STATE Vs. SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of prosecution petition for leave to appeal preferred under Section 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the first Respondent/accused (hereafter referred to as Sanjay) by judgment dated 27.03.2010 of the learned District Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge. The accused had been charged along with another accused (hereafter referred as Devender Sharma) for committing offences under Sections 365/376/506/34 IPC. Briefly the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was residing in Sanjay's neighborhood in 1996 (when she was about 17). He introduced her to Devender Sharma on 06.05.1996. Devender Sharma used to publish newspaper where she was employed as a clerk. The prosecutrix alleged that Devender Sharma used to indulge in indecent acts with her and committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix further stated that she did not report the matter anywhere or even disclosed it since Sanjay threatened that she would be defamed in the locality. She also complained that during her employment with Devender Sharma he continued to harass her and committed further acts of rape, citing his pending divorce from his wife and also later he would solemnize his marriage with the prosecutrix. She alleged that she threatened Devender Sharma that she would commit suicide and implicate him upon which he got scared and consequently she left his employment. The prosecutrix got married on 31.10.1998 and was living happily with her husband. About a year and half prior to the incident, she was again contacted by Sanjay who compelled her to meet Devender Sharma, failing which her past with Devender Sharma would be disclosed to him (her husband). It is alleged that Sanjay also stated that in case the prosecutrix refused to co-operate Devender Sharma would use his connections and get her husband implicated falsely in a smack case. The threats and frequent visits of the accused to her house and the neighbourhood instilled fear in her mind and she started living in her parental house.

(2.) The prosecutrix alleged that on 26.05.2006 in the late evening when she was returning with her younger brother, a Tata Indica Car stopped near them, Devender Sharma alighted from the Car, slapped her brother and after threatening him with a gun (which belonged to his security guard) abused them and asked her to sit in the car, since a crowd had by then gathered he allegedly claimed to be a Police Officer and drove off. She complained that on 27.05.2006 when she was going to the market around 7.50 P.M., upon her reaching Khalsa College, Devender Sharma arrived in his black Indica car and dragged her inside it, threatened her with revolver and slapped and warned her not to raise alarm. The prosecutrix alleged that she was asked to live with Devender Sharma and leave her husband and was also given the allurement of a good job and a separate residence. At that time Devender Sharma's security guard was not with him. He took the car to a hilly area and at Budha Garden he stopped the car. It was alleged that in the meanwhile Sanjay also reached there on his scooter. Both Sanjay and Devender Sharma committed acts of rape in turn upon the prosecutrix and again threatened her to keep quite saying that in case she disclose the incident, her family members would be killed. It is stated that she was living in fear and eventually sent a complaint to Commissioner of Police, which lead to lodging of FIR for further investigation and charges being framed.

(3.) The prosecution examined 20 witnesses in their support including the prosecutrix who deposed as PW-1; her brother Pawan Kumar as PW-3 and PW-8, Constable Ram Kumar was another material witness being the PSO of accused Devender Sharma. The Court by above judgment believed the prosecutrix story and the other materials so far as Devender Sharma was concerned. The conclusion in this regard is as follows: