VIJAY LAXMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant-informant challenges the judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 59/08 whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges of having committed offences under Sections 452/392/324/376(2) (g)/307/506/34 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that on 09.09.2007 at about 3 /3:30 AM on first floor of H.No.33/310, Trilok Puri the accused, i.e. Sunil Pandey, Kamal Kishore @ K.P., and Leelu Ram @ Sonu pursuant to their common intention, and armed with knives committed house tress-pass by entering the house of the appellant and committed robbery of money, silver tagri, silver pajeb, four gold bangles, one gold necklace, one gold chain, one ear ring. THEy also obtained the signatures of the complainant on her SBI cheque book. Besides, they committed gang rape on the complainant and threatened to kill her and inflicted injuries on her body. It was alleged that after the accused left her house, Vidya, mother of Leelu Ram and Chanchal @ Neetu W/o Sh. Kamal Kishore @ K.P. entered the victim's house and poured kerosene oil upon her with the intention to set her on fire and attempted to commit her murder. Kiran, the complainant's daughter informed the police on No.100. Police reached the spot and recorded statement of Vijay Laxmi (PW3). FIR No.337/07 (Ex.PW2/A) was registered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that the Trial Court should not have brushed aside the eyewitness testimony of the appellant and her daughter, merely on the basis that they would have been interested and partisan. Being natural witnesses, as well as victims of the attack, their testimonies could not have been seen with suspicion and discarded. Counsel argued that the victim, PW-3 had no doubt been cross examined by the prosecution during her deposition, but the truth behind her hostility in the court was revealed later, when she submitted that she had been threatened with violence and harm, and even that she would be subjected to disfigurement through an acid attack, soon before she reached the court to depose in the case. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Court to take into consideration and factor in this aspect, while weighing the rival merits of the case. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh v State of Gujarat 2004 (4) SCC 158, where it was held that courts have to ensure that accused persons are punished and that the might or authority of the State are not used to shield itself or its men. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with these with an iron hand, and that it is the duty of the prosecutor and the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on the record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.