs and (rought (oth of

them at the front gate and then thre$ them out of the

mo&ing (us, opposite to 5otel %elhi +>, ahipalpur, #e$

%elhi. After thro$ing the &ictims out of the mo&ing (us, the

accused turned the (us in a manner to crush (oth of them




23/237

-:: 23 ::-

under its $heels (ut P31 pulled the prosecutrix and himself

out of the reach of the $heels of the (us and sa&ed

themsel&es. 5e found his friend, the prosecutrix, na"ed and

(leeding from all parts of her (od'.

PW4"!hri a ;umar, an emplo'ee of FC:! :nfra

anagement :ndia 8P9 imited, ;. 2


24/237

-:: 24 ::-

the foot of ahipal Pur fl'o&er to$ards %haula ;uan,

opposite C gate. 5e reached the spot and found the

&ictims. 5e dispersed the cro$d and (rought a (ottle of

$ater and a (ed sheet and tore it in t$o parts and ga&e it to

(oth the &ictims to co&er themsel&es. At a(out 11 P, he

(rought the &ictim, to !afdarung 5ospital, #e$ %elhi. 3hile

lea&ing the complainant in the casualt', PW4' too" the

prosecutrix to the g'nae (uilding and got her admitted

there. n the $a' to the hospital the &ictims informed him

a(out the incident.

PW%4 A!: ;apil !ingh, the %ut' fficer at P.!

Vasant Vihar, #e$ %elhi, in the inter&ening night of

16/1>-12-2012, recei&ed an information a(out the incident

and he lodged %% #o. 6-A E.PW%4(Aand passed on the

said %% to PW4#!: !u(hash 7hand, on emergenc' dut' on

that night at P.! Vasant Vihar. :mmediatel', thereafter

PW%4A!: ;apil !ingh recei&ed 'et another information Dua

admission of the prosecutrix and of the complainant in

!afdarung 5ospital and he lodged %% #o. >-A E.PW%4(2

and also passed on the said %% to !: !u(hash 7hand,




25/237

-:: 2 ::-

PW4#!: !u(hash 7hand then left for !afdarung

5ospital, $here he met PW%93omen-:nspector a ;umari

and PW$" !: ahesh harga&a. PW%9 3omen-:nspector

a ;umari handed o&er to him the 7 and the exhi(its

concerning the prosecutrix, as gi&en to her (' the treating

doctor and $hereas PW$"!: ahesh harga&a handed o&er

to him the 7 of the complainant.

PW4# !: !u(hash 7hand, then recorded the

statement E.PW&(A of the complainant and made his

endorsement E.PW4#(Aon it and ga&e the ru""a to PW$%

7t. ;ripal for (eing ta"en to P.! Vasant Vihar, #e$ %elhi and

to get the : registered.

PW$%7t. ;ripal, then $ent to P.! Vasant Vihar,

#e$ %elhi and at E*


26/237

-:: 2 ::-

the :n&estigating fficer 4 sei?ed &ide memo E.PW4#(2.

PW!!: Prati(ha !harma then collected the 7

of the prosecutrix from PW%93/:nspector a ;umari and

also the exhi(its &i?., one card (oard (ox, t$o 'ello$

en&elopes, a $hite en&elope along $ith sample seal sei?ed

&ide memo E.PW%9(A.

&4. TREATMENT

PW%4 %r. !achin aa along $ith %r %heera

examined the complainant &ide 7 E.PW%&(A and

o(ser&ed the follo$ing inuries on his person *

5+6 1 K 1 cm si?e clean lacerated $ound o&er the

&ertex of scalp 8head inur'9 4

5?6 0.E K 1cm si?e clean lacerated $ound o&er left

upper leg 4

5:61 K 0.2 cm si?e a(rasion o&er right "nee.

The complainant $as gi&en initial treatment ('

the doctors.

PW#9%r. ashmi Ahua on the other hand, on

16-12-2012 at a(out 11*1E P, had examined the

prosecutrix and prepared casualt' / C paper E.PW-#9(AState vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013



27/237

-:: 2 ::-

and also her 7 E.PW#9(2.

As per histor' told (' the prosecutrix to her, it

$as a case of 7+n7 /+>e in a mo&ing (us ('


28/237

-:: 2 ::-

Pe/ +?8-12-2012 and his operati&e findings are as under *

+.7ollection of around E00 ml of (lood

in peritoneal ca&it'

?.stomach pale,




29/237

-:: 2 ::-

:.%uodenum contused

8. @eunum contused L (ruised at

$hole of the length and lacerated L

transected at man' places. irst

transection $as Ecm a$a' from % @

unction. !econd $as 2 feet from the %

@, after that there $as transection and

laceration at man' places. @eunal

loop $as of dou(tful &ia(ilit'. %istal

ileum $as completel' detached from

the mesentr' till :7@ 8 ileocaecal

unction9. :t $as completel'

de&asculari?ed.

e. arge (o$el $as also contused

(ruised and of dou(tful &ia(ilit'.%escending colon $as lacerated

&erticall' do$n$ard in such a manner

that it $as completel' open.

=. !igmoid colon L rectum $as

lacerated at man' places linearl' ,

mucosa $as detached completel' at

places, a portion of it around 10cm

$as prolapsing through perineal

$ound.

7. i&er and spleen $as normal.

. (oth sides retro peritoneal

8posterior $all of the a(domen9State vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013



30/237

-:: 30 ::-

haematoma present .

i. esentr' L omentum $as totall'

contused and (ruised.

B. Vaginal tear present, recto &aginal

septum $as completel' torn.

Cut $as totall' (ruised and

contused in such a manner that it

could not (e repaired so proximal

@eunostom' $as made

aparostom' 8 a(domen $as left

open9 $as made.

PW%! pro&ed the T notes as E.PW%!(A,

(earing signature of %r. Caura& and his o$n note in this

regard is E.PW-%!(2. As per his opinion, the condition of

the small and large (o$els $eree/e+i/. After performing the operation, the

patient $as shifted to :7. The 1st surger' $as damage

control surger' and it $as expected that unhealth' (o$el

$ould (e there.

The second surger' $as performed on

1.12.2012 (' him along $ith his operating team consisting

of Prof. !unil ;umar, %r. Pintu and %r. !iddharth. rom the




31/237

-:: 31 ::-

g'necological side %r. Aruna atra and %r. e"ha harti $ere

present along $ith anaesthetic team. The findings $ere as

under *

A?8


32/237


33/237

-:: 33 ::-

Aruna atra and %r. P.;.Verma.

&. FITNESS AND STATEMENTS U( &$# C/.P.C

rom time to time, the applications $ere mo&ed

(' the :n&estigating fficer for determining the fitness of the

prosecutrix for the purpose of recording of her statement8s9.

n 21-12-2012 an application E.PW"4(D-2$as

mo&ed (' PW!!: Prati(ha !harma for see"ing an opinion

regarding fitness of the prosecutrix. PW%"%r. P.; Verma

examined the prosecutrix and found her to (e fit, conscious,

oriented and meaningfull' communicati&e for ma"ing

statement &ide his endorsement at point A on application

E.PW"4(D2.

PW"4!mt. sha 7hatur&edi, !%, Vi&e" Vihar,

%elhi, (efore recording of statement satisfied herself that

the prosecutrix $as fit and then she recorded statement

E.PW"4(Aof the prosecutrix (earing the signatures of the

prosecutrix on all pages. The prosecutrix e&en $rote the

date and time. PW"4then sent the said statement to A7P,

Vasant Vihar along$ith her for$arding letter E.PW"4(2.




34/237

-:: 34 ::-

:n her statement E.PW"4(A, the prosecutrix

narrated the entire incident, specif'ing the role of each of

accused person 4 the gang rape / unnatural offence

committed upon her, the inuries suffered (' her and her

friend in the incident including thrusting of iron rods and

hands in her pri&ate parts 4 the description of the (us and

ultimatel' thro$ing them na"ed of the mo&ing (us at the

footfall of ahipal Pur l'o&er.

n "%-&"-"!&", the :n&estigating fficer PW!

!: Prati(ha !harma, mo&ed 'et another application

E.PW"(A to see" an opinion Dua the fitness of the

prosecutrix for recording of her another statement. The

prosecutrix $as ha&ing endotracheal tu(e in place i.e in

lar'nx and trachea and $as on &entilator and she could not

spea".

:n the opinion of PW%" %r. P.; Verma the

prosecutrix $as though una(le to spea", (ut per PW"%r.

aesh astogi, at &")#! PM, the prosecutrix $as conscious,

oriented, co-operati&e, comforta(le, meaningfull'

communicati&e to ma"e a statement through non-&er(al




35/237

-:: 3 ::-

gestures. After see"ing opinion of the doctors, another

statement E.PW'!(D-&8u/s 16< 7r.P.7.9 of the prosecutrix

$as recorded (' PW'!!hri Pa$an ;umar, the d. , ('

$a' of gestures and multiple choice Duestions.

F&en in her statement E.PW'!(D-& the

prosecutrix descri(ed the entire incident, through multiple

choice Duestions and her gestures, as also the role of each

of the accused person. Prosecutrix e&en $rote the names of

accused person on a sheet E.PW'!(E. The d. also

ga&e a correctness certificate E.PW'!(F of the

proceedings.

F&en the complainant PW& on 1-12-12 had

made a statement E.PW&(2 under section 16< 7r.P.7

(efore !hri Prashant !harma, the d. , !a"et, #e$ %elhi.

The correctness certificate is E.PW$9(2. The Dueries put

(' the d. to satisf' himself Dua &oluntariliness of the

complainant to ga&e his statement are E.PW$9(D.

The statements of the complainant &i?.,

E.PW&(A and E.PW&(2 as also d'ing declarations

E.PW"4(A and E.PW'!(D-& of the prosecutrix




36/237

-:: 3 ::-

corro(orate each other in all material aspects and narrate

the incident dated 16-12-2012 exhausti&el'.

&9. ARREST AND RECO*ERIES

As stated a(o&e, PW%', PW%, PW$!, PW$&,

PW$, PW4#and PW!$ere all in&ol&ed in the arrest of

accused and reco&eries made therefrom. et me find ho$

accused $ere arrested and $hat $as reco&ered at their

instance.

ACCUSED RAM SINGH 5SINCE DECEASED6

As &arious teams $ere $or"ing in the case,

PW!!: Prati(ha !harma, the :n&estigating fficer recei&ed

a secret information that a (us of similar description $as

seen in the area of a&i %ass 7amp, .; Puram, #e$ %elhi.

!he then $ent there and found the (us par"ed at a&i %ass

huggi 7amp. !he summoned other police staff. The person,

inside the (us, on seeing the police part' got do$n and

started running (ut $as o&erpo$ered and his identit' $as

re&ealed as am !ingh, since deceased. 5e $as arrested on

1>-12-2012 at


37/237

-:: 3 ::-

personal search $as conducted &ide memo E.PW4#(Eand

his disclosure E.PW4#(F$as recorded. The :n&estigating

fficer sei?ed the (us E.P&&ide memo E.PW4#(K. !he

sei?ed the seat co&ers of the (us of red colour and its

curtains of 'ello$ colour. n the (us GIada&H $as found

$ritten on its (od' $ith green and 'ello$ stripes on it. The

cap on the front $heel of the (us $as found missing and

that the front entr' gate of the (us $as ahead of its front

t're. The entr' gate of the (us opened in the dri&er=s ca(in.

The :n&estigating fficer sei?ed the "e' E.P-4#(" of the

(us &ide memo E.PW4#(J.

Accused am !ingh then led the police part'

inside the (us and too" out some documents E.P-4#(#

from a shelf in its ca(in, sei?ed &ide memo E.PW4#(I. 5e

also got reco&ered t$o iron rods-(lood stained E.P-#9(&

and E.P-#9(", sei?ed &ide memo E.PW4#(G. Accused

am !ingh also produced a de(it card E.P-4#('of :ndian

an", in the name of Asha %e&i, the mother of the

prosecutrix, sei?ed &ide memo E.PW4#(H. The T-!hirt

E.P-4#($and the (ro$n colour chappal E.P-4#(4, ha&ing




38/237

-:: 3 ::-

(loodstains, (elonging to accused am !ingh $ere sei?ed

&ide memo E.PW-4#(L. 5e also got reco&ered the ashes

and partl' un(urnt clothes, l'ing near the (us 4 sei?ed &ide

memo E.PW4#(M and #:K mo(ile phone $ith T# !im

E.P4#(% from his personal search, sei?ed &ide memo

E.P-4#(E. Accused am !ingh $as put in muffled face.

The :n&estigating fficer prepared the site plans

of the places $here the (us $as found par"ed and from

$here the ashes $ere found.

ACCUSED MUKESH

Accused u"esh $as apprehended on 1)-12-2012

from &illage ;aroli, aasthan (' a team headed (' PW%!:

Ar&ind. 5e produced accused u"esh (efore PW! !:

Prati(ha !harma, the :n&estigating fficer at !afdarung

5ospital in muffled face, along$ith a mo(ile ma"e !amsung

Calax' %uos E.P-$4 sei?ed (' her &ide memo E.PW%(A.

Accused $as arrested at 6*+0 P of 1)-12-2012 (' her &ide

memo E.PW%(24 his personal search $as conducted &ide

memo E.PW%(C. Accused pointed the unir"a (us stand




39/237

-:: 3 ::-

&ide memo E.PW$(Kand the dumping spot &ide memo

E.PW$(L.

n 2+-12-2012 accused u"esh led the police to

Anupam Apartment, garage no. 2, !aidulaa(, !a"et, #e$

%elhi and got reco&ered a green colour t-shirt E.P-#(&on

$hich the $ord Gpla' (o'H $as printed 4 a gre' colour pant

E.P-#(" and a ac"et E.P-#('of (luish gre' colour, all

sei?ed &ide memo E.PW#(2. The :n&estigating fficer

also prepared the site plan E.PW!(I of the place of

reco&er'. n 2


40/237

-:: 40 ::-

Accused Pa$an Cupta pointed unir"a (us stand

and a pointing out memo E.PW$(I$as prepared. 5e also

pointed the dumping spot and memo E.PW$(J $as

prepared in this regard.

n 1-12-2012, accused u"esh got effected the

follo$ing reco&eries *

5+6 complainant=s $rist $atch E.P' sei?ed &ide memo

E.PW$(G

5?6 t$o currenc' notes of denomination of s.E00/- E.P-4

coll' $ere sei?ed &ide memo E.PW$(G

5:6 clothes $orn (' the accused at the time of

incident,sei?ed &ide memo E.PW$(F

5?6 (lac" coloured s$eater ha&ing gre' stripes $ith la(elA(ercrom(ie and itch E.P-$($and a pair of coca-

cola colour pants E.P-$(4coll' 4 under $ear ha&ing

elastic la(eled ed?one E.P-$( and a pair of

sports shoes $ith colum(us inscri(ed on them as

E.P-$(9.

ACCUSED *INAY SHARMA

n 1)-12-2012 at a(out 1*+0 P accused *in+

S+/


41/237

-:: 41 ::-

memo E.PW$!(2 4 his disclosure E.PW$!(H $as also

recorded. 5e pointed out the urnir"a (us stand from

$here the &ictims $ere pic"ed up &ide memo E.PW$(I

and he also pointed out ahipalpur l'o&er, the place

$here the &ictims $ere thro$n out of the mo&ing (us &ide

pointing out memo E.PW$(J.

n 1-12-2012 he had got effected the follo$ing

reco&eries *

5+6 7omplainant=s shoes E.P-" sei?ed &ide memo

E.PW$(C

5?6 #o"ia mo(ile phone E.P-$(% of the prosecutrix

sei?ed &ide memo E.PW$(D

n 1-12-2012 in pursuant to his supplementar'

disclosure statement E.PW$(A, the follo$ing reco&eries

$ere made &ide sei?ure memo E.PW$(2*

5+6 ne (lue coloured eans ha&ing monogram of Fxpert

E.P-$(& 5?6 a (lac" coloured sports ac"et $ith $hite stripes and a

monogram of moments as E.P-$(' and a pair of

ru((er slippers as E.P-$(#.

%uring his personal search follo$ing articles $ereState vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013



42/237

-:: 42 ::-

reco&ered *

5+6 #o"ia mo(ile phone $ith :F: #o. +E


43/237

-:: 43 ::-

ring E.P-# from 5ouse no. 1


44/237

-:: 44 ::-

"&. COLLECTION OF EXHI2ITS

PW#9 %r. ashmi Ahua examined the

prosecutrix &ide 7 E.PW#9(2and had e&en collected

the follo$ing exhi(its during her examination &i?., outer

clothes i.e s$eater torned4 inner clothes i.e. !amee torned 4

dust, grass present in hairs, dust in clothes 4 de(ries from in

(et$een fingers 4 de(ries from nails 4 nail clippings 4 nail

scrappings 4 (reast s$a( 4 (od' fluid collection 8 s$a( from

sali&a9 4 com(ing, matted clipping of pu(ic hair 4 cer&ical

mucus collection 4 &aginal secretions 4 &aginal culture 4

$ashing from &aginal 4 rectal s$a( 4 ral !$a( 4 rine and

xalate (lood &ial 4 (lood samples, etc.

urther, PW&&%r. Pintu, on 2


45/237

-:: 4 ::-

(us, cop' of the 7, cop' of the fitness certificate, certificate

of third part' technical inspection, pollution certificate, t$o

copies of certificateMcum-polic' schedule 8:nsurance9, cop'

of dri&ing license of am !ingh, cop' of certificate of training

undergone (' accused am !ingh, cop' of permit and list of

the transporters, collecti&el' E.PW&$(A.

PW&!: Vishal 7haudhra' on 1-1-201+ $ent to

!afdarung 5ospital and collected from %r. !ar&esh Tandon

20 photographs of (ite mar"s and had also collected eight

letters / documents 4 sei?ed (' :nspector Anil !harma, &ide

memo E.PW&(A.

n 2-1-2012 he collected an en&elope $ith three

(oxes sealed $ith the seal of department of orensic !@5 and

$ent to deposit it at %epartment of orensic dontolog' ,

!% 7ollege of %ental !cience, %har$ad, ;arnata"a. 5e

(rought the report along $ith exhi(its and handed it o&er to

:nspector Anil !harma. 5e deposited the exhi(its $ith the

5789.

PW'$ 7t. !andeep, on 1)-12-2012 too" t$o

sealed parcels from the doctor Dua accused Vina', sealed




46/237

-:: 4 ::-

$ith the seal of hospital 4 sei?ed (' the :n&estigating fficer,

&ide memo E.PW'$(A.

!imilarl', PW'4 7t. !anee&, on 1)-12-2012,

(rought t$o sample parcels Dua accused u"esh $ith the

seal of hospital 4 sei?ed (' the :n&estigating fficer, &ide

memo E.PW'4(A.

PW'9 7t. urari, on 1)-12-2012, (rought six

sealed parcels Dua accused am !ingh sealed $ith the seal

of hospital along$ith sample seal and handed it o&er to the

:n&estigating fficer &ide memo E.PW'9(A.

PW#! A!: !urender ;umar, on 22-12-2012,

(rought 11 sealed parcels Dua accused A"sha', sealed $ith

the seal of A::! along $ith sample seal and handed it o&er

to the :n&estigating fficer, sei?ed &ide memo E.PW#!(A.

PW#"7t. !uresh ;umar, li"e$ise, on 2E-12-2012

(rought (lood samples of the complainant from the doctors

of !afdarung 5ospital in sealed condition $ith sample seal

and ga&e it to :n&estigating fficer, sei?ed &ide memo

E.PW&%(A.

PW#57 Ciri a, on 1)-12-2012, (rought one




47/237

-:: 4 ::-

sealed parcel Dua accused Pa$an along $ith the seal of

hospital, sei?ed (' :n&estigating fficer, &ide memo

E.PW#(A. n 2


48/237

-:: 4 ::-

ga&e it to the :n&estigating fficer &ide memo E.PW"9(A

on the application E.PW!(Gmo&ed (' the :n&estigating

fficer.

PW!!: Prati(ha !harma on the instructions of

the crime team had collected the exhi(its from the spot near

ahipalpur &i?., (loodstained lea&es of mul(err' 8 shahtut9

tree, the (loodstained grass, the tree lea&es and grass

$ithout (lood &ide memo E.PW4#(C4 she also sei?ed the

exhi(its from the (us E.P&par"ed at T'agra !tadium &ide

memo E.PW4#(2. !he also sei?ed the lo$er and upper

seat co&ers from the )thro$ (ehind the dri&er=s seat of the

(us Fx.P1 &ide memo E.PW$!(F. !he also mo&ed an

application E.PW!(D to get the s$a( (ite mar"s of the

prosecutrix. !he also sei?ed t$o 7%s and > photographs of

the &ictim from the anager, !elect 7it' all, ta"en (' 77TV

camera, of the rele&ant time $hen the &ictims had &isited

the mall for $atching the mo&ie Gife of PiH.

urther PW4 :nspector Anil !harma on

+1-12-2012, too" permission for ta"ing finger / palm prints

of accused person through 7!, 7: experts. 5e also sent




49/237

-:: 4 ::-

dental models of accused along $ith photographs of the (ite

mar"s suffered (' the prosecutrix 4 to the !% 7ollege of

%ental !cience, %har$ad, ;arnata"a, for its opinion. 5e also

sent the pen dri&e and 7%s for examination.

Various exhi(its $ere thus collected from the spot

4 from the (us 4 from the doctors after medical examination

of the accused person and of the &ictims and that the

:n&estigating fficer also sei?ed the reco&eries effected at

the instance of the accused from time to time &i?., their

(lood stained clothes, shoes/chappals and the ro((ed

articles.

The exhi(its in e+1e8 :n8iin56 $ere all

sent to 7! for examination and comparison purposes. The

5789, $hen examined as PW44 pro&ed the rele&ant

entries of the al"hana egister, the rele&ant oad

7ertificates and receipts of 7! in this regard.

This aspect : $ould deal 'et again, in detail, later

$hile discussing the chain of custod'.




50/237

-:: 0 ::-

"". SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

PW#$ !hri A.% !hah on 1>-12-2012 and on

1)-12-2012 had &isited T'agra !tadium and inspected the

(us E.P& and prepared his report E.PW#$(A. n

26-12-2012 the finger prints of the complainant, of

prosecutrix, of accused Vina', of accused Pa$an, of accused

u"esh and of accused am !ingh, as de&eloped, $ere

recei&ed (' him &ide memo E.PW#$(2. n 2)-12-2012 on

the reDuest E.PW#$(Cof the !5, P.! Vasant Vihar, he

$ent to Tihar @ail and too" the specimen finger / palm / foot

prints of accused am !ingh, accused u"esh, accused

Vina', accused Pa$an and accused A"sha' and after

comparing the chance prints lifted from the (us E.P&$ith

the finger / palm / foot prints of the accused he prepared

the report E.PW#$(D. The entire documents E.PW#$(E

also helped him to prepare the report.

PW49%r. P.; Cautam, on 1>-12-2012, carried out

the inspection of the (us E.P&along $ith the team and

too" photographs. n 1)-12-2012 he again $ent to ta"e

photographs from different angles from inside and outside




51/237

-:: 1 ::-

the (us. 5e de&eloped these photographs and handed o&er

its hard cop' in %V% to iolog' di&ision and inger Print

%i&ision. The photographs are E.P-4$(2, E.P-4$(C and

E.P-44(D.

n 20-12-2012 PW$$ Asgar 5ussain, a

photographer, $or"ing under the name and st'le of /s.

An"it Photo !tudio, too" 10 photographs of different parts of

the (od' of the prosecutrix (' his digital camera ma"e #i"on

and then de&eloped these photographs and ga&e it to the

:n&estigating fficer. !mall sei?ed photographs 810 in

num(er9 are E.P-$$(28coll'9 and large si?ed photographs

810 in num(er9 are E.PW-$$(C coll'. 5e also ga&e a

certificate E.PW$$(A under section 6E- of the :ndian

F&idence Act.

PW#%!hri .;. ahapatra, on 1>-12-2012, along

$ith his team examined the (us E.P-&par"ed at T'agra

!tadium and four exhi(its $ere lifted and $ere gi&en to !:

Prati(ha !harma $ho sei?ed such exhi(its. Another team on

the next da' &isited the (us and 10 exhi(its $ere lifted. 5e

pro&ed the report E.PW-#%(Gdescri(ing the exhi(its (eing




52/237


53/237

-:: 3 ::-

another containing 7% of moser(ear along $ith Duestionair

E.PW-4$(A. The pen dri&e and 7% $as pla'ed on the

computer and he found that (us E.P&$as seen t$ice at

9.'# P and 9.%# P in the footage. The $ord Y+8+;

$as $ritten on the said (us and its front $heel co&er $as


54/237

-:: 4 ::-

and prepared his report E.PW-4&(Cand then sent it to the

:n&estigating fficer &ide for$arding letter E.PW-4&(2. 5e

pro&ed the dental models of all the accused persons 8coll'9

as E.PW-4&(C.

"'. De+ = e >/e:u/i

The prosecutrix died on 2-12-2012 at ount

Fli?a(eth 5ospital, !ingapore. PW'#%r. Paul 7hui, orensic

Pathologist, 5ealth !ciences Authorit', !ingapore, deposed

that the exact time of her death $as


55/237

-:: ::-

inner thigh 8groin9 , right lo$er thigh, left thigh lateral, left

lo$er anterior , genital 4 further a(rasions and (ruise on all

parts of the (od'.

PW'% %r. Anula Thomas, edical %irector L

7onsultant 8Pathologist9, Par 3a' a(orator' !er&ices td.,

!ingapore, pro&ed the scanned cop' of 5istopatholog'

report of prosecutrix as Fx. PW'%(A.

There $as no serious challenge to (oth these

reports Fx. PW'#(Aand Fx.PW'%(A.

Fighteen $itnesses $ere examined on (ehalf of

accused Pa$an, accused A"sha' and accused Vina' sharma.

:n re(uttal, three more $itnesses $ere examined (' the

prosecution.

CONCLUSIONS

After ha&ing a (road &ie$ on the facts and

e&idence so recorded and on hearing either side. : no$

proceed further to decide the real contro&ersies in this case

&is-a-&is the contentions raised (' the defence.




56/237

-:: ::-

INCIDENT

The incident has (een fairl' descri(ed in the

deposition of PW&, an e'e $itness. : need not repeat his

entire testimon' (ut suffice is to sa' that $hile he $as inside

the (us E.P& he $as (eaten and $as pinned do$n ('

accused Pa$an Cupta and accused Vina' !harma $hile

others, namel', am !ingh, since deceased, accused

A"sha' ;umar !ingh B Tha"ur and @7 8not (eing tried ('

this court9 too" the prosecutrix to the rear side of the (us

E.P& and committed unnatural sex and raped her

repeatedl'. PW& heard the cries of the prosecutrix li"e

Chhor do, Chhor do, as if she $as (eing (eaten. PW&$as

also gi&en leg and fist (lo$s. The prosecutrix $as cr'ing

and shouting in loud &oice and her &oice $as oscillating.

Accused am !ingh, since deceased, the @7 8not (eing tried

(' this court9 and accused A"sha' ;umar !ingh B Tha"ur

then came to$ards the complainant, pinned him do$n $hile

other accused Vina' !harma and accused Pa$an Cupta

$ent to the rear side and had raped her.

PW& also noticed accused u"esh, the dri&er,




57/237

-:: ::-

came near him 4 hit him $ith an iron rod 4 then $ent to rear

side of the (us and had raped the prosecutrix. PW&heard

one of the accused sa'ing mar gayee, mar gayee.

Thereafter the accused exhorted that (oth the &ictims ?e

n 1e= +1i;eand the' pulled the complainant to the rear

door and put him on the prosecutrix to thro$ them out, (ut

the rear door could not open. The accused person then

pulled the complainant and the prosecutrix (' their hairs

and (rought (oth of them at the front gate and thre$ them

out of the mo&ing (us, opposite to 5otel %elhi +>. After

thro$ing the &ictims, the accused turned the (us in a

manner to :/u (oth of them under its $heel (ut PW&

pulled the prosecutrix out of the reach of the $heel and

sa&ed themsel&es. 5e found the prosecutrix na"ed and

(leeding from all parts of her (od'. The prosecutrix and the

complainant $ere ro((ed and the prosecutrix $as raped /

ra&ished / (eaten / inured inside the mo&ing (us E.P&.

The complainant PW& in his deposition had

corro(orated his complaint E.PW&(A 4 his statement

E.PW!(D-& recorded under section 161 7r.P.7 4 his




58/237

-:: ::-

supplementar' statement E.PW!(D-'and his statement

E.PW&(2recorded under section 16< 7rP74 Dua his &isit to

!elect 7it' all, !a"et 4 then mo&ing to unir"a in an auto4

(oarding the (us E.P&4 the incident 4 thro$ing them out of

the mo&ing (us and attempt of accused to o&errun the

&ictims (' their (us.

:t $as +/7ue8(' the d. %efence counsel that

during his cross examination PW& $as confronted $ith his

statement E.PW&(ADua the factum of not disclosing in it

the user of iron rods 4 the description of (us, the name of the

assailants either in 7 E. PW%&(A or in his complaint

E.PW&(A. 5o$e&er, : do not consider such omissions as

fatal as it is a settled la$ that : is not an enc'clopedia of

facts. The &ictim is not precluded from explaining the facts

in his su(seDuent statements. :t is not expected of a &ictim

to disclose all the finer aspects of the incident in the : or

in the (rief histor' gi&en to the doctor4 as doctor8s9 are

more concerned $ith treatment of the &ictims. oreso the

&ictim $ho suffers from an incident, o(&iousl', is in a state

of shoc" and it is onl' $hen $e mo&es in his comfort ?one,




59/237

-:: ::-

he starts recollecting the e&ents one (' one and thus to stop

the &ictim from ela(orating the facts to descri(e the finer

details, if left out earlier, $ould (e too much.

Thus if PW&had failed to gi&e the description of

the (us or of iron rods to the doctor in his 7 E. PW%&(A

or in his complaint E. PW&(A it shall not ha&e an' fatal

effect on the prosecution case. 3hat is fatal is the material

omissions, if an'.

:n Pu8u R+B+ ;. S+e, 5"!&"6 && SCC

&9$, the 5on=(le !upreme 7ourt held that *

While appreciating the

evidence, the court has to takeinto consideration whether thecontradictions / omissions wereof such magnitude so asto materially affect thetrial. Minor contradictions,inconsistencies, embellishmentsor improvements in relation totrivial matters, which do notaffect the core of the case of

the prosecution, must not bemade a ground for rejection ofevidence in its entirety. hetrial court, after going throughthe entire evidence available,must form an opinion about thecredibility of the witnesses, andthe appellate court in thenormal course of action, would




60/237

-:: 0 ::-

not be justified in reviewing the

same again without providingjustifiable reasons for the same.

Where the omission!s"amount to a contradiction,creating a serious doubtregarding the truthfulness ofa witness, and the otherwitness also makes materialimprovements before the court,in order to make the evidence

acceptable, it would not be safeto rely upon such evidence.

:n J+0+n Sin7 ;. S+e = R+B++n

5"!!!6 # SCC ##, it $as held (' the 5on=(le !upreme

7ourt that *

#ow the e$planation to%ection &'(!(" provides that anomission to state a fact in thestatement may amount to acontradiction. )owever, thee$planation makes it clear thatthe omission must be asignificant one and whether anyomission amounts to acontradiction in the particular

conte$t shall be a *uestion offact.

+eading %ection&'&!(" of the riminal-rocedure ode with thee$planation to %ection &'(, anomission in order to besignificant must depend uponwhether the specific *uestion,




61/237

-:: 1 ::-

the answer to which is omitted,

was asked of the witness. nthis case the investigatingofficer, -W& was not askedwhether he had put *uestionsto 0urdeep 1aur asking fordetails of the injuries inflicted orof the person who had causedthe injuries.

Thus, the la$ discussed a(o&e ampl' ma"es it

clear that the contradictions $hich do not effect the core of

the prosecution case or the omissions $hich are not put to

the :n&estigating fficer in his e&idence are not material

and need (e ignored.

5ere, : $ould also li"e to refer to A@+/ ;.

S+e = U+/+n:+1, 5"!!96 &' SCC 4"", $herein it

$as held that *

if the prosecution case issupported by two injuredeyewitnesses and if their! injured eyewitnesses "

testimony is consistent beforethe police and the court andcorroborated by the medicalevidence, their testimonycannot be discarded.

%imilarly, in SurenderSingh v. State of Haryanathis court has opined that 2

the testimony of anState vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013



62/237

-:: 2 ::-

injured witness has its

own relevancy andefficacy. he fact that thewitness is injured at thetime and in the sameoccurrence, lends supportto the testimony that thewitness was presentduring occurrence and hesaw the happening withhis own eyes.

The incident has (een aptl' descri(ed (' the

PW&, the inured. The inuries on his person do sho$ that

he $as present in the (us at the time of incident. 5is

presence is further confirmed (' the %#A anal'sis $hich :

shall discuss in the later part of m' udgment.

The contradictions to his statement Fx.P31/A are

not material enough to destro' the su(stratum of the

prosecution case

DYING DECLARATION

After anal'sing the statement of P31 $ho had

aptl' descri(ed the incident : mo&e on to the d'ing

declarations made (' prosecutrix. %uring the course of

arguments it $as argued (' the ld counsel for accused that




63/237


64/237

-:: 4 ::-

declarations E.PW"4(A and E.PW'!(D-& made (' the

prosecutrix, firstl', on 21-1-2012 at a(out *10 P (efore

the ld. !% and secondl', on 2E-12-2012 (efore the d. .

:t has alread' came on record that $hile

recording (oth the d'ing declarations, the ld. !% and the

d. had ta"en precautions to find if the prosecutrix $as

=i to ma"e such statements. 3hile recording of her first

d'ing declaration E.PW"4(A, %r. P.; Verma PW%" had

found her :n:iu, /iene8 and


65/237

-:: ::-

at the footfall of ahipalpur fl'o&er.

Iet again on 2E-12-2012 on an application

E.PW"(A, though %r. P.; Verma PW%" opined that

prosecutrix $as una(le to spea" as $as ha&ing

endotracheal tu(e i.e in lar'nx and trachea and $as on

&entilator, (ut PW"%r. aesh astogi declared her to (e

:n:iu, /iene8 and


66/237


67/237

-:: ::-

urther, in $mar Singh vs. State of

&a+asthan, -!/ " SCC 0',it $as held that *

lause !&" of %ection ( of the4vidence 5ct provides thatstatements made by a person asto the cause of his death, or asto any of the circumstances ofthe transaction which resultedin his death, in cases in which thecause of that person3s deathcomes into 1uestion, arethemselves relevant facts.

%ection ( of the 4vidence5ct is an e*ception to the ruleof hearsayevidence and in viewof the peculiar conditions in thendian society has widened thesphere to avoid injustice.

7oming to the contentions *

5i6 that as the prosecutrix failed to disclose the

names of an' of the accused person in the (rief histor'

gi&en (' her to the doctor in 7 E.PW#9(A, so her d'ing

declarations E.PW"4(Aand E.PW'!(D-&(e loo"ed $ith

suspicion as ma' (e a result of tutoring 4 seems to (e

$holl' untena(le. The facts sho$ that the prosecutrix $as

certainl' in a state of shoc" $hen she $as (rought to the




68/237

-:: ::-

hospital immediatel' after the incident. :n her 7

E.PW#9(2, her condition is descri(ed as 8/0

responding onl' to &er(al commands, hence not completel'

alert due to the shoc" L excessi&e loss of (lood, hence she

ga&e (rief account of the incident. :n the hospital she $as

gi&en first aid and then $as operated thrice and $hen she

found herself sta(le she ga&e statements E.PW"4(A and

E.PW'!(D-&and hence it cannot (e said such statements

are a result of tutoring. 5er d'ing declarations E.PW"4(A

and E.PW'!(D-& rather ://?/+e the deposition of

PW&. 5ence the contention 5i6stands reected.

E;en e/0ie, $here there are more than

one d'ing declarations, the court has to follo$ the la$ laid

do$n in )Sudhakar v. State of 2.P, -!-/ ( SCC 30",

$herein it has (een held that *

the case involving the multiple

dying declarations, which arecontradictory or are at variancewith each other to a largee$tent, the test of common

prudence would be to firste$amine which of the dyingdeclarations is corro4oratedby other prosecution evidence.6urther, the attendant




69/237

-:: ::-

circumstances, the condition

of the deceased at therelevant time, the medicalevidence, the voluntarinessand genuineness of thestatement made by thedeceased, physical andmental fitness of thedeceased and possibility of thedeceased being tutored aresome of the factors which

would guide the e$ercise ofjudicial discretion by the courtin such matters.

he )on3ble %upremeourt in this case ratherrelied upon the secondand third dying declarationsto be authentic, voluntaryand duly corro4orated byother prosecution witnesses

including the medicalevidence.

Per the settled position of la$ the declarations

Fx. PW"4(Aand Fx PW'!(DAdo corro(orate the deposition

of PW&Dua the incident4 the num(er of the assailants 4 the

manner in $hich the incident occurred 4 the user of hands

and iron rods to cause inuries to her pri&ate parts 4 thro$ing

the &ictims out of the mo&ing (us etc. urther the d'ing

declarations also get corro(oration from the


70/237

-:: 0 ::-

hence there is no reason to hold the d'ing declarations

EPW"4(A and E PW'!(D-& (eing tutored or false. n

the other hand : find them most relia(le and truthful.

: $ould e&en go to the extent to sa' that e&en the

(rief histor' recorded in 7 E. PW#9(2 do corro(orate

the incident and the manner in $hich the offence $as

committed. The names of accused at that stage $ere e&en

not rele&ant as firstl' the assailants $ere not "no$n to the

&ictims4 secondl' for the shoc" she has suffered due to

incident and lastl' the presence of accused, e&en other$ise,

need to (e, esta(lished (' the prosecution.

#o$ coming to the contention 5ii6 that the d'ing

declaration made (' gestures cannot (e relied upon, is dul'

ans$ered in )2eesala &amakrishna v. State of $ndra

Pradesh, !""'/ ' SCC !5-,$herein it is o(ser&ed that *

the dying declaration recorded

on the basis of nods and gesturesis not only admissible but

possesses evidentiary value, thee$tent of which shall depend uponwho recorded the statement 7what is his educationalattainment 7 what gestures andnods were made, 7 what were the*uestions asked 8 whether they




71/237

-:: 1 ::-

were simple or complicated 8 and

how effective or understandablethe nods and gestures were.

and, in )6. Shashikala v. State of $.P, -'/

!# SCC -'", it $as o(ser&ed that *

the court may take intoconsideration the circumstances

prevailing at the time of recordingof the statement of the deceased.

n this case, the evidence ofthe deceased was recorded aftertaking all precaution and care andthe person who recorded it hadopportunity to analyse thegestures of deceased.

and in )Nallapati Sivaiah v. Su478ivisional

9fficer, :untur, $ndhra Pradesh, -(/ !3 SCC '03, it

$as o(ser&ed that *

the court has to consider eachcase in the circumstances of thecase. What value should be givento a dying declaration is left to thecourt, which on assessment of the

circumstances and the evidenceand material on record, will cometo a conclusion about the truth orotherwise of the version, be itwritten, oral, verbal or by sign orby gestures.

5ence, it stands settled that the d'ing




72/237

-:: 2 ::-

declarations can (e (' i7n, 7eu/e or (' n8. The

onl' caution the court ought to ta"e is the person recording

the d'ing declaration is a(le to ni:e ://e:1as to $hat

the declarant means (' ans$ering (' gestures or nods.

5ere the person $ho recorded her d'ing declarations $ere

!% or the d. and that the' (oth had satisfied

themsel&es Dua her mental alertness and onl' thereafter

had recorded such declarations. Thus contention 5?6 also

fails.

: ma' also refer to the statement of PW4' 57

am 7hander, in-charge, P7 Van Je(ra E


73/237

-:: 3 ::-

the :i/:ue/n

(ehind her death.

5:6 :t $as also +/7ue8 (' the d. defence

counsels that the declarations made (' the prosecutrix (e

not treated as d'ing declarations as the prosecutrix died on

2-12-2012, i.e., much later than such statements $ere

made, hence such statements $ere not made in

+ni:i>+in of death. The said contention is also useless

as the :ndian la$ (eing slightl' different from the Fnglish

la$ do not contemplate the ma"ing of such statement in

anticipation of death, per section '"5&6 of the :ndian

F&idence Act, $hich too clarifies this position.

586 The :nenin that the prosecutrix $as

ne&er administered oath is also $holl' irrele&ant in &ie$ of

L+


74/237

-:: 4 ::-

made orally before death

ensues and is reduced towriting by someone like aMagistrate or a doctor or a

police officer. When it isrecorded, no oath isnecessarynor is the presenceof a Magistrate absolutelynecessary, although to assureauthenticity it is usual to call aMagistrate, if available for

recording the statement of aman about to die. here is nore*uirement of law that a dyingdeclaration must necessarily bemade to a Magistrate and whensuch statement is recorded by aMagistrate there is no specifiedstatutory form for suchrecording. onse*uently, whatevidential value or weight has

to be attached to suchstatement necessarily dependson the facts and circumstancesof each particular case. What isessentially re*uired is that the

person who records a dyingdeclaration must be satisfiedthat the deceased was in a fitstate of mind. Where it is

proved by the testimony of the

Magistrate that the declarantwas fit to make the statementeven without e$amination bythe doctor the declaration canbe acted upon provided thecourt ultimately holds the sameto be voluntary and truthful. 5certification by the doctor isessentially a rule of caution




75/237

-:: ::-

and therefore the voluntary and

truthful nature of thedeclaration can be establishedotherwise.

The aforesaid udgment rather clarifies that no

oath is reDuired to (e administered to the person ma"ing the

d'ing declaration and that no form or particular person is

prescri(ed to record d'ing declarations. F&en the

certification (' the doctor is a /u1e = :+uinto determine

&oluntariness and truthful nature of the d'ing declaration,

though, it can (e esta(lished e&en other$ise. !uffice is to

sa' that %r. anu Candhi $as present $hen PW'! !hri

Pa$an ;umar recorded the d'ing declaration E.PW'!(D-&

and that %r. P.;.Verma 8PW%"9 $as present $hen

E.PW"4(A$as (eing recorded.

5e6F&en the :neninthat the prosecutrix $as

administered orphine and $as not in a condition to ma"e

d'ing declaration dated 21.12.2012 has no force as PW%"

%r. P.; Verma, in his cross examination has deposed that

:nection orphine $as not gi&en to the prosecutrix on

21-12-2012 $hen her d'ing declaration $as recorded and

that such inection $as gi&en at 6 P of 20-12-2012 and itsState vs. Ram Singh and anotherSC No. 114/2013



76/237

-:: ::-

effect $ould ha&e lasted onl' for + to < hours. 5e denied

that the prosecutrix $as in dro$siness and had difficult' in

(reathing at the time of ma"ing statement.

Thus, : hold all the three d'ing declarations (eing

consistent, corro(orati&e of the material aspects of the case

Dua the &isiting of the &ictims to !elect 7it' all 4 (oarding

of an auto for unir"a 4 (oarding a $hite colour (us E.P&

from unir"a us !tand 4 the incident that occurred in (us

E.P& 4 the inuries suffered (' (oth the &ictims 4 ro((ing

them of their &alua(les 4 dumping them in a cold $inter

night at the dumping spot 4 the num(er of accused in&ol&ed

in the incident and their attempt to crush the &ictims under

the $heels of the (us Fx.P&.

5=6The d. defence 7ounsels further +/7ue8that

the %elhi 5igh 7ourt ules, Dua recording of the d'ing

declaration, as enumerated in 7hapter &'$ere &iolated ('

the !% as also (' the d. . The said rules en&isage

recording of the d'ing declarations (' a @udicial agistrate,

if possi(le and secondl' it is reDuired to (e recorded at

once 4 $hereas in the present case the first d'ing




77/237

-:: ::-

declaration $as ne&er recorded (' the @udicial agistrate

and secondl', it $as recorded on 21-12-2012 much after the

prosecutrix $as admitted in the hospital.

: had gi&en considera(le thought on the matter.

:t is to (e noted that the %elhi 5igh 7ourt ules, of course,

are to (e follo$ed in letter and spirit (ut one can not ignore

the la$ laid do$n in L+-12-2012 $herein the

prosecutrix $as declared unfit for statement. !imilarl' on

1-12-2012, the :n&estigating fficer mo&ed another

application E.PW!(C(ut 'et again the prosecutrix $as

declared unfit for recording of her statement. :t $as onl' on

21-12-2012 $hen the prosecutrix $as declared fit, her




78/237

-:: ::-

statement $as recorded. 5ence, there is no dela' in

recording her statement.

576:t $as also contended that the d. failed

to record the mental fitness of the deceased in the d'ing

declaration.

:n this regard : ma' refer to G;e/8+n R+Bi

G+/e ;. S+e = M++/+/+, &99' Su> 5#6

Su>/e


79/237

-:: ::-

caution.

56Iet another argument $as raised (' the ld

defence counsels that the prosecutrix died prior to her

transportation to !ingapore. The document E.PW$!(D$as

referred to $herein her date of death is mentioned as

21-12-2012. : ha&e examined the said document. :t

appears to (e an inad&ertent mista"e as the connecting

documents rather sho$ the date of death of the prosecutrix

as 2-12-2012. oreso if the deceased died on 21-12-2012

then ho$ on 2E-12-2012 the d. recorded her d'ing

declaration E.PW'!(D-&. 5ence, an incorrect recording of

the date of death $ould ne&er (enefit the accused in an'

manner, as also some unimportant / inad&ertent cuttings or

o&er$riting of date8s9 on some documents.

: ma' here refer to the follo$ing udgment cited

(' accused &i?.,

(i);. amachandran edd' and another &s. Pu(lic

Prosecutor, 81>69 + !77 61) 4

(ii)"a am &. !tate of aasthan, 820019 !77 2E< 4

(iii)ella !rini$asa ao &. !tate of Andra Pradesh, A:

200< !7 1>20 4




80/237

-:: 0 ::-

(iv)am #ath adhoprasad and other &. !tate of adh'a

Pradesh, A: 1E+ !7


81/237

-:: 1 ::-

2US

The (us E.P& (earing registration no.

%-1P7-01


82/237

-:: 2 ::-

PW4$!hri Cautam o', !enior !cientific fficer,

Crade-:, 5ead of %epartment, had examined scientificall'

the pen dri&e as also the 7% of oser(ear, sei?ed from

PW$4 !hri Pramod @ha. 5e ga&e his detailed report

E.PW4$(Eand also a draft report along $ith $or"sheet as

E.PW4$(F. 5e explained that there is a t'pographical

mista"e in his report E.PW4$(E$here onl' one timing is

$ritten as "&)'#, (ut in his o(ser&ation and draft report

E.PW4$(Fthe (us is seen t$ice at "&)'#and "&)%#and

the same timings are depicted in the photographs

E.PW4$(2, E.PW4$(C and E.PW4$(D. :f one loo"s at

the photograph E.PW4$(2, the $ord Y+8+; is $ritten

on the (us E.P&. n (ac" left side, a 8en on the (us is

seen in the photograph E.PW4$(C and the photograph

E.PW4$(Dconfirms the front left side $heel of the (us had

no co&er and also that the front door of the (us $as ahead

of its front $heel. #o serious challenge $as made to these

reports (' the defence.

The (us is sho$n to (e connected to the crime

not onl' (' the depositions of PW&4 of PW$4and of PW4$




83/237

-:: 3 ::-

(ut also (' the electronic e&idence &i?., pen dri&e E.P-4$(&

4 7% E.P-4$(" and the photographs E.PW4$(2-&

E.PW4$(2-4.

The (us is also pro&ed to (e connected $ith the

crime (' DNA /e>/as the (lood stains found on the

curtains, seat co&ers, roof near the (ac" gate, as also hairs

found on the floor of the (us (elo$ the 6 th ro$ seat, all

matched $ith the %#A profile prepared from the (lood of the

prosecutrix and that of P31, the complainant.

Though, the ld defence counsels ha&e

:+11en7e8the authenticit' of the %#A reports sa'ing that

if the (us $as $ashed, as alleged (' PW&'and PW,then

ho$ %#A $as lifted4 cannot (e a (asis to reect the %#A

reports since such reports are dul' pro&ed and no serious

challenge to the process of lifting of exhi(its $as made.

F&en other$ise, the follo$ing research articles

clarifies such contention.

According to a research article En+n:e


84/237

-:: 4 ::-

nvestigators may be

presented with washed clothingthat is believed to containbloodstains from violent actssuch as homicide, assault, orse$ual assault. %uspects, theirassociates, or victims may washclothing following bloodshed,thereby destroying bloodevidence and complicate thereconstruction process. 9iluted

bloodstains resulting frommachine washing may not bevisible on dark colored clothing.

our research indicatesthat phenolphthalein will yield

presumptively positive resultson washed clothing, even afterapplication of these twochemical reagents. 5nalysisare encouraged to report

similar testing results to aid indefining the sensitivity and

proper usage parameters of:; and luminol on cleaned

porous and non


85/237

-:: ::-

even if the shady criminal

washed a bloodstained item ofclothing times, these chemicalscould still reveal blood.

Though one ma' o(ect to the use of such

articles, (ut since these articles help to find solution to a

scientific Duer', ma' (e used in the a(sence of other

literature.

The :neninthat the (us EP&$as ta"en to

T'agra !tadium onl' to plant (lood of &ictims is nothing (ut

a (lame strateg' as no enmit' has (een allegedl' pro&ed

(et$een the police and the accused $hich could ha&e

moti&ated the %elhi Police to do such an act.

The Duestion as to ho$ the police got secret

information and ho$ it reached the (us E.P&is (e'ond the

relm of trial and is an unnecessar' attempt to peep into the

in&estigati&e tools.

Thus the user of (us E.P&(' accused during the

incident stands esta(lished (e'ond dou(t.

ROUTE MAP

n 2


86/237

-:: ::-

prepared at the instance of accused u"esh. Accused

u"esh had admitted in his statement u/s +1+ 7r.P.7 that he

dro&e the (us onl' n:eon the said route. This route map

is admissi(le u/s and "4of the :ndian F&idence Act per

GS+e = De1i ;. N+;B S+n8u, 5"!!%6 && SCC $!!,

as it $as a ne$ fact, disclosed (' accused u"esh. The said

route map is in consonance $ith the deposition of PW& as

also $ith the electronic e&idence $hich corro(orate the

location of accused and the &ictims.

PW"% !hri aender isht and PW"$ !hri

!andeep !ingh, (oth of !elect 7it' all, !a"et, #e$ %elhi

had pro&ed the 77TV footage from 6*1E P to )*E> P of the

!elect 7it' all, !a"et, #e$ %elhi, sho$ing the presence of

the &ictims in the all.

#o$, the mo(ile no. )1)+E)1


87/237

-:: ::-

daughter, the prosecutrix on the fateful night.

PW"# !hri a"esh !oni of %olphin had pro&ed

that the mo(ile phone no. )6)612E), registered in the

name of am !ingh 8since deceased9 $as used at 9)&$ PM

of 16-12-2012 $hen a call $as recei&ed at this mo(ile for &'

seconds at 5au? ;has.

PW"' !hri %eepa" from Vodaphone compan'

pro&ed that the mo(ile phone no. >112>1E> registered in

the name of accused Pa$an Cupta B ;aalu $as used for %#

seconds at 9)'" PMof 16-12-2012 at #a&al fficer=s ess,

ahead of the (us stop at unir"a. PW&" !hri !antosh

corro(orates the factum of ma"ing this call to accused

Pa$an Cupta B ;aalu on that da'.

PW"!7ol. A.; !achde&a, C!, eliance deposed

that the mo(ile phone >)2>1>>20, registered in the name

of the complainant P31, $as used for "seconds at *+< P

of 16-12-2012 at ahipal Pur Fxtension4 pro(a(l' the call

$as recei&ed $hen the mo(ile set $as in the hands of

accused and it $as disconnected.

PW$4!hri Pramod @ha of 5otel %elhi Airport had




88/237

-:: ::-

pro&ided the 77TV footage sho$ing the $hite colour (us

$ith $ord GIada&H $ritten on it had passed in front of his

5otel at 9)'# PMand 9)%' PMof 16-12-2012.

PW"" !hri !hishir alhotra of Aircel compan'

deposed that the mo(ile phone (earing no. )2)EE


89/237


90/237

-:: 0 ::-

found consistent $ith the %#A profile of the prosecutrix.

These rods are also mentioned in the d'ing declarations of

the prosecutrix. urther per medical opinion E.PW#9(G

State v. Ram Singh

Documents

Transcript of State v. Ram Singh