1

EXH:______ INTHECOURTOFADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE, ATAHMEDABAD

SESSIONSCASENO.53/2005 SESSIONSCASENO.55/2005 SESSIONSCASENO.58/2005 SESSIONSCASENO.150/2005

SessionsCaseNo.53of2005

Complainant

TheState Versus

Accused

:1.

SugamaliasMontyHarishankar Jaiswal

2. 3.

AshokaliasMadanPannalalJaiswal ChandanPannalalJaiswal

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

SajalSureshkumarJain SimabenHarishankarJaiswal ShreyaHarishankarJaiswal PannalalBaijnathJaiswal AnandRupchandJaiswal AshokMaganbhaiPatel HarishankarGayaprasadJaiswal

(AsA1toA10inthecharge) SessionsCaseNo.55of2005

Complainant

TheState Versus

Accused

Dr.YogeshMahendrabhaiJadav (AsA11inthecharge)

SessionsCaseNo.150of2005

Complainant

TheState Versus

Accused

DharmedraaliasKaranaliasMontu MahendrakumarJain (AsA12inthecharge)

Note:AbscondingAccusedManishHemchandJainhasbeenshownas absconding in Cr.Case No.299/2004,180/2005,58/2005 and 150/2005 whohasbeenchargedasabscondingaccusedandshownasA13 Appearances:1. L.Sp.P.P.Mr.A.P.DesaiFortheState. 2. L.P.P.Mr.S.BBrahmbhatt 3.L.A.Mr.M.B.Sardar 4. L.A.Mr.H.M.Dhruv 5. L.A.Mr.J.M.Panchal 6. L.A.Mr.A.M.Pateland L.A.Mr.Brahmbhatt 7.L.A.Mr.N.R.Shah 8. L.A.Mr.M.R.Amin FortheState. ForA1,5,6,10. ForA2,3,7,8. ForA4. ForA9. ForA11. ForA12.

Coram:

Honble Dr. Smt.Jyotsna Yagnik, Additional SessionsJudge,CourtNo.13,CityCivil&Sessions Court.

JUDGEMENT
PARTI

1.

Thefirstinformationreport(hereinafterreferredtoas'theF.I.R.'

or'thecomplaint')inthepresentcase,hasbeenlodgedbythedaughter ofBipinbhaiAmbalalJoshi,agedabout24years,atabout7:45a.m.on

01.01.2004atShahibaugPoliceStationofAhmedabadCityallegingthat theaccusedno.1to4and12havegangrapedherandhavecommitted other offences. The complaint has been registered as C.R.No.I2/2004 withtheShahibaugPoliceStationandwhichisonrecordvideEXH.283. Theresultantentryatstationdiarycametoberecordedas11/04at 8:05 a.m. on 01.01.2004 for declaration of offence, on record as EXH.284.

2.

Accordingtotheprosecution,thedaughterofShriBipinbhaiJoshi

haddiedsuicidaldeath,on07.01.2004whoshallbehereinafterreferred to as 'the deceased victim' for the sake of convenience and brevity (exceptinthetranslatedversionofthecomplaintgivenhereinbelow).All the accused have been referred as 'A' with suffixing their respective numbersmentionedontherecordofthecase.

3.

TRANSLATEDCOMPLAINT(EXH.283): TheF.I.R./Complaintregisteredbythesaiddeceasedvictimisas

under which is translated from original complaint given in Gujarati languagebythedeceasedvictim. Mynameis(thedeceasedvictim)d/o.BipinbhaiAmbalalJoshi, aged24years,occupationservice,residentof10,IndrabaugSociety, Behind Panchsheel Bus Stand, Near Ramesh Park, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, mobile number 8616661. Having remained present

personally I declare by this complaint, being recorded that I reside alongwith my parents, brother and sister. I am working at the office known as 'Job Solution' situated at Devpath Office, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Yesterday,atabout10:00p.m.of31.12.2003whileIwasatmy

residence,aphonecallcamefrommyfriendresidingatShahibaugarea namelyChandanPannalalJaiswal(A3)whotoldthathispartyisready andIshouldimmediatelyreachtoAshokPalace(theplaceofincident). SincemyeldersisterVaishaliwaspresentattheresidence,shedropped meatunderbridgeonhertwowheelerKineticfromwhereIrangup SajalJain(A4)residingatDelhi,camefromDelhiandtoldhimthatI wasstandingnearunderbridgeandthatheshouldpickmeup.Because ofthis,withinsometimeafriendofSajalnamedMontywhoseoriginal name is Sugam Harishankar Jaiswal (A1) residing at Kirannagar Society,Dudheshwarknowntomebyname,cameinhisMarutiZenat underbridge. I sat in his Maruti Zen car who carried mein his car bearingregistrationno.GJ1HB1267fromunderbridgetoHotelAshok Palace.AtAshokPalacefriendofmineSajalJain(A4)andChandan Pannalal Jaiswal (A3) andoneMontu (A12)whotoo wasfriendof SajalandresidingatDelhiandChandan'sbrotherMandanJaiswal(A 2) were present. Chandan told me that his friend would come soon carryingthepasses.SajalJainandtheabovenamedfriendssatinroom no.106ofAshokPalacewhereSajalorderedforbeer.Whenbeerwas brought,IwastoldbySajaltoconsumealittlebeer.Ideclinedtothat andSajalthenaskedmewhatistheobjectionaswearetogotoparty wheresomanygirlswouldcomewhoalsomighthaveconsumed.By

sayingsoanduponpersuasion,Iconsumedonepegofbeer.Thereafter, sinceIdeclinedtoconsumemorebeer,Sajalgaveme23slapsandon pressurizingmeIwasmadetotake23morepegsofbeer.Atthistime, SajalandhisfriendMonturemainedpresentintheroomandotherswent down.Sajaltoldmetoremovemyclothes.IdeclinedandsaidthatI wouldliketotalktomysisterVaishali.Inresponsetowhich,Sajalhad beatenmebyslappingmeandMontuwentout.Sajalslappedmeand forcefullyremovedtheclotheswornbymeandhadintercoursedwithme by force and after intercoursing me, Sajal had telephoned Chandan, hence,ChandancameintotheroomandinpresenceofSajal,Chandan hadalsointercoursedwithmebyforceandthentheycalledtheirfriend MontuwhoseoriginalnameisKaranatupstairsandinpresenceofSajal andChandan,Karanhadintercoursedmebyforceintheirpresence.All thethreehaveinjuredmeonmybreast,backandshouldersbyteethbites whileintercoursingmeapplyingforceandthereafter,Mandanbrother ofChandanalsocameintheroomwhotoohadintercoursedmebyforce andthatthereafter,whathashappenedisnotknowntome.Icameat Shahibaug Police Station on gaining consciousness with my sister Vaishalitolodgethiscomplaint. Yesterdayi.e.31.12.2003beingthelastdayoftheyearandasa

partofcelebrationthereof,theabovereferredSajalJain(A4),Chandan Jaiswal (A3), Mandan Jaiswal (A2), Karan @ Montu (A12) and SugamJaiswal(A1)haveincollusionwitheachotherandbyextending falsepretextofChandanhavingarrangedtheparty,calledmeat10:00 p.m.atHotelAshokPalacewhichisthehotelofChandanandbytaking meintheroomno.106ofAshokPalace,SajalJainbyapplyingforceand

slapping me made me to drink beer. Sajal Jain, Chandan Jaiswal, MandanJaiswalandKaran@Montuallthefourhavebybeatingand slappingmeandbyapplyingforcehaveintercoursedmeonebyoneand have since injured my breast, shoulder, backside by biting me and thereafter,havesinceranaway,Ifilethepresentcomplaintagainstallof themtoinvestigate.Mywitnesseswillbethosewhowillbeavailable during the police investigation. I am desirous to take the medical treatment.Thecontentsofthecomplaintasaredictatedbymearetrue andcorrect. Withtheabovecontent,thevictimhasfiledhercomplaintbefore

PW43,recordedbyhiswriter,whichhasbeentakenonrecordofthis casevideEXH.283.

4.
(A) (B)

ORIGINOFALLTHETHREECASES: ThecomplaintwasfiledagainstA1toA4andA12. Duringtheprocessofinvestigation,participationofA5toA11

andA13,cametotheknowledgeofInvestigatingOfficerandthus,A1 toA13hereinhavebeenarraignedintheoffence arisingfromthe1 st C.R.No.2/04ofShahibaugPoliceStationu/s.376(2)(g),342,328,324, 323,201,212,120B,114oftheI.P.C.Andu/s.66(1)(b),81(1)(3)ofthe BombayProhibitionAct. (C) The criminal case no.299/2004 against A1 to A10 has been

committed under sec.209 of the Cr.P.C. on 1522005 by Ld.

MetropolitanMagistrate,CourtNo.2tothisCourtofSessions. Thus,thesessionscasecametothisCourtagainstA1toA10 whichcametoberegisteredasSessionsCaseNo.53/05. (D) Duringthecourseoffurtherinvestigation,sinceitwasrevealed

before the Investigating Agency that the present accused no.11 too is involvedintheoffence,CriminalCaseNo.180/05cametoberegistered againstthesaidA11onthebasisofsupplementarychargesheetfiled against him vide charge sheet no.295/04. Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate CourtNo.2committedthecasetothiscourtwhichcametoberegistered assessionscase55/2005inthiscourt. A12andA13wereshownasabscondingthen. (E) In Cr.Case No.215/2005 A12 and A13 have been shown in

columnno.1asabsconding.Ld.MetropolitanMagistrateCourtNo.2has committedboththeaccusedundersec.299oftheCr.P.C.whichcameto beregisteredasSessionsCase58/2005. (F) UponarrestingA12Cr.Case685/2005standscommittedtothis

courtwhereinA13wasshownabscondingwhichcametoberegistered asSessionCase150/2005 Alltheabovefoursessionscasesno.53,55,58,150of2005were assigned for trial among which the three sessions cases were tried practicallyagainstA1toA12asA13wasabscondinginsessionscase 58/05asthatthecaseagainstA12wasthennumberedas150/05the

sessions case no.58/05 stood accordingly disposed off against A12 which in any case is ministerial duplication whereas as A13 is still absconding who need to be produced before the court of Ld.MetropolitanMagistratewhocanthenbecommittedundersec.209of Cr.P.C.ascommittalundersec.299incriminalcase215/05hasnotbeen acteduponbyframingchargehencequaA13alsothiscaseneedstobe disposed off which shallbeafreshuponarrest oftheA13shouldbe committed.Inthelightoftheabovediscussionsessionscase58/05needs tobedisposedoff. (G) TheA1toA4andA12arealsobeingtriedinanotherSessions

Cases being Sessions Case Nos.239/04, 240/04, 241/04 and 148/05 wherefrom,thepartieshavebroughttherelevantrecordtothiscaseand havetakensomerecordfromthiscasetothosecases. Thesecasesshallbereferredasanothersessioncasewhenever necessaryinthediscussionhereinbelow.

5.
(i)

CHARGE: VideEXH.18mylearnedpredecessorframedthechargeagainstall

theaccused,outofwhich,A1toA12weretried,whereas,A13isstill absconding. (ii) A1toA4,A12andA13havebeenchargedu/s.376(2)(g)read

withSection120Bandu/s.323,324,342,328readwithSection120B oftheI.P.C.,alternative,u/s.376(2)(g)readwithSection34,u/s.323,328

10

readwithSection34ofI.P.C,u/s66(1)(6)and85(1)(3)oftheBombay ProhibitionAct. (iii) Vide EXH.18 the learned predecessor of this court framed a

common charge for all the accused of the three cases. By passing necessaryorder,allthethreecases(53,55and150/2005)weredecidedto betriedascommoncasesbytakingtheoralevidenceandbyexhibiting thedocumentaryevidenceonlyinS.C.No.53/05.Itisinthiswayofthe matterthatS.C.No.53/05becametheprincipalcaseandtheremaining twosessioncaseswerethecases,assuch,triedbynotingandexhibiting evidenceinS.C.No.53/05. (iv) (v) (vi) A5,A6,A7,A8andA10havebeenchargedu/s.201readwith

Section376(2)(g)readwithSection34oftheI.P.C. A9hasbeenchargedfortheoffencepunishableu/s.212ofI.P.C. A11hasbeenchargedu/s.219,201readwithSection34readwith

Section376(2)(g)ofI.P.C.

6. 7.

Alltheaccusedi.e.A1toA12havepleadedinnocenceandhave

claimedtrial.A1toA12weretried. A1toA4andA12aretheaccusedagainstwhomthedeceased

victim had filed the complaint who have been referred as 'the five accused'inthisjudgmentforthesakeofconvenienceandbrevity.

11

8.

TENTATIVEEXHIBITSANDITSDECISIONS: Beforeinitiatingthejudgment,itisrequiredtobenotedthatthe

complaint / FIR in this case lodged by the deceased victim has been tentativelyexhibitedbymylearnedpredecessorinviewofthejudgment inthematterofBipinShantilalPanchalV/s.StateofGujaratreported in2001(2)GLHP.545wherein,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasrecasted thepracticeofexhibitingthedocumentincasewhenthedocumentis objectedtobeexhibited. Heardallthelearnedadvocatesonthisaspectwhohavearguedin tunewiththeiroriginalplea. Intheinstantcase,onaccountofobjection,moreparticularlyin viewofthefactthatthedeceasedvictimwhohadadmittedlydied,had not stepped into the witness box and that she being a maker of the statementrevealingtheinformationofcognizableoffence,wassincenot availableeithertocontradictortocorroboratetheFIR,itwassubmitted thatthesamecannotbeexhibited.Mylearnedpredecessorhas,therefore, givententativeexhibittothesaidcomplaint. Having carefully perused the record it is clear that, the FIR tentatively EXH.283 has been formally proved by PW43 which was formallymarkedasMarkPwhilerecordingthedepositionofPW3.PW 43isthepolicewitnesswhohasstatedtohaverecordedtheinformation beforehim,aswasspokenbythedeceasedvictim.Thecontents,thus, havebeenlegally,validly,formallyandsatisfactorilyprovedtobetrueby

12

PW43.PW43hasalsodeposedonoathtotheeffectthatthecomplaint/ FIRwasnotedaswasgivenbythedeceasedvictimastheroutineoffice actandthatuponperusalofEXH.284(thereportu/s.157oftheCodeof CriminalProcedure),thisfactstandssupported,hence,thepresumption oftheproprietaryofofficeworktohavebeenregularlyperformed,can safely be drawn. The Handwriting Expert Mr. J.J. Patel, examined as PW6inSessionsCaseNo.239/04andthedepositionofwhomhasbeen producedhereinasEXH.451,ofFSL,Gujarathascorroborated,thatthe signature below EXH.283 is that of the deceased victim which is identified by the PW3. Thus, since the contents and signature on EXH.283havebeenformally,legally,sufficientlyandsatisfactorilyand inwayofsatisfyingtheusualnormshavebeenproved,thisCourtholds that the tentative EXH.283 given to the document complaint / FIR needstobeconfirmedasfinalEXH.,sothatFIRisheldtobeadmissible inevidence.

9.

The prosecution has examined about fiftyone witnesses to

substantiate and prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt againstalltheaccusedbeingtried.Thedetailsofprosecutionwitnesses areasunder:
Sr. Name No. 1 Amritkumar SharadbhaiBhagat Relation/ Status Sanctioning authority for A11 Exhibit Mainly to provewhich document Mainly EXH.54order 53 ofsanction 62 Report P.M.

Dr.Saumil Premchand Member of 60 Merchant the panel of

13

the team of the P.M. Doctors 3 Vaishali Joshi Bipinbhai Sister of the 78 deceased victim 103 Prosecution case EXH.104 Panchnama of blood sample of accusedno.4 EXH.106 Panchnama ofMarutiZen dated16.1.04. HOSTILE

Pradipkumar Kantilal Panch Pothiwala

Imrankhan Panch AllarakhakhanPathan

105

Ghemarbhai Laljibhai Panch of 108 Raika panchnama EXH.109 Shardaben Bachubhai Panch of 113 Thakor EXH.297 victim's panchnama clothes Dineshbhai Thakor Ashaji Panch 119

HOSTILE

EXH.120 panchnamaof accusedno.1's clothes EXH.132 Panchnama of clothes of accused no.2 &3 Prosecution case DNAprofile

Aliyarkhan Panch BaheramkhanPathan

125

10

Hemantbhai Dharamvirsingh Chaudhari Dr.Anilkumar MadhukantMehta

Friend PW25 FSL

of 133

11

137

12

Shailendrabhai

Panch

of 166

HOSTILE

14

Jivanbhai

panchnama (dtd.1104) EXH.298,299 of room no.106 &205 HOSTILE

13

Girdharbhai Rajman Panch of 187 Mishra panchnama EXH.311 room no.106 &205 Jogaji Vaghela Kasturji Panch 196

14

EXH.197 panchnamaof bucket of accused no.5 of25.1.04 Arrest panchnama EXH.202 of accused no.7, 8&9 Panchnama ofTataSumo EXH.204 Hostile

15

Tejas Prajapati

Bapalal Panch

201

16

Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Panch Patel Bharatbhai Laxmanbhai

203

17

Panch 205 EXH.284 Panchnama seizure of bucket Panch EXH.312 Panchnama 207

18

Kamleshkumar BachubhaiThakor

Hostile

19

Rajubhai Ishwarbhai Panch Kahar Naren alias Naurin Friend HarishbhaiVerma PW25 Baluji Ditaji Solanki Executive (Exe.M.) Magistrate

208

EXH.209 panchnamaof Nikolfarm Prosecution case EXH.218 Accused no.12's T.I.

20 21

of 213 216

15

Parade 22 Pravinbhai Jivrajbhai Panch Kadia 219 EXH.220 panchnamaof zencar'skey

23

Rajubhai HarishchandraKalve

Panch of 222 ghugari & kada (identified by Vaishali) 224

HOSTILE

24

Rafikkhan Habibkhan Panch Pathan EXH.314 Panchnama Bhavinbhai BipinchandraJoshi

HOSTILE

25

Brother of 227 the deceased victim

Prosecution case HOSTILE

26

Madanlal Prabhatilal A member of 228 Jaiswal Jaiswal community Pramodh Natvarlal Receptionist 229 Jadav ofthehotel Ranjitsinh Baldevji Liftman of 230 Devda thehotel Bhairosingh KishorsinghRajput Dhruvchand Parmatmaprasad Shukla Waiter of the 231 hotel Watchman of 232 thehotel

27

MarkK occupancy chart HOSTILE HOSTILE HOSTILE

28 29 30

31 32

SajiTangpappanNair Receptionist 233 ofthehotel Dhangiri Amrutgiri Panch Goswami 234

HOSTILE EXH.235 arrest panchnamaof accusedno.12 HOSTILE

33

Jitendrakumar LaxmanbhaiThakor

Panch EXH.237

236

16

panchnama of medical casepapersof the deceased victim 34 Dr.Ghanshyambhai ChunilalPatel Dr.Bipinchandra DilipraiMankad Doctor who 238 examineA2 Opinion for 246 health of A4 at Millenium hospital, Delhi EXH.239 medical certificate EXH.247, 248,249

35

36 37 38 39

Dr.Jashbhai Vaghela

Galaji Who 253 examinedA3

EXH.254,255 EXH.257 to 260 262to264 MarkN Prescription

Dr.Bhavin Shyamlal Who 256 Shah examinedA4 Dr.Hinaben KaushikbhaiChoksi Dr.Krupaben KalpeshbhaiTrivedi Who examined 261

Private 266 gynaecologist who examined the Deceased victim on 2.1.04 Incharge 267 police surgeon civil hospital

40

Dr.Jayantibhai VirjibhaiSatapara

EXH.268,269

41 42

AjaybhaiDayashankar NephewofA 270 Jaiswal 10 Kameleshbhai MohanbhaiSolanki Sweeper of 271 thehotel

HOSTILE HOSTILE

17

43

BabubhaiDitajiTaral

Police Sub 282 Inspector who recorded thecomplaint

EXH.283,284

44

Dr.JayantibhaiKaloria Who 286 examined A 12 Pravinkumar NatthubhaiBarot VinaylalSunillal Mansukhbhai DungerbhaiLathia A.C.P. 289

287,288

45 46 47 48 49 50

I.O.(vth)only forA12 HOSTILE I.O.(IInd) I.O.(Ist) I.O.(IIIrd) 410to415

DriverofA4 293 P.I. 294 295 310 409

Manoj Ramchandra P.S.I. Sharma Sunilbhai ParshottambhaiOza Dr.Pinakin MadhusudanAcharya A.C.P. FSL

51

Sanjaykumar KarnidanGadhavi

D.C.P.

423

(Ivth I.O.) (only for plea of allibi by accused no.2 & accused no.3)

10.

Vide EXH.451, oral evidence of Mr. J.J. Patel the handwriting

expertas,PW6ofSessionscaseNo.239/04wasbroughtbyconsentof boththesides.

11.

Theprosecutionwitnesseshavebeengrouped.Theirnumbersare

shownundertherespectiveheadingtofacilitatethediscussion,toavoid repetitionandtomaintainbrevity.

18

Group(A)

Doctors(9):

PW2 (P.M. Doctor), PW34, PW35, PW36, PW37, PW38, PW39 and PW44 (examining doctors of the five accused), PW40 (PoliceSurgeonwhobringsmedicalcasepapersandcertificateofthe deceasedvictim.) Group(B) F.S.L.(2):

PW11,PW50.

Group(C)

OfficialWitnesses(2):

SanctioningAuthority,PW1,ExecutiveMagistrate,PW21.

Group(D)HandwritingExpert(1): Mr. J.J. Patel EXH.451 As his oral evidence, recorded in anothersessioncase hasbeenbroughtonthecaseofthisrecord.This witnesshasbeendiscussedwithD5.

Group(E)

SiblingsandFriendsofDeceasedVictim(4):

PW3,PW25,PW10andPW20 Group(F) Police(6):

PW43,PW45,PW47,PW48,PW49andPW51.

19

Group(G)

Hostile Employees of A7, A2, A3 and A4 and relativesofA1(9):

PW26,PW27,PW28,PW29,PW30,PW31,PW41,PW42 andPW46.

Group(H)

Panchas(19):

PW4,PW5,PW6,PW7,PW8,PW9,PW12,PW13,PW14, PW15,PW16,PW17,PW18,PW19,PW22,PW23,PW24, PW32andPW33.

12.
(A)

DOCUMENTS: Theprosecutionhasalsoadducedfollowingdocumentaryevidence

tofortifyitscase.
Sr. No. 1 Exh 54 Description SanctiontoprosecuteA11 Date of Provedby document 08.11.04 By oral evidence of PW1 By oral evidence of PW1 By oral evidence of PW1 By oral evidence of PW1 By oral evidence of

56

LetterofA.C.P.ToLd.MMC2 12.4.04 forA11. Letter by A.C.P. Shri Oza to 12.5.04 Commissioner, Health & MedicinesforA11 Letter to Deputy Secretary, H. 19.5.04 & F. Welfare Dept. GandhinagarforA11 LetterbyDirector,Health&M. 28.6.04 Services Department

57

58

59

20

Gandhinagar and opinion of CommitteeforA11 6 62 Postmortem note of the 07/01/04 deceasedvictim. LetterforP.M.Note 0701/04

PW1 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW2 By oral evidence of PW3

68

70

Postmortem register entry 07.01.04 no.18/04ofpageno.16&17 Postmortem register entry 07.01.04 no.18/04ofpage17 Xerox copy of entry no.18 of 07.01.04 page no.21 sent for histo pathologyreport AlltheEntriesofpageno.20& 03.01.04 21ofhistopathologyreport Originalmedicalcasepapersof 01.01.04 deceased victim (muddamal articleno.73) Documentary List of incoming, 04.09.06 outgoing & SMS of mobile deceased no.931085810 victim's phone PanchnamaofbloodofA4sent 15.1.04 byMillenniumHospital,Delhi. Panchnamaofmarutizencar (2ndPanchnama) 16.1.04

71

10

72

11

73

12

80

13

100

14

104

By oral evidence of PW4 By oral evidence of PW5 By oral evidence of PW6

15

106

16

109

Panchnamaofthesiteofoffence 20.1.04 shownbyA4

21

17

120

Panchnamaofseizureofclothes 01.01.04 of A1 (except the bracketed portion) Arrest Panchnama & recovery 04.01.04 ofclothesA2&A3(exceptred markbracketedportion) Dispatch note muddamaltoFSL sending 17.01.04

By oral evidence of PW8 By oral evidence of PW9 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11

18

132

19

138

20

139

Documentaryreceipt

17.01.04

21

140

D.N.A.IdentificationformofA 16.01.04 4 Original dispatch note sending 01.03.04 blood samples for DNA test to FSLofA1,A2&A3

22

145

23

146

ReceiptforbloodsamplesofA1, 01.03.04 A2&A3byFSL IdentificationDNAofA1 01.03.04

By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11

24

147

25

148

IdentificationDNAofA3

01.03.04

26

149

IdentificationDNAofA2

01.03.04

27

150

Forwarding letter, opinion & 09.02.04 certificateofDNAtestbyFSL DetailreportofDNAfromFSL 26.03.04

28

151

22

29

152

Forwarding letter of police 01.01.04 commissioner & identification DNAofA12 Receipt of FSL regarding 25.02.05 receivingmuddamal OpinionofFSLofDNA 23.02.05

By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 By oral evidence of PW11 Admitted by defense By oral evidence of PW14 By oral evidence of PW15 By oral evidence of PW16

30

153

31

154

32 33

165 197

Arrest Panchnama of A5 and 23.01.04 A6 Panchnama of the place where 25.01.04 evidencehasbeendestroyedby A5 Arrest Panchnama of A7, A8 23.01.04 andA9 Panchnama of seizure of Tata 23.01.04 sumoGJ.1.AP.1267(A10)

34

202

35

204

36

209

Panchnama of the place where 25.01.04 clothes destroyed by A8 at Nikolvillage Panchnama of clothes, mobiles 15.01.04 &passportofaccusedno.4mark 50/13 Yadiforidentificationparadeof 26.02.05 theaccused(A12) Panchnama for identification 28.01.05 paradeofA12. Panchnamaofduplicatezenkey 06.02.04 producedbyA10

By oral evidence of PW19 Admitted by defense By oral evidence of PW21 By oral evidence of PW21 By oral evidence of PW22

37

215

38

217

39

218

40

220

23

41

235

ArrestPanchnamaofA12

23.02.05

By oral evidence of PW32 By oral evidence of PW33 By oral evidence of PW34 By oral evidence of PW34 By oral evidence of PW34 By oral evidence of PW34 By oral evidence of PW35 By oral evidence of PW35 By oral evidence of PW35 By oral evidence of PW35 By oral evidence of PW35 By oral evidence of PW36

42

237

Panchnama of medical case 18.03.04 papers of civil hospital of deceasedvictim MedicalcertificateofA2 13.01.04

43

239

44

240

FormAforAlcoholtestofA2

05.01.04

45

241

AlcoholExaminationCertificate 16.01.04 ofA2(0.0672%) FivemedicalcasepapersofA2 05.01.04

46

242

47

247

Medical certificate of A4 in 15.01.04 Millennium hospital by Dr.B.D.Mankad and other doctors Treatment opinion Dr.R.M.TandonforA4 by 11.02.04

48

248

49

250

Lettertosendteamofdoctorsto 14.01.04 DelhiforA4 Lettertoallthefourdoctorsby 14.01.04 superintendent,civilhospital Letter by superintendent, civil 06.02.04 hospitaltodoctorsforthereport ofA4 Medical Certificate by 15.01.04 Dr.J.G.Vaghela for A3 and AlcoholExaminationCertificate ofA3(0.0796%)

50

251

51

252

52

254

24

53

255

Form A of A3 for alcohol 05.01.04 examination. MedicalcertificateofA4 16.01.04

By oral evidence of PW36 By oral evidence of PW37 By oral evidence of PW37 By oral evidence of PW37 By oral evidence of PW38 By oral evidence of PW38 By oral evidence of PW38 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40

54

257

55

258

Alcohol Examination 16.01.04 CertificateofA4 andFormA of A4 for alcohol examination (0.0020%) OPD case papers, DNA profiling, other correspondence &reportofA4(page1to10). MedicalCertificateofA1 13.01.04

56

260

57

262

58

263

Form A with Alcohol 01.01.04 Examination Certificate of A1 (0.0510%)(bloodtakenon1.1.04 at6.20P.M.) MedicalcasepapersofA1 (page1to10) 01.01.04

59

265

60

268

Medicalpapersofthedeceased 1/2.1.04 victim(muddamalarticle no.74 to79) LetterbyA.C.P.tocivilhospital 09.02.04 fordeceasedvictim(forA11) LetterbyPSISharmatoPolice 19.03.04 Surgeon Dr. Satapara ( for A 11) Letter by PSI shahibaug to 01.01.04 CMO, Civil hospital for deceasedvictim YadiforAlcoholtestofdeceased 01.01.04 victim

61

272

62

273

63

274

64

275

25

65

276

Letter by PW3 for copy of 14.01.04 medicalcasepapersofdeceased victimfromCivilHospital Letter by Dr. Satapara to 29.03.04 A.C.P. (forA11) Case paper of the deceased 02.01.04 victimondateofdischargeand yadibyPSIShahibaugtoCivil Hospitalforthedeceasedvictim (for scalp hair of deceased victim) Circular regarding duty of 30.04.04 C.M.O.(forA11) LetterbyDr.SataparatoA.C.P. 29.03.04 (forA11) Injury certificate of the 12.01.04 deceasedvictim(issuedby A 11) Complaintofdeceasedvictim 01.01.04 7.45A.M.

By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40

66

277

67

278

68

279

By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW40 By oral evidence of PW43 By oral evidence of PW43 By oral evidence of PW44 By oral evidence of PW44 By oral evidence of PW45 By oral

69

280

70

281

71

283

72

284

Offence Declaration Report 01.01.04 (stationdiaryentryno.11/04) 8.05A.M. MedicalcertificateofA12 14.03.05

73

287

74

288

Medical case papers of DNA 25.02.05 profiling of A12 & letter from DCP to CMO, Civil Hospital pageno.1to8 FaceidentificationmarkofA12 23.02.05 from sessions case no.150/05 (pageno.14) Copy of Test identification 28.02.05

75

290

76

291

26

paradepanchnamaofA12page no.469 to 475 from Sessions caseno.150/05 77 292 ChargesheetofA11insessions 31.12.04 caseno.55/05. YadiofCMOfortheclothesof 01.01.04 thedeceasedvictim Panchnama seizing clothes of 01.01.04 deceased victim of recovery of clothes Panchnama of site of offence 01.01.04 shownbythedeceasedvictim. Panchnama of hotel room 01.01.04 no.106, 107, 205 & maruti zen no.1267 for seizure of muddamal. Yadi sent to FSL for site 01.01.04 observation opinion report by PSI,Shahibaug Second Panchnama of room 16.01.04 no.106&205ofAshokhotel PanchnamaofsantrocarofA8 23.01.04

evidence of PW45 By oral evidence of PW45 By oral evidence of PW48 By oral evidence of PW48 By oral evidence of PW48 By oral evidence of PW48 By oral evidence of PW48 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49

78

296

79

297

80

298

81

299

82

307

83

311

84

312

85

313

Panchnama of blanket from 25.01.04 room no.102 (As control blanket) Panchnama of recovery of 04.02.04 bracelet(kada)fromA10 Panchnamaofbracelet(kada)& 04.02.04 rattle(ghughari)

86

314

87

315

27

88

316

DispatchnotetoFSL

07.01.04

By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49

89

317

DispatchnotetoFSL (samplesofA4) DispatchnotetoFSL

01.01.04

90

318

19.01.04

91

319

DispatchnotetoFSL

27.01.04

92

320

FSLreceipt

27.01.04

93

321

DispatchnotetoFSL

27.01.04

94

322

FSLreceipt

27.01.04

95

323

DispatchnotetoFSL

01.01.04

96

324

LettertoFSL

16.01.04

97

325

ReceiptofFSL

08.01.04

98

326

FSLreportoffoursamples

23.01.04

99

327

Letter,reportetc. (forbloodgroupofA4)

15.01.04 & By oral 23.01.04 evidence of PW49 By oral

100

328

Opinion regarding examination 23.01.04

28

ofmuddamal 101 329 ReceiptofmuddamalbyFSL 17.01.04

evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of

102

330

FSLOpinionformuddamal

23.01.04

103

331

FSLReceipt

19.01.04

104

332

FSLOpinion

23.01.04

105

333

FSLopinion

31.01.04

106

334

FSLopinion

30.01.04

107

335

FSLopinion

31.01.04

108

336

FSLopinion

31.01.04

109

337

FSLopinion

12.02.04

110

338

FSLopinion

19.02.04

111

339

FSLReceipt

09.02.04

112

340

FSLopinion

11.02.04

29

PW49 113 341 FSLopinion 06.04.04 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49

114

343

FSLopinion(A4)

29.01.04

115

346

Register of hotel Ashok Palace (8 entries of muddamal article 39). Remand Report of A1 from M.M.C.Record RemandReportofA2andA3 05.01.04 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW3.

116

347

117

348

118

349

RemandReportofA4

16.01.04

119

350

Remand Report of A4 of 21.01.04 M.M.C. Special Criminal Application 23.01.04 No.66/04forA7,A8andA9. ArrestmemoofA7 24.01.04

120

351

121

352

122

353

ArrestmemoofA8

24.01.04

123

354

ArrestmemoofA9

24.01.04

124

454

OriginalapplicationofthePW3 06.01.04

30

125

561

AlcoholExaminationCertificate 01.01.04 ofthedeceasedvictim(0.531%) The application by the PW3 13/01/04 against misbehaviour of the policeofficials. Panchnama to seize the 08/01/04 customerRegisterofthehotel

Byconsentof both the parties Byconsentof both the parties Byconsentof both the parties

126

563

127

568

(B)

Enlistedhereinbelowarethedocuments,which,attherequestof

thedefense,eitherfromtheprosecutionwitnesses,byshowingtothem orbythedefensewitnesseshavebeentakenonrecordandhavebeen exhibited during the course of cross examination and examination of defensewitness.
Sr. Exh

Description

No.
11 93

Date of Provedby document

By oral evidence ofPW3 By oral evidence ofPW3

LetterofNationalCommissionfor 10.03.06 Women,NewDelhi. XeroxofstatementbeforeN.C.W. 17.01.04

22 94

33 98

Informationofoutgoingofmobile 30.08.06 no.07931085810 page 1 to 6 alongwithstatementofdeceased victim'smobilephone.

Application of production witness of Reliance

4 5 6 7

4 101, 5 398, 6 399, 7 400

Letter of Mr.Vinod Tiwari, 08.09.06 Who came Sr.Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd, for mobile personally to AhmedabadwithAnn.A,B,C(then No.OfPW3 court to comply ex.398,399,400) the order of production

31

88 118 99 141

Affidavit and List of Airtel (PW15.09.06 3'snumber)

Produced by Mr.VinodTiwari

Original interdepartmental 17/01/2004 By oral evidence dispatchregisterpageno.7 ofPW11 *Produced by Learned PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 Inter departmental dispatch 15.01.04 register *Produced by Learned PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 By oral evidence ofPW11

1 142 01

1 143 11

Originaldocumentpageno.9 19/01/2004 By oral evidence *Produced by Learned PP on ofPW11 request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 Inter departmental dispatch 20.01.04 register *Produced by Learned PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 By oral evidence ofPW11

1 144 21

1 155 31

Documentary Evidence of D.N.A. *Produced By oral evidence TestofA4 by Learned ofPW11 PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 Documentary Evidence of D.N.A. *Produced By oral evidence TestofA1 by Learned ofPW11 PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 Documentary Evidence of D.N.A. *Produced By oral evidence Test by Learned ofPW11 PP on request of

1 156 41

1 157 51

32

defense vide purshis EXH.135 1 158 61 Documentary Evidence of D.N.A. *Produced By oral evidence TestofA2andA3 by Learned ofPW11 PP on request of defense vide purshis EXH.135 Correspondence & print out and 19.01.04 details of mobile of deceased victim(total17pages). Information about the mobile 17.01.04 phoneofdeceasedvictim Mobile No.31085810 Information about the mobile 18.01.04 phone of deceased victim Mobile No.31085810 Office copy of forwarding letter 03.02.04 bearing outward no.165/04 to Manager,RelianceIndiaLtd. Letter from Reliance Infocom to 20.01.04 DCP. LettertoAirtelforPW3'Smobile 11.01.04 no.9898019689(10pages) CorrespondencewithAirtel 19.01.04 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence

1 355 71 1 356 81 1 357 91 2 358 02 2 359 12 2 360 22 2 361 32 2 362 42 2 363 52 2 364

LettertoAirtelforPW3'Smobile 18.01.04 no.9898019689(10pages) LettertoAirtelforPW3'Smobile 26.01.04 no.9898019689 Letterfordetailsofmobilephone 8.01.04 2

33

2 2 365 72 2 366 82

byAirtelCompanytoAsst.Police Commissioner MobileprintoutPW3

ofPW49

02.01.04 to oral evidence By 04.01.04 ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49

Letter to Airtel Company for 28.01.04 information of mobile no.9898019689 of PW3 with 6 pagesprintout. Information of mobile 08.01.04 nos.35740459, 36991334 & 35854168 of A4 with 30 pages printout LetterofAirtelandprintoutof16 10.02.04 pages(9824055327&9824089701 A9) Information of mobile 20.01.04 no.9879099994 of A1 (Hutch) total8pages 15pagesforinformationofmobile 10.02.04 ofA10(Tata) LettertoDr.SataparabyI.O. (forA11) LettertoFSL(forA11) 10.01.04

2 367 92

By oral evidence ofPW49

3 368 03 3 369 13 3 370 23 3 372 33 3 373 43 3 374 53 3 375 63 3 73

By oral evidence of PW49 at the requestofdefense By oral evidence of PW49 at the requestofdefense By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49

04.02.04

Reply by the Director, FSL, 05.02.04 GandhinagartoI.O.(forA11) CorrespondencetoCivilHospital 04.02.04 (forA11)

376CorrespondencetoCivilHospital 17.03.04 (forA11)

34

3 83

377CorrespondencetoCMObypolice 16.02.04 surgeon(forA11)

By oral evidence ofPW49

3 378 93 4 379 04 4 380 14 4 383 24

Nine injury certificates of rape the year oral evidence Of By cases.(forA11) 2003 ofPW49 SummonstoA11 19.03.04 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross by L.A. for A2 andA3 By oral evidence ofPW49incross

CertifiedcopyofC.R.No.I/105/04 25.03.04 ofShahibaughPoliceStation(for A11) Letter to Idea for information of 08.01.04 mobile no.9824313333 of (A2) 9824066729(A3) Analysis by the I.O. for mobile no.9824313333 of A2 (in EXH.383shownasmobileofA3). LettertoIdeabyDCP. 12.01.04

4 384 34

4 385 44

4 386 54

Mark 18/20 of Sessions case 12.01.04 no.239/04

4 387 64

Page no.1 to 5 of Mark 18/21 in 08.01.04 Sessionscaseno.239/04

4 388 74

Letter by to Idea for mobile 04.03.04 no.9824313333 (as per EXH.383 of A3) & 9824066729 (as per EXH.383ofA2)(togetprintout) Letter by Idea to DCP showing 04.03.04 no.9824313333 to be of A2 &

4 389 85

35

9824066729 to be of A3 (not showninEXH.383)

by L.A. for A2 andA3

4 390 95

Letter written to Reliance one 12.01.04 page information of incoming of mobile no.33111331 (from SessionsCaseno.239/04) Page no.41/6 to 41/40 from 01.12.03to Sessionscaseno.239/04printout 01.01.04 of 33111331 outgoing information. LetterbyIdeatoDCPwithprint 08.01.04 out of 17 pages of mobile of accusedno.2.

By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3

5 391 05

5 394 15

5 395 25

Xeroxcopiesofdetailsofmobile 15.12.03to no. 3100210 of sessions case 01.01.04 no.239/04

5 396 35

Detail print out of mobile of 23.12.03to accusedno.3 01.01.04

5 398 45

Print outEXH.101/ Annexure A 01.01.04 to By oral ofVaishali 07.01.04 evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 DetailsofsiteaddressesofAirtel By oral evidence of

5 399 55

36

PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 5 400 65 Monthly bill of mobile of 08.12.03to By oral Vaishaliben 07.01.04 evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 Tower Code and site address (5 04/09/06 pages)alongwithEXH.100 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3

5 402 75

5 403 86

Printout of deceased victim's 04/09/06 mobile

5 406 96

Page no.511 to 523 to remand 24.01.04 application,objection&orderin trial court's record of accused no.7&8. ReceiptofR.P.A.D. 10/02/04

By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49incross byL.A.forA2 andA3 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral

6 407 06

6 408 16

Special Cri. Appln. No.182/04 17/02/04 with order and annexures (1 to 72pages) 15/04/05

6 416 26 6 417

Order of Cri. Misc. Appln. 30/04/04 No.4095/04(BeforeHonbleH.C) CorrespondencerelatedtoA11 05/04/04

37

6 6 418 46 6 419 56 6 420 66 6 421 76 6 422 87 6 424 97 CorrespondencerelatedtoA11 08.04.04

evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW49 By oral evidence of PW50

CorrespondencerelatedtoA11 (ReminderIofEXH.418) CorrespondencerelatedtoA11 (ReminderIIofEXH.418) CorrespondencerelatedtoA11

28.04.04

10.05.04

10.05.04

CertifiedcopyofCri.Misc.Appln. 29/03/04 No.860/04 bail application of A 11 Orderoffurtherinvestigationby 09.05.05 ACP to DCP & copy of the Hon'ble Gujarat High court's order page 1 to 55 in SCRA 182/04.(evenproducedaspartof EXH.408) LetterbyReliancetoDCPwith3 09.06.05 pages print out of details of mobileno.33111331. Letter by Reliance to DCP with 15.06.05 twopagesprintoutofdetailsof mobileno.33111331. Letter to DCP from Idea for 15.06.05 mobileno.9824074588. OnepagePrintoutwithletterto 20.06.05 DCP by Idea of mobile no.9824066729 LetterbyIdeatoDCPwithprint 20.06.05 outof12pages.

7 426 07

By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of

7 427 17 7 428 27 7 429 37 7 430 47

38

PW51 7 431 57 7 432 67 7 433 77 A letter by Idea to DCP with 20.06.05 detail print out of 4 pages for mobileno.9824313333. A letter by Idea to DCP for 24.06.05 details of 9824074588, 9824066729. Letter javak no.37/05 to A.C.P., 12.05.05 Ahmedabad by DCP for special investigation ordered by the Hon'bleHighCourt. Ordertohandoverinvestigation 18.05.05 toDCP. Letter to the Manager, Idea 25.05.05 Cellular Ltd by DCP by javak no.G/725/zone4/1187/05 LettertoIdeaCellularCompany 31.05.05 byDCPbyjavakno.G/725/zone 4/1187/05 Letter to Manager, Reliance 25.05.05 India Ltd. By DCP to bring informationofmobileno.3111331 by javak no.G/725/zone 4/1183/05. LettertoManager,IdeaCellular 25.05.05 Co.byDCPtobringinformation ofmobileno.9824313333. LettertoIdeaCellularbyDCPto 31.05.05 give information of mobile no.9824313333 Letter to Idea Cellular Co. by 25.05.05 DCP to give information of mobileno.9824066729. ReminderlettertoIdeabyDCP 25.05.05 to give information of mobile no.9824066729 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51

7 434 88 7 435 98 8 436 08 8 437 18

8 438 28 8 439 38 8 440 48 8 441 58

By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51

39

8 442 68

Letter to Idea Cellular Ltd. by 22.06.05 DCPtogetfullname&address ofmobileholdersof9824074588 &9824066729 Trial courts record page 143 to 30.08.04 185, to inform mobile company not to destroy mobile print, informationofBTS. Criminal misc. application 22.06.05 no.6699/05 in special criminal application no.182/04 in the Hon'ble High Court. (Reference EXH.408andEXH.424) Entryno.387ofcustomerregister 31.12.03 ofHotelAshokPalace Handwriting Expert's report by 27.09.07 Dr.S.C.Mittal Sketch showing handwriting of 27.09.07 deceasedvictimandhersister. Worksheetpapers

By oral evidence of PW51 By oral evidence of PW51 By request oral

8 443 78

8 445 89

8 466 99 9 476 09 9 477 19 9 478 29 9 479 39 9 480 49

By oral evidence of DW2. By oral evidence of DW9 By oral evidence of DW9 By oral evidence of DW9 By oral evidence of DW9 By oral evidence of DW9

Letter byfather of accusedno.4 17.05.07 to Forensic Scientist, Delhi for opinion. Letter byfather of accusedno.4 10.08.07 to Forensic Scientist, Delhi to bringreport.

(C)

Withthesoleviewtodocompletejustice,thisCourthasthoughtit

fittoinvokeitspoweru/s.165oftheIndianEvidenceActtobringcertain documentsonrecordofthiscasewhichhavebeenformallyprovedand exhibitedintheanotherSessionsCasebetweentheStateofGujaratthe

40

complainant,andthefiveaccused.
Sr. Exh. Description No . 1 2 3 4 571 572 573 574 Dateof Document

CertifiedcopyofsuicidenoteatEXH.169.in 07.01.04 anothersessionscase Complaint EXH.241 in another Sessions 07.01.04 casefiledbyVaishaliben. XeroxcopyofEXH.177redcolour'sregister Documents EXH.147 to 162 of another 2003 sessionscase

13.

Heard learned advocates for the parties who have made their

elaborate and extensive oral submissions in addition to their written submissionsplacedonrecordasunder:

(13I)
(i)

WRITTENSUBMISSIONS:

LearnedSpl.P.P.Mr.A.P.DesaifortheStateEXH.:492.

(ii)

Learned advocate Mr. Sardar for accused No.1, 5, 6 and 10

EXH.:497A.

(iii)

LearnedAdvocateMr.H.M.DhruvaforaccusedNos.2,3,7and8

EXH.:566

41

(iv)

LearnedadvocateMr.

A.M. Patel with learned advocate Mr.

BrahmbhattforaccusedNo.9EXH.:544A.

(v)

LearnedadvocateMr.N.R.Shahforno.11EXH.:527A.

(vi)

Learned advocate Mr. K.J.Shethnawith learnedadvocate M.R.

AminforaccusedNo.12EXH.:569.

(13II)

ORALARGUMENTS:

Theoralargumentsofthelearnedadvocateforthepartiesareon recordasunder:

(1)

LearnedSpl.P.P.Mr.A.P.Desai EXH.493 beforemylearned

predecessorandEXH.495beforethisCourt.

(2)

Learned advocate Mr. Sardar for accused No.1, 5, 6 and 10

EXH.:497.

(3)

LearnedAdvocateMr.H.M.DhruvaforaccusedNos.2,3,7and8

EXH.:548.

(4)

LearnedAdvocateMr.J.M.

Panchal for the accused No.4

42

EXH.:557.

(5)

LearnedadvocateMr.

A.M. Patel with learned advocate

BrahmbhattforaccusedNo.9EXH.:544.

(6)

LearnedadvocateMr.N.R.Shahforno.11EXH.:527.

(7)

Learned advocate Mr. K.J.Shethnawith learnedadvocate M.R.

AminforaccusedNo.12EXH.:567.

(13III)

SUBMISSIONOFTHEPROSECUTION:

Learned Special P.P. Mr. A.P. Desai has submitted that the statementbythedeceasedvictimbeforethePW43isinthenatureof dyingdeclarationandthatthedeceasedhadsincedied,isunabletostep intothewitnessboxunderwhichcircumstances,herstatementrecorded byPW43hastobetreatedasstatementu/s.32(1)oftheIndianEvidence Act(hereinaftershallbereferredtoas'theEvidenceAct').Ithasbeen submitted that, in light of numerous judgments, the statement of the deceasedvictimrelatedtothecircumstanceoftransactionresultinginto deathisadmissibleandthisstatementdoesnotrequireanycorroboration from the independent witness. If, EXH.283 complaint the dying declarationisperusedthen,thesameisfoundtohavebeenfiledsoon aftertheincidentandthat,itseemstohavebeenmadeaftertheearlier statement having been made before the PW3 the real sister of the

43

deceased victim about the circumstance which ultimately led her to commit suicide. (In the opinion of this court though, as a matter of principle,nocorroborationissought,itistobenotedthatthetruthful, voluteriness,absenceofelementoftutoring,andpromptingneestobe examinedtosafelyactuponit).

Section6andillustrationjandkofSec.8oftheEvidenceActhave been emphasized. EXH.62 is the postmortem report of the deceased victimwhichrevealstheinjurieswhichtallieswiththeoralevidenceof PW39 Dr. Krupaben. Further, vide EXH.333 F.S.L. reports of the bedrollsofhotelAshokPalaceareonrecordwhichall,ifseentogether, theallegationofgangrapeagainstthefiveaccusedstandprovedbeyond reasonabledoubt.Thereisnothingonrecordthatonaccountofalcohol thedeceasedvictimwasunabletogivehercomplaintandthatonaccount oftheinfluenceofthealcoholicsubstance,thedeceasedvictimwasinthe stateofmindtogiveconsentforintercourseandthateventhecomplaint, EXH.283 shows that the deceased victim was not a consenting party. Moreoverthepresumptioninthecaseofgangrapeisofnoconsent.

TheA11hasgivenafalsecertificateandhasshownoldhymen tearofthedeceasedvictimwhichisapparentlytosaveandscreenthefive accused.EveninjurieshavenotbeenshownandthattheA11,beinga doctorandapublicservant,hassinceintentionallyshownthepubichair of the deceased victim to have been shaved, charge against the A11 stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was emphasized that the accusedNos.5to8and10arecloserelativesofA1,A2andA3who

44

havemadeallattemptstodestroytheevidencewithaviewtoscreenall the five accused. A9 is the accused who has committed offence as charged. That the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against all the accused and thatas far as the five accused are concerned,thereisapresumptionagainstthesaidaccusedashasbeen mentioned in detail in the written submissions and that when these accusedhavenotrebutthepresumptionagainstthemandhavenotproved theirdefencetheyneedtobeheldguilty.Insupportofhissubmissionhe hasalsocitedthefollowingauthorities: (1) * AIR1926BombayP.513,EmperorV/s.ShivabhaiBecharbhai: Head Note B : Statement, as circumstances of transaction

resulting in death is admissible in evidence [S.32(1) of the Indian EvidenceAct]. (2) AIR S.C. P.1622, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s. State of Maharashtra: * * Para10and11. TherelevantclauseofSection32(1)relatestostatementmadeby

apersonastothecauseofhisdeathorastoanyofthecircumstancesof thetransactionwhichresultedinhisdeath. * In Law of Evidence by Woodroffe and Ameer Ali (Vol.II) the

authors have opined that, to sum up, the test of the relevancy of a

45

statement u/s.32(1), is not what the final finding in the case is, but whetherthecauseofthedeathofthepersonmakingthestatementcomes intoquestioninthecase.Theexpression'anyofthecircumstancesofthe transaction which resulted in his death' is wider in scope than the expression'thecauseofhisdeath'.Inanotherword,Clause(1)ofSection 32referstotwokindsofstatements;(i)statementmadebyapersonasto thecauseofhisdeath,and(ii)thestatementmadebyapersonastoany ofthecircumstancesofthetransactionwhichresultedinhisdeath.The words'resultedinhisdeath'donotmean'causedhisdeath'.Thus,itis wellsettledthatdeclarationsareadmissibleonlyinsofarastheypoint directlytothefactconstitutingtheresgestaeofthehomicide;thatisto say,totheactofkillingandtothecircumstancesimmediatelyattendant thereupon,likethreatsanddifficulties,acts,declarationsandincidents, which constitute or accompany and explain the fact of transaction in issue.Theyareadmissiblefororagainsteitherparty,asformingpartsof theresgestae. * Thestatementmaybemadebeforethecauseofdeathhasarisen,or

beforethedeceasedhasanyreasontoanticipatebeingkilled.Anecessary conditionofadmissibilityundertheSectionisthatthecircumstancemust havesomeproximaterelationtotheactualoccurrence. * ItisveryclearthatSection32cannotbemadeapplicabletoonly

dyingdeclarations,butthestatementswhicharedirectlyrelatedtothe causeofdeatharealsoadmissible. * Para21 : Section 32isanexceptionto therule of hearsayand

46

makesadmissiblethestatementofapersonwhodies,whetherthedeath isahomicideorasuicide,providedthestatementrelatestothecauseof death,orexhibitscircumstancesleadingtothedeath. * * Thetestofproximitycannotbeliterallyconstruedandpractically reducedtoacutanddriedformulaofuniversalapplicationsoastobe confinedinastraitjacket.Distanceoftimewoulddependorvarywith thecircumstancesofeachcase.Forinstance,wheredeathisalogical culminationofacontinuousdramalonginprocessandis,asitwere,a finaleofthestory,thestatementregardingeachstep wouldhavetobe readasanorganicwholeandnottornfromthecontext. (3) AIR 1996 S.C. P.922, Bodhisattwa Gautam V/s. Subhra Chakraborty: Para10to15. AND (4) AIR1992S.C.P.2043,StateofKarnatakaV/s.Mahabaleshwar GouryaNaik: Evenifthevictimofrapeisnotavailabletogiveevidenceonaccountof her having committed suicide, the prosecution case cannot be thrown awayoverboard.Insuchacase,thenonavailabilityofthevictimwill notbefatalandtheCourtcanrecordaconvictiononthebasisofthe The scope of Section 32 is wide enough to avoid any kind of injustice.

47

availableevidencebroughtonrecordbyprosecution.Thepresumption u/s.114(a)astoabsenceofconsentisalwaysavailableinsuchacase. (5) AIR 1997 S.C. P.768, Rattan Singh V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh: * Omission in FIR should be looked upon in a view that such

statementcannotbeexpectedtobeachronicleofeverydetailsofwhat happened,norto containanexhaustivecatalogueoftheeventswhich tookplace. * (6) HeadNoteC:thestatementofthedeceasedbeforethedeathhas

tobemadeadmissibleu/s.6oftheEvidenceAct. 2004 (1) GLR P.761, Bhupendra Sharma V/s. State of HimachalPradesh: * Explanation1ofSection376(2)(g)oftheI.P.C.statesthatin

gangrapetoestablishtheactinfurtheranceofcommonintentionofthe grouptheprosecutionneednottoprovecompletedactofrapebyeach person.Proofofrapebyoneofthegangwouldmakeeachmemberliable toconviction.Thisprovisionismadetoeffectivelydealwiththegrowing menace of gang rape. It is not necessary that the prosecution should adduceclinchingproofofacompletedactofrapebyeachoneofthe accusedonthevictimoroneachoneofthevictimwheretherearemore thanoneinordertofindtheaccusedguiltyofthegangrape. * HeadNoteC:Insistenceoncorroborationexceptintherarestof

48

rarecaseswouldbeaddinginsulttoinjury. *Para14. (7) (8) AIR1989S.C.P.1475: (2006)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.603,RamKishanV/s. StateofU.P.: * This judgment has been relied upon to submit that mere

acquaintance or friendship of the eyewitnesses with the deceased by itselfcannotprovideareasontodiscardtheirevidence. (9) 1997Cr.L.J.P.2535,TanvibenPankajkumarDivetiaV/s.State ofGujarat: * Para35ofthejudgmenthasbeenheavilyemphasizedtosubmit

thatintheinstantcase,inviewoftheprinciplelaiddowninthecited judgment,thedepositionofDr.SaumilMerchantshouldbepreferredas, betweenthetwoexperts,thedoctorwhoactuallyheldthepostmortem examinationhastobeattachedmorecredibilityashehadanoccasionto seetheinjuriesofthedeceasedquiteclosely,asagainstthepersonwho giveshisopinionbyonlyseeingthedocument. (10) (2001)8SupremeCourtCasesP.86,SukhdevYadavV/s.State ofBihar: * The principle that once the trustworthiness of the evidence is

49

concludedbytheCourt,thenitcannotbediscardedonthegroundof minor variations in the evidence. Conviction can be awarded in such casesalso. (11) (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases P.234, State of Punjab V/s. JugrajSingh: And (12) 2004AIR(SC)P.313,ChaudhariRamjibhaiNarasangbhaiV/s. StateofGujarat: * ParaBisrelatedtorelatedwitnesses. It has been submittedtofocusthatPW3,Vaishali andPW25, Bhavinarerespectivelyeldersisterandbrotherofthedeceasedvictim. Bothofthemarequitenaturalwitnessestotwodifferenteventsintwo different cases and that their depositions are fully supported by the medicalevidence.Hence,inviewofthecitedjudgment,theyshouldbe believed. (13) 1980AIR(SC)P.1322,BhimraoAnnaIngawaleV/s.Stateof Maharashtra: * AttentionoftheCourthasbeeninvitedtopara11and12tosubmit

thateventhoughitseemsthattheeyewitnesseshaveimprovedtheircase at the trial over the story whichtheyputforward attheinvestigating stage, but still however, it does not necessarily mean that falsity of

50

testimonyofonematerialparticularwouldrunitfrombeginningtoend. (14) AIR1983AllahabadP.54,GulabChandV/s.SatyaVrat: * Attention is invited to Head Note B to submit that the

Handwriting Expert if not well versed with language in which the questioned document has been written, then such evidence cannot be thoroughly relied upon as such witness cannot prove signature of the persononcomparisonofhandwritingondocument. * It has been forcefully urged that the Handwriting Expert of the

StateGovernmentPW5ofanothercase, EXH.451 herein,Mr.J.J. PatelisthewitnesswhoknewGujaratilanguageverywell,asagainstthe defencewitness No.9whoisnotknowingGujaratilanguagewhichis apart from the factum that the defence witness has fiscal interest in securing his fees from the accused, whereas, the officer of the State Governmenthasdischargedhispiousobligationofgivingareportasa HandwritingExpert.

(13IV)

SUBMISSIONOFA1:

LearnedadvocateMr.SardarfortheaccusedNos.1,5,6and10 hassubmittedthatthedeceasedvictimwasmatured,habitualtosexual intercourse and that had admittedly relationship with A4. Since, the deceased victim has not been examined on oath her complaint is not admissibleandcannotbereadasevidencehence,benefitofdoubtshould certainlygoinfavouroftheaccusedinviewofpropoundedprinciples.

51

Evenifthecourtismorallysatisfiedthatdoesnotnecessarilyleadthe Courttoholdtheaccusedguilty.Therehastobelegalevidenceagainst theaccused,whichisnotavailableinthepresentcase.TheF.I.R.ismuch delayedandthatisapieceofpaperwhichisnotadmissibleevidencein Law. The F.I.R. is a hearsay evidence and that it does not help the prosecutioninanymanner.Ithasbeenfurthersubmittedthattheinquest panchnama does not show any injury on the person of the deceased victimandtherefore,theinjuriesshownintheP.M.Reportcreateslotsof doubtsthebenefitofwhichhastogototheaccused.Theomissionsand contradictionsinthedepositionofthePW3whoisnoneelsebut,thereal sister of the deceased victim is suggestive that she is not a credible witness.Thisisaclassicexamplewherein,theaccusedisnotgettingfair trialasmasterYash(sonofthePW3)whowasadmittedlypresentatthe timeofdeathofthedeceasedvictimisthough,alinkingwitness,hasnot beenexaminedforwhich,theprosecutionhasnoexplanation.PW3and anotherhavegivenseveralstatementsbeforethepolice.Thischainofone after the another statements gives fatal blow to the prosecution case. Different investigating officers like P.S.I. Taral, P.S.I. Sharma, P.I. Lakhia,A.C.P.ShriOza,A.C.P.ShriBarotandD.C.P.ShriGadhviare the witnesses who have not proved the prosecution case and the investigation was not natural and unbiased. The conduct of PW3 Vaishali, PW10 and PW20 Hemant and Naurin respectively of not informing the alleged serious incident to father and brother of the deceasedvictimatthatnightitselfisindicativeoftheirbeingunreliable witnesses.

52

EXH.451 is the deposition of Shri J.J. Patel handwriting expert fromtheF.S.L.whohasrepliedduringthecourseofcrossexaminationin the manner which is raising doubt about his skill and capability as a handwritingexpert.Thewitnesshasnotshownhisreadinesstoopinein theCourtwhichisrevealingthathisopinionasanexpertcannotbetaken onthefacevalue.

Theinvestigationisabsolutelydefective,unreliable,notcapableto inspireconfidenceapartfromitbeinghighlyimproper.

PW3 is not the victim and that her deposition is a hearsay evidencewhichisnotadmissibleinevidence.

ItcannotbeforgottenthatthoughD.N.A.Profilingisemphasized as reliable evidence by the prosecution, the said cannot be taken as conclusiveas,itismerelycorroborativekindofevidence.

Theurethralswabofthedeceasedvictimdoesnotshowsemenand thatthisitselfisraisingdoubtevenonactofintercourseandtherefore, theallegationofrapecannotandshallnotbebelieved.Thewholecaseis full of hearsay evidence. The deceased victim was, though at the ShahibaughPoliceStationrightfrom5a.m.Of01/01/2004,EXH.283 thecomplaintwasnottakenupto7:45a.m.Thisisoneanotherpoint whichisleadingtobelievethattheF.I.R.Isfalseandfabricatedandthat theinvestigationisdefective,biasandunreliable.Whileconclusionitis

53

submittedthatbystretchingthefacttoanylevel,nooffencewhatsoever againsttheaccusedstandprovedandthattheaccusedtherefore,needto beacquitted.

(13V)

CITATIONS:

Ld.AdvocateMr.Sardarhascitedfollowingjudgmentsinsupport ofhissubmissions. (1) 1952Cr.L.J.1223inthecaseofSantRamandothersV.State: Section60oftheEvidenceAct:Witnessnotdeposingastothe factfromhispersonalknowledgebutstatingthatitwasbroughttohis noticebyanotherpersonisahearsayevidence.(fororalevidenceofPW 3) (2) AIR1954SC51inthecaseofHabeebMohammadV.Stateof Hyderabad: Theprosecutionmustexamineeachmaterialwitnessasitisdutyof theprosecutionorelseundersection114(g)oftheEvidenceActadverse inferencecanbedrawnfornonexamination. (3) AIR1960SC391inthecaseofTheStateofBombayV.Rusy Mistryandanother: FirstInformationReportisnotsubstantiveevidence,Judgecannot

54

placesuchreportbeforejuryassubstantiveevidence,Reportnotbeing firstcomplaintbyinformantcannotberelieduponexcepttotheextent permittedbyprovisotoS.162. It must be distinguished from information received after the commencementoftheinvestigationwhichiscoveredbysection161& 162.Thefirstinformationreportisnotsubstantiveevidence,butcanonly beusedtocorroborateorcontradicttheevidenceoftheinformantgiven in Court or to impeach his credit. Section 162 i.e. to contradict the informantwithreferencetoanyparticularstatementtherein. (4) 1961 (1) Cr.L.J. 218 in case of re, Repana Naganna alias Nagulu: Evidenceofwitnessesifnotconvincing,thenitisfruitlesstaskto searchformotiveswhichmighthaveactuatedthemtocomeforwardand givesuchevidenceAIR1944FC1,Reliedon.

(5)

1965(1)Cr.L.J.554incaseofKashmiraSinghV.State: Evidence Act sections 3, 6, 8 & 60 Accused charged under

section294,penalcodeforusingobscenewordstowardsschoolgirland teasingheronroadNoeyewitnessorinformant(girl)producedby prosecutionProsecutionrelyingonsoletestimonyofwitnesswhohad reachedthespotaftertheincidentandwastoldaboutthewordsused,by the girl Evidence pure hearsay and inadmissible Sections 6 & 8,

55

EvidenceActdonotapplyoffencenotprovedAIR1946Lah46and AIR1938Cal482andAIR1925Lah578,Rel.on. (6) 1971SCC(cri.)601incaseofGianMahtani&AnotherV.The StateofMaharashtra&Another: According to the system of jurisprudence which we follow, convictioncannotbebasedonsuspicionnorontheconscienceofthe Courtbeingmorallysatisfiedaboutthecomplicityofanaccusedperson. Hecanbeconvictedandsentencedonlyiftheprosecutionprovesitscase beyondallreasonabledoubt. (7) 1971Cr.L.J.670incaseofBalakrushnaSwainV.TheStateof Orissa: Criminal Procedure Code (1898) Section 161 unjustified and unexplained long delay on part of investigating officer in recording statement of material eye witness during investigation will render evidenceofsuchwitnessunreliable. (8) AIR1972SC283incaseofHasibV.TheStateofBihar: ThiscasehasbeenemphasizedtofocuslimiteduseoftheF.I.R.as

heldunder: The legal position as to the object, value and use of first information report is well settled. The principal object of the first informationreportfromthepointofviewoftheinformantistosetthe criminallawinmotionandfromthepointofviewoftheinvestigating

56

authoritiesistoobtaininformationabouttheallegedcriminalactivityso astobeabletotakesuitablestepsfortracingandbringingtobookthe guilty party. The first informationreport,wemaypoint out,doesnot constitutesubstantiveevidencethoughitsimportanceasconveyingthe earliestinformationregardingtheoccurrencecannotbedoubted.Itcan, however,onlybeusedasapreviousstatementforthepurposeofeither corroboratingitsmakerundersection157oftheIndianEvidenceActor forcontradictinghimundersection145ofthatAct.Itcannotbeusedfor thepurposeofcorroboratingorcontradictingotherwitnesses. (9) AIR1973SC2773incaseofKaliRamV.StateofHimachal Pradesh: Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administrationofjusticeincriminalcasesisthatiftwoviewsarepossible on the evidence adduced in thecase, one pointing to the guilt of the accusedandtheothertohisinnocencethen,theviewwhichisfavourable totheaccusedshouldbeadopted.Thisprinciplehasaspecialrelevance incaseswhereintheguiltoftheaccusedissoughttobeestablishedby circumstantialevidence. (10) 1976Cr.L.J.1883incaseofIshwarSinghV.TheStateofUttar Pradesh: Thenonexaminationofwitnessesacquiresaspecialsignificance in view of the discrepancy between the FIR and the version of the occurrencegivenbytheprosecutioninthecourt.

57

(11) 1979 Cr.L.J. 1343 in case of Dhan Kumar V. Municipal CorporationofDelhi: Itiswellsettledthatiftwoviewsoftheevidencearereasonably possible,onefavouringacquittalandtheotherconviction,theHighCourt shouldnotreversetheorderofacquittal. (12) 1980SCC(Cri)145incaseofYasinGulamHaiderV.Stateof Maharashtra: EvidenceAct,1872section60Witnessallegedtohavetold materialfacttoanotherwitnessresilingfromfactofhavingsaidso Testimonyoftheotherwitnessastowhathewasallegedlytold,held, becomeshearsayandhenceinadmissible. (13) 1980Cr.L.R.252incaseofTheStateofGujaratV.Maganbhai ManubhaiModi&twoOthers: Customs Act, 1962 Sec.135 and Evidence Act Sec.25 AccusedinpolicecustodywhenmakingstatementsHeld,statements arehitbysec.26andaretobeexcludedfromconsideration. (14) 1980SCC(Cri)261incaseofPohalyaMotyaValviV.Stateof Maharashtra: CriminalTrialCircumstantialevidenceOnlyprovedfactthat theappellantwaswearingabloodstaineddhotiatthetimeofhisarrest,

58

in the absence of other circumstantial links would not unequivocally pointtohisguiltBloodstainsonthedhotiofanagriculturistisnotan incriminatingcircumstance. Criminal Trial Appreciation of Evidence When two constructions are possible in a criminal trial the one beneficial to the accusedwillhavetobeadopted. (15) 1980SCC(cri)985incaseofMarudanalAugustiV.Stateof Kerala: CriminalProcedureCode,1973Section154FIROnceFIRis heldtobefabricatedorbroughtintoexistencelongaftertheoccurrence, theentireprosecutioncasewouldcollapseOmissiontomentionnames ofeyewitnessesinFIRgivingminutedetails,andunexplaineddelayin despatchoftheFIRtomagistratebesidesotherinfirmities,held,would throwseriousdoubtonprosecutioncaseCriminalTrialBenefitof doubt. (16) AIR 1981 SC 765 in case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit V. StateofMaharashtra:

Incaseofcircumstantialevidence,exclusionofotheralternative hypothesisisfarmorerigorousthanthetestofproofbeyondreasonable doubt. (17) 1982 Cr.L.J. 2102 in case of Mohammad Dwara Rawther

59

IsmailV.StateofKerala: Extrajudicialconfessionevenbeforedoctor,itisattheinstanceof policehitsbySection24,25&26ofIndianEvidenceAct. (18) AIR1983SCC66incaseofMayurPanabhaiShahV.Stateof Gujarat: The appreciationofthedoctorwitnesshastobemadelikeany otherwitness. (19) 1983GLH(U.J.)78incaseofJamnadasNanubhaiKansaraV. TheStateofGujarat: Complaint cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence. Depositiononoathistheonlysubstantivepieceoflegalevidencewhich thedeceasedvictimhasnotgiven,inthiscase,hence,acquittal. (20) 1983Cr.L.J.1276incaseofBhugdomalGangaramandothers V.TheStateofGujarat: Informantnotexamined(deceasedvictimherein)thenevidenceis inadmissible. (21) 1987(2)CRIMES54incaseofTotaSinghandanotherV.State ofPunjab: Wheretwoviewsarepossibleonanappraisaloftheevidence,one

60

whichfavourstheaccusedshouldbeaccepted. (22) 1994 SCC (Cri) 851 in case of Rampal Pithwa Rahidas & OthersV.StateofMaharashtra:' Thequalityofanation'scivilisation,itissaid,canbelargely measuredbythemethodsitusesintheenforcementofcriminallawand goingbythemannerinwhichtheinvestigatingagencyactedinthiscase causes concern to us. In every civilised society the police force is invested with the powers of investigation of the crime to secure punishmentforthecriminalanditisintheinterestofthesocietythatthe investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secureconvictionbecausesuchactsshaketheconfidenceofthecommon mannotonlyintheinvestigatingagencybutintheultimateanalysisin the system of dispensation of criminal justice. Let no guilty man go unpunishedbutlettheendnotjustifythemeans!Thecourtsmustremain everalivetothistruism.Properresultsmustbeobtainedbyrecourseto propermeansotherwiseitwouldbeaninvitationtoanarchy. (23) 1996(1)GLR292incaseofStateofGujaratV.Hasmukh@ BhikhaGovaHarijan: Complaint cannot be treated as dying declaration until found genuine. (24) 1996(1)GLH1059 incaseofMohanlalAmarjiMarwadiV.

61

StateofGujarat: IndianEvidenceAct,1872Section3Appreciationofevidence Itwouldnotbeprudent andproperfortheCourttocondoneevery improvement, inconsistency, material omissions, contradictions and improbabilitiesateverystage.IfthisapproachisadoptedbytheCourt thenithasindeedallthepotentialitiestoplacetheCourtonthewrong trackofappreciationofevidence,whichcannevertaketheCourttothe correctdestinationofjustice. (25) 1997(3)Crimes160(SC)incaseofHarkrarSinghV.Stateof Punjab: MaterialcontradictioninevidenceoftwoeyewitnessesNoother legalevidencetoconnectwithoffencesConvictionisunsustainable. Contents of FIR can be used for purpose of corroborating or contradictingmakerofitifhewasexaminedandundernocircumstance assubstantiveevidence. (26) 1999(3)GLR2613incaseofStateofGujaratV.Mamubha PremsangjiJadeja&Ors.: No reliance can be placed when conflicting version in dying declarationontheaspectofnumberofaccusedetc. (27) 2004(4)Crimes235inthecaseofShivYadav@SheoRaut& OthersV.StateofBihar:

62

Where eye witness of incident of murder was examined by investigatingofficerafter14daysofincident,hisevidencecouldnotbe reliedontobaseconviction.

(28) 2004 Cr.L.R.(SC) 668 in the case of Kanoori (Smt.) Wd/o GumanaRamV.TheStateofRajasthan: Artificialprosecutionstorycannotbeaccepted.Probabilityofthe prosecutionstoryisthetest. (29) 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893 in the case of Narendra Singh and anotherV.StateofM.P.: Highlighted the principles in case of two views, suspicious howeverstrongcannotreplaceproof,presumptionofinnocenceofthe accusedishishumanrightandbenefitofdoubttogotoaccused. (30) 2005Cr.L.J.120inthecaseofStateofMaharashtraV.Sanjay D.Rajhans: Evidence Act (1 of 1872) Section 32 Dying declaration Reliability More than one dying declarations Not the plurality of dying declarations that adds weight to prosecution case but their qualitative worth Dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspirefullconfidence.

63

(31) 2005SAR(Criminal)543inthecaseofIdrishbhaiDaudbhaiV. StateofGujarat: Section34CommonintentiontocommitoffenceHoldingguilty ofsharingEvidenceforFailureofprosecutiontobringmaterialson recordtoshowthattherehadbeenanypreconcertorprearrangedplan. Common intention implies acting in concert existence of a pre arranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct or from circumstancesorfromanyincriminatingfacts. (32) 2006Cr.L.J.726inthecaseofA.K.Chaudhary&AnotherV. StateofGujarat&Others: Direct & alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Knowledge, intention and proximateassistancerelatingtocrimearemust. Life is dear to everybody and death is painful to one and all. Should sentiments prevail on discipline for the administration of any institution?Cansentimentsbeallowedtobeenforcedoverruleoflaw? Cantheactionorinactionorproprietyofactionorinactiontodischarge legalobligationbesaidasanaidorinstigationorabetmenttocommit suicide? (33) AIR 2006 SC 2992 in the case of Pardeepkumar V. Union Administration,Chandigarh:

64

To bring the offence of rape within the purview of S.376(2)(g) IndianPenalCodereadwithExplanation1tothissection,itisnecessary fortheprosecutiontoprove:(i)thatmorethanonepersonhadactedin concertwiththecommonintentiontocommitrapeonthevictim;(ii)that morethanoneaccusedhadactedinconcertincommissionofcrimeof rapewithprearrangedplan,priormeetingofmindandwithelementof participationinaction.Commonintentionwouldbeactioninconsortin prearrangedplanoraplanformedsuddenlyatthetimeofcommissionof offencewhichisreflectedbyelementofparticipationinactionorbythe proofofthefactofinactiontheprosecutionwouldbenecessary. Theprosecutionwouldberequiredtoprovepremeetingofmindof accusedpersonspriortocommissionofoffenceofrapebysubstantial evidenceorbycircumstantialevidence;andthatinfurtheranceofsuch commonintentiononeormorepersonsofthegroupactuallycommitted offenceof rape onvictim.Prosecutionisnotrequiredtoproveactual commissionofrapebyeachandeveryaccusedforminggroup. (34) 2007(2)SCC(Cri)122inthecaseofSubhashHarnarayanji LaddhaV.StateofMaharashtra: Evidence Act, 1872 Section 60 Hearsay evidence AdmissibilityStatementmadebythewitnesstotheeffectthatshecame toknowaboutthetransactionfromanotherandhadnodirectknowledge thereaboutHeld,inadmissibleinevidence.

65

(35) 2007SAR(Criminal)385(A)inthecaseofStateofGoaV. SanjayThakranandanother:Oncircumstantialevidence.

(13VI)

SUBMISSIONOFA2ANDA3:

VideEXH.548learnedadvocateMr.Dhruvfortheaccusednos.2, 3,7and8hasextensivelyarguedinadditiontohiswrittensubmissions. Hehasmainlysubmittedthat:

(a)

Theinvestigationisnotgenuine,dishonest,attemptedto falsely

implicatetheaccuse.

(b)

PW3isnotcreditworthy,hasgivenselfexplanationatsomany

places during her deposition, has given many statements before the investigating agency, is an interested witness, discrepancy among the depositionofPW3,PW10andPW20proveshertobealyingwitness, sheisthewitnesshavingnopersonalknowledgeandherevidenceisa hearsayevidence.

(c)

AfterthedirectionfromHon'bleHighCourtofGujaratoffurther

investigation,nopleaofA2andA3hasbeeninvestigated.Notonlythat, but,theprosecutionhasnotexaminedanywitnesstoprovethatafair furtherinvestigationhasbeencarriedout.

(d)

F.I.R.EXH.283isnotadmissible,cannotbetermedtobedying

66

declaration,policeconstableMahendraSinh,AshabenandHatmatSinh havenotbeenexamined.

(e)

Afterdeathofthedeceasedvictimtheinvestigatingagencyhasnot

leftasinglestoneunturnedtogoonconcoctingfalsestoriesevenwithout securingoriginaldocumentstofalselyimplicatetheaccusedas,themedia trialwasongoing.

(f)

Thepanchnamasontherecord,moreparticularly,EXH.298,299,

etc.arenotreliable,doesnotsatisfiesonhavingfulfilledrequisitesof suchpanchnama.

(g)

Thedepositionoftheinvestigatingofficerisnotinthetuneofthe

prosecutioncasebut,issuggestiveofdefective,malafideanddishonest investigation.

Theinvestigatingagencyisdutyboundtoremainfairandneutral. Itwastheirdutytoexaminethedefenseofalibiputforthbytheaccused but,theinvestigationwasdonewithaclosedmindandwithaviewtosee toitthattheaccusedshouldfailinprovingtheirdefenseofalibi.

(h)

Thedeceasevictimdiedon7/01/2004andthePW49tookover

investigationon08/01/2004.ItisonlyafterthePW49steppedintothe investigationprocessthefalseimplicationofaccusedhasstarted.

67

(i)

TheinjuriesmentionedbyDr.Krupaben,thePW39isnottallying

withEXH.80medicalcertificateoftheCivilHospital.TheP.M.Noteis preparedtoshowinjuriesonthepersonofthedeceasedvictiminspiteof thefactthattheinquestpanchnamadoesnotmentionthesame. None of the accused are alleged to have behaved in disorderly manner in the public place, but, still however, the offence under the BombayProhibitionActhavebeenchargedagainsttheaccused. ThedepositionofthehandwritingexpertMr.J.J.Patel,needstobe discarded as a whole as, the readiness of the witness is lacking to examinethedocumentintheCourt.Thecomplaintalsocannotbetaken asadmissibleevidenceasthedeceasedvictimwasnotexaminedbefore theCourt.Sincetheallegedgangrapeisnotthedirectcauseofthedeath, thecomplaintEXH.283cannotbetakenasdyingdeclaration.Eventhe complaint cannot be read into evidence without oral evidence of the complainantinsupportthereof.

(j)

TheprinciplesonuseoftheF.I.R.,evidentialvalueoftheF.I.R.in

absenceoforalevidence,appreciationofevidence,panchnama,hostile witnessesinrapecases,impactofcontradictionsandselfexplanation,etc. clearly guide the Court to grant benefit of doubt to all the accused emergingontherecordofthecase.

(k)

TheF.I.R.hasnotallbeengivenbythedeceasedvictimandthat

68

thedefensehasfirmlyestablishedthatitwasgivenbythePW3.Hence, theF.I.R.CannotbebelievedasD.D.atallas,theauthorofithadnot died.Ithasbeenfurthersubmittedthatevenifthesameisbelievedas D.D.,partofitcannotbeseparatedinthecaseofrape.

Thestatementeveniftakenashavinggivenbythevictim,itcannot attractsec.32(1)oftheEvidenceAct.

Anythingreportedbythedeceasedvictimtoherfamilymembersis ahearsayevidence,whichisnoevidence.

(l)

EXH.283isthecomplaintwhere,mobilenumberisnotgiventhat

ofthedeceasedvictimbut,onemobilenumberonthenameofVaishali hasbeengiven,onlyword'underbridge'hasbeenmentioned,but,which underbridgehasnotbeenspecified,thereferenceoftheR.T.O.Number oftheMarutiZenCardoesnotseemstobeprobableandthataccording tomedicalreportalso,thedeceasedvictimwasnotinfitstateofmindto giveherversion. Consideringalltheaboveandconsideringthehistorynotedbythe accused No.11, in EXH.80 and EXH.281, the complaint cannot be believed to have been given by the deceased victim as, EXH.283 complaintandhistorynotedatEXH.80aredireoppositetoeachother. (m)

Fromtheversiongivenbytheaccused,theconfessionsifany,shall

69

havetobeignored,whereas,admissionsbytheaccused,canbetaken noteofbytheCourt. (n)

NumerousimprovedversionsofthePW3includingEXH.454by

thePW3andthemostactiveroleplayedbyPW3intheentirecase,it seemsthatitisPW3whohasgiventhecomplaintandnotthedeceased victim. (o)

Theprosecutionisnotconsistentaboutthegenesisofoccurrence,

place of the occurrence, time of the occurrence, implications of the personsintheoccurrenceandthatallthesecumulativelysuggestthatthe complaintisnotworthytobebelieved. (p) ThereismentioninthehistorybeforedoctoraboutvisitatB.R.

Farmofthedeceasedvictimalongwithsomeoftheaccusedbut,non mentionofthesameintheF.I.R.Iscreatingdoubttowhichtheaccused areentitledtoavailbenefit.

ItneedstobenotedthatthepresenceofA2andA3isnotinhistory givenbyeitherthedeceasedvictimoranyoftheaccused.AtEXH.281, themedicalcasepapers,thenameofA2hasnotbeenmentioned,thereis even discrepancy between EXH.283 the complaint and EXH.284 the declarativereport.

(q)

Thewholeprosecutioncaseandthedepositionofalmostallthe

prosecutionwitnessesarefullofcontradictions,fullofimprobabilities,

70

full of unbelievable evidences, exonerating some one and implicating someoneabruptlyandisfullofintersecontradictionshence,itisnotat allcreditworthyanditisnotsafetoactuponthesaidweakversionofthe prosecution.

(r)

PresenceofHemantandNaurinPW10andPW20respectively,

is the moot issue and that having various contradictions and improbabilities in their evidence, the presence of these two witnesses cannot be believed at the relevant night at the police station whose statements also have been taken at a very belated stage of the investigation.

(s)

PW3 is not corroborated byanyotherwitness,isaninterested

witness, is leaving and leading western style of life, havingdisturbed marriedlife,thoughmarriedtwice,havingasonof11yearsandstill callingthesaidsonayoungerbrother.Thestoryofnightlifeandclublife are the factors which are raising very strong and sustainable doubts againsttheprosecutionversionandhence,theprosecutionstorycannot besaidtobebelievablethroughtheversionofthiswitness.

(t)

Mr.J.J.Patel,thehandwritingexpertexaminedbytheprosecution

and Dr. Mittal the handwriting expert examined by the defense, are tellingoneandthesamethingthat,EXH.177,theredregisterandsuicide notearewritteninthehandwritingofonepersonbut,theonlydifference isthatthecaseoftheprosecutionisbasedonthefactthatbothofitare

71

writtenbythedeceasedvictimwhereas,thecaseofthedefenseisonthe footingthatitiswrittenbythePW3whichissupportedbythefactthat nonehasbeenexaminedbytheprosecutiontoidentifythehandwritingof thedeceasedvictim,nocertificateofthebeautyparlourclassesorthe statement whorunsthebeautyparlourcourse hasbeentakenoreven certificate of the said course on the deceased victim's name is not procuredandthatthePW3toldforthefirsttimeastotheauthorshipof EXH.177redcolouredregisterisofdeceasedvictimwhichallpointsout many doubt against the ever changing prosecution case. Hence, the defense version stands established against the baseless version of the prosecution.

(u)

In spite of the fact that the deceased victim was alive until

07/01/2004, still however, EXH.454, the application dated 06/01/2004 hasbeengivenbythePW3.Whereas,theroleofthebrother,fatherand motherofthedeceasedvictimisbelowthenegligiblerole.Thisshows totalinvolvementofthePW3inthewholeprocesswhichprovesthatthe complaintEXH.283wasgivenbyher.

(v)

PW39cannotbebelievedas,thesaidDr.Krupaben'sstatement

hadnotbeenrecordeduptill28/01/2004nor,thePW3referredherinher statementwhichisnotprobableatall.Moreover,theinjuriesstatedby Dr.Krupabentohaveseenonthepersonofdeceasedvictimareneither found by Dr. Jadav nor Dr. Parul at the Civil Hospital. Even on the cigarettebud,thesalivaofdeceasedvictim(groupB)isopinedinF.S.L.

72

OpinionEXH.335whichisselfexplaining.

(w)

NonexaminationofanofficialofSolapolicestationandpolice

chawky and a person of the control room, police constable Ashaben, Mahendrasinh, Yash the child of PW3, the police official who providedshawltothedeceasedvictimwhocametodropthedeceased victimandthepolicemanwhowasalongwithheronthemotorbike,etc. isapointertolotsofimprobilitiesandcreationinthewholeprosecution story.

(x)

ThetelephoneprintoutsofPW3,deceasedvictim,A1,A2,A3,

etc.broughtonrecordbytherequestofdefenceareforged,concocted and bogus evidence which are apparently, tampered with by the investigatingagencytofalselyimplicatetheaccused.Though,themobile operators have been sited as witnesses, but, have not been examined. Hence,theburdenisheavilycastedontheprosecutionofprovingthe guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which cannot be termed to have been satisfactorilydischarged.

Themarkedportion,thepencilledunderlineonthexeroxcopiesof themobileprintoutsofdifferentpersonswhichwererelieduponbythe investigationareclearlytomisguidetheCourt.Thesealterationonthe printoutcastseriousdoubts.

(y)

Series of omissions and lapses committed by the PW49 were

73

extensively and elaborately discussed by the learned advocate for the defensebyharpinguponthefactthattheprintoutEXH.:365,366,394, 385to388,391,395etc.aretamperedwith.Submissionontheaspectof alltheprintoutsonrecordweremadequiteminutelybylearnedadvocate Mr.H.M.Dhruvafortheaccusedwhich,whiledealingwiththeissue, shallhavetobediscussedagainsthence,thepartofthesubmissionon printouthasbeenavoidednotingherebut,thesameshallbediscussedat appropriateplaceinthejudgmentwhichwouldavoidrepetition.

(z)

NoevidenceagainsttheaccusedNos.7and8hasbeenprovedby

theprosecution,nothingissuggestivethatthematerialshownfromroom No.106and205waseverlyinginthoserooms,iflying,itwasremoved anddestroyedbytheaccused,theknowledgeoftheaccusedNos.7and8 aboutanyoffenceisamatterofdoubt,thereisabsolutelynoindependent evidence,EXH.209cannotbetermedtobeapanchnamau/s.27ofthe Evidence Act, EXH.312 is the panchnama drawn on 23/01/2004 and EXH.209 panchnama is dated 25/01/2004 by which the investigating agencyhaspossessedknowledgeastowherethearticlesarelyingand thatforthesaidreasonpanchnamaEXH.209isofnoworthmuchless,to callitdiscoverypanchnamaatall.

(aa) EXH.352to354,thearrestpanchnamaaresuggestiveofhaving arrested the accused Nos. 7 to 9 from one place itself and that the signatureoftherelativeornameandaddressoftherelativearenotshown inthesamewhichshowsthatthearrestisnotbonafidearrest.

74

(bb) EXH.408istheorderofHon'bleTheHighCourtofGujaratand thatinspiteofthefactthataspecificdirectiontomakeinvestigationwith referencetothepresenceoftheaccused,thesamehasnotbeendone.Itis however,emphasizedthatunlesstheprosecutionprovesthecaseagainst the accused beyond reasonable doubts, the question of evaluating the defenseofalibiandtheproofthereofdoesnotarise. (cc) Bythedefensewitnessesmoreparticularly,DW4toDW8the defensehassuccessfullyprovedthatneitherA2norA3waspresentatthe date and time of the offence at the hotel Ashok Palace. Proprietary demandsthatD.C.P.ShriGadhviwhohassupervisedtheinvestigation oughtnothaveundertakentheresponsibilityoffurtherinvestigationbut, D.C.P.ShriGadhvididso.Hence,thesaidwitnesscannotbesaidtohave compliedwiththedirectionoftheHon'bleHighCourtofGujarat. (dd) Thedefensehaspositivelyestablisheditsdefenceofalibithrough differentdefensewitnesses.Evenintherepresentationdated09/02/2004 thesaidfacthasbeenplacedonrecord. (ee) PW3 has clearly admitted that the deceased victim gave an applicationdated03/01/2004exoneratingA2andA3fromthechargeof gangrapeandthateventhisaspectissufficientasarecapabletoraise doubtagainsttheprosecutionstory.

(ff)

Thoughasystematiccampaigntodisprovethedefenseofalibihad

75

beenon,theprintoutoftheprosecutionitselfreadwithsomepartofthe oralevidenceofPW3proveabsenceofA2andA3onthesaidnightat thesite.Itisinthecasewhentheprosecutionhasmiserablyfailedto provethepresenceofA2andA3.

(gg) The D.N.A. Report also proves that A2 and A3 have not done intercoursewiththedeceasedvictimhence,alsothewholeprosecution casebecomesthecaseofnooralevidenceatall.

(hh) Thecaseu/s.306ledbytheprosecutiontoprovethesuicidaldeath ofthedeceasedvictim,isevenaccordingtotheprosecutionadifferent casethanthiscaseandhence,thatcannotbesaidtobeapartofthesame transaction which is apart from the fact that there is no evidence of suicidaldeathofthedeceasedvictim.

Ithasbeenforcefullysubmittedthattheprosecutionhasmiserably failed to establish any case against any of the accused hence, no presumptionwhatsoeverofhavingcommittedgangrapetothedeceased victimcanbedrawnagainstthefiveaccused.Hence,alltheaccusedneed tobegrantedbenefitofdoubt.

(ii)

LearnedadvocateMr.Dhruvahasalsoharpeduponthemediatrial

as it has acted against the interest of the accused, by creating public opinion.

76

Hehassubmittedtohaveadoptedthecitationsoflearnedadvocate Mr.Sardarandhasadditionallyaddedthatwhilethestatementisnotasto thecauseofdeathofthemakerthan,thesaidcannotbeheldadmissible in judicial proceedings. It has been submitted that in the facts and circumstancesofthecase,EXH.283isnotastatementofthedeceased victimaccordingtothedefenseversionbut,withoutadmittingevenifthe saidstatementistakentobethestatementofthedeceasedvictimthen since, it is notadmissibleu/s.32oftheEvidenceActinviewofthe principlespropoundedbythejudgmentinthecasebetween:

(1)

Ratan Gond V/s. The State of Bihar reported at A.I.R. 1959 SupremeCourtpg.18. Emphasizing the principle narrated in paragraph 2 and 7 of the

judgmentitissubmittedthattheaccusedcannotbeheldguiltyas,the baseoftheprosecutioncase,i.e.thestatementbythedeceasedvictim,is notatalladmissibleinevidence.

Overandabovethis,learnedAdvocateMr.H.M.Dhruvhasalso relieduponthefollowingtwojudgments:

(2)

1984SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)261 inthematterbetween PurnaandAnotherV/s.StateofU.P.;

(A)

Generalandvaguetestimonyisnotacceptableinpreferenceofthe testimony based on personal knowledge about presence of the

77

accused.

(B)

Ifthepleaofalibiisbeingborneoutfromtherecordthesaidplea shouldbebelieved.

(3)

1997CRI.L.J.362(SC) inthemattersbetween BinayKumar Singh, Mirtunjay Sharma and another, Rajdeo Sharma and another, Madan Mohan Sharma, Krishan Kumar Sharma, BulakSharmaandothersandSurendraPrasadSingh@Godil SharmaV/s.StateofBihar(forall).

Presenceandparticipationoftheaccusedareburdenofprosecution afterdischargingwhich,onlythedefenceshallhavetoprovepleaofalibi.

(4)

AIR1981SC911DudhnathPandeyvs.StateofU.P. Thedefencewitnessesshouldbegivenequaltreatment.Disbelief

indefensewitnessesistraditionaloutlook.

(13VII)

SUBMISSIONOFA4:

Vide EXH. 557 learned advocate Mr. J.M. Panchal for the accused nos. 4 has extensively argued to urge to acquit the A4 submittingthat:

(a)

Thecaseoftheprosecutionofthegangrapeisoriginallyagainst

78

sixpersonsandthattheprosecutionsincemuststandonitslegsmust prove the case of gang rape by six persons on the victim but, the prosecutionkeepsonchangingitsversionquasite,numbersofaccused involved,presenceoftheaccused,etc. (b) Inthiscase,thereisnoeyewitnessasgenerallynotavailableinthe

rapecasesbutinthiscase,eventhevictimhasalsonotsteppedintothe witnessboxhencenoopportunityofcrossexaminingthesaidvictimwas availabletotheaccusedhence,theallegedcomplaintprojectedtohave beenrecordedbythevictimcannotbereadintoevidence. (c) NobodycanconstructanewprosecutioncaseincludingtheCourt.

There are numerous different versions even that of the victim which shouldalwaysfetchbenefitofdoubtinfavouroftheaccused. (d) Thewholeprosecutionstoryisnotapartofthesametransactionas

evensohasbeenacteduponbytheprosecution. (e) Theaccusedno.4hasgivenhisdetailedexplanationinthecourse

ofthefurtherstatementwherefromitisclearthattheA4hasnotatall intercoursedthedeceasedvictimonthesaidnight. (f) Itisadmittedthat: (i) The accused no.4 is married, highly educated, son of a knownindustrialist,fatheroftwosons,rich,reputedandis enjoyinghighstatusinthesociety.

79

(ii)

Thevictimwasaged24yearsoldwhocameatthesiteoutof herownfreewill,theFSLreportononeofthecigarettebutt suggeststhatthevictimtoohadsmokedthecigarette.This deceased victim came alone at night, left the house by misguidingherparents,wenttoenjoynewyearparty,puton asmallsizeofcloth,akindofminiskirtandasleevelesstop and as has been admitted in the complaint had also consumedliquor.

EXH.335theFSLreportoncigarettebudhasbeenemphasized. (g) Thedefensewitnessno.3hasadducedheroralevidenceconfirming

thatthevictimandhersistertheprosecutionwitnessno.3werelivingand leadingtheirlivesinwesternstyle,wereaccustomedfornightoutsand wereenjoyingpartiesatlatenight. (h) Themediatrialiscontinuouslyagainsttheaccusedasthenormal

tendency of public to have sympathy for middle class people and tendencytositagainstrich,influentialandpowerfulpeople. (i) Theapproachofthecourtshouldnotbemoralbutitshouldbein

accordancewithsettledlegalpositionofappreciationofevidenceandthat inthesedaysfalseimplicationandconcoctedallegationscannotberuled out. (j) Assuchthedirectevidenceisnotavailableinthecaseisthematter

offactandthatthewholecaseisbasedoncircumstantialevidence.The court is duty bound to be extra careful in the cases based on

80

circumstantial evidence. This being a criminal trial, the paramount principleofprobabilitycannotbeforgotten.Whatisnotprobablecan neverbetrueinspiteofanyattempttoexhibititasawholetruth. (k) FollowingpointswerehighlightedbytheLd.Advocate: (i) Nomedicalevidenceofrapewasavailableuntilthevictim died and ultimately, thereport of the post mortem of the deceasedvictimwasobtained. (ii) Falseinvolvementoftheaccusedistobepointedoutbythe accusedbuttheyarenotrequiredtoexplainmotivesfortheir falseimplication. (iii) Theprosecutionwitnessno.3hasstatedonoaththatshehad telephoned atthecontrolroomonthatnight butthenthe messageoryadirecordedatthecontrolroomhadneverbeen placed on record whichis suppressionof the FIRfirst in pointoftime. TheFIRtentativeEXH.283isnotadmittedlyfirstin pointoftime.FurtherthecomplainantisdeadandthisFIR cannot be proved by any other person hence, is not admissibleinevidence. (iv) Theincidentofthegangrapeandtheincidentofthedeathof the victim are the two different transactions but, the prosecutionblowshotandcoldandpressesittobeinthe

81

same transaction, but then, the prosecution could have movedthecourttohaveacommontrialofallthesessions casesbutthesaidhasnottakenplace. Further investigating officer common but still two differentchargesheetshavebeenframedinthetwocases andthatnoattemptwhatsoeverhasbeenmadetoclubboth theSessionsCasestogether. (v) Afterlodgingthecomplaint,ifthecomplainantdies,then unless the said complaint can be termed to be dying declaration,thesamecannotbeexhibited.Intheinstantcase, thecomplaintcannotbetermedtobedyingdeclarationas deathofthevictimisnotonaccountoftheinjurysustained byherduringtheincidentforwhichthecomplainthasbeen filed. (vi) The complaint EXH.283 has been filed with unexplained delayofmanyhoursandthatonaccountofthesaidfact evensection6oftheIndianEvidenceActisnotattractedin thefactandcircumstancesofthecase. (l) EvenifEXH.283istakenasitis,thenfollowingpointsneededto

be noted as are missing in the complaint and that questions the truthfulnessinthecomplaint. (i) Accordingtotheprosecutionwitnessno.3whenshefirstsawthe

82

deceasedvictimshewastotallynaked,clotheswerenotputonthe bodyofthedeceasedvictimbytheprosecutionwitnessno.3,the deceasedvictimwasonthebackseatofthecar,herunderwearwas lyinginthecar.Theprosecutionwitnessno.3givesanaccountas eyewitnesswhenshefirstsawthedeceasedvictimalongwiththe accusedno.1inthecarattheSolapetrolpumpon1.1.04atabout 4.30A.M.whiletheaccusedno.1wascomingoutofthebackseat ofthecarmendinghisclothes. Atthisstage,noconversationtookplacebetweenthetwosisters, theaccusedno.1wastryingtorunaway,lateronduringthecourse ofinvestigation,semenoftwopersonsfromtheseatcoverofthe carandintheyellowclothlyingbelowthedriverseatinthecarof theaccusedno.1foundwithsemenaspertheFSLreport.Asper page 3 of the deposition of prosecution witness no.3, the prosecutionwitnessno.3sawdeceasedvictimwhowasfoundin theworstsituation.Uponinquirybytheeldersisteri.e.Prosecution witness no.3, the accused no.1 replied that some tapories have madethissituationatthepetrolpump. Thequestioniswhethertheprosecutionisputtingupthecaseof gangrapeattheSolapetrolpumporisitattemptingtoputupthe case of gang rape at Ashok Palace change in the venue of commissionofrape Aspertheprosecutionwitnessno.3,theywenttonearbypolice station, police chawky,rangupthecontrolroombut where are

83

thosewitnesses?Theseareofficialwitnesseswhohavebeenkept back. 'Why' is the question to be replied by the prosecution Silenceoftheprosecutionisdentontheprosecutioncase.

Onpage4,theprosecutionwitnessno.3saysthatshewastryingto bringthevictimontheconsciousstageandthatwhilevictimhad coughed,itwaslearntthatshewasalive.Thisistallyingwiththe defensethatthetwosistershaveabsolutelynoconversationwith eachotheras,thevictim,evenaccordingtoprosecutioncase,was almostunconscious. (ii) Theprosecutionwitnessno.3atpara6,hasdeposedthatwhilethey proceededfromSolapolicestationtoShahibaugpolicestation,the victimcameintobetterpositionanduponinquiringbyprosecution witnessno.3tothedeceasedvictimastowhodidwhatandwho madethispositionofvictim?Thedeceasedvictimtoldherthat when she went to Hotel Ashok Palace, theywent to restaurant, whenaccusedno.3toldthatpassesforthedancepartyhavebeen arranged and then accused no.3 went away. Then after accused no.4toldthatthepasseswouldcomeandwewouldgo.Thenafter they went to the site of the dance party but there was none thereforetheycameback.Whilereturningfromthedanceparty, the deceased victim telephoned her from the phone of accused no.4. ThedeceasedvictiminformedPW3thatafterreachingatAshok

84

Palace,theaccusedno.1toaccusedno.4hadconsumedbeerand the accused no.4 told the deceased victim to take beer but she refused,theaccusedno.4hadthenbeatenthedeceasedvictimand then after accused no.1 to 4 and 12 raped the deceased victim. Firstlyaccusedno.4raped,inhispresence,accusedno.3raped,in presenceofaccusedno.3&4,accusedno.2rapedandthenafterin presenceofaccusedno.4,3&2,accusedno.1rapedthedeceased victim. (iii) Ithasbeensubmittedthatfirstlyaspertheversionofprosecution witnessno.43,victimwasnotinhersensesandsecondlyevenif,it isbelievedthatshewasinhersenses,oralversionofprosecution witnessno.43doesnottallywiththecomplaintandishittingthe prosecutioncase. Prosecutionwitnessno.43PoliceSubInspectorMr.Taraldeposed thatthevictimalongwithoneboyandonegirlcameat5.00A.M. on1.1.04atshahibaugpolicestation.Accordingtothiswitness,the victim was in drunkard position. This witness states that the complaint EXH.283 was against five accused whose names are mentionedinthecomplaint.Hereitwasemphasizedbythelearned advocateMr.Panchalthatthecaseoftheprosecutionisagainstthe fiveaccusedforthegangrapebut,isagainstsixandifthestoryof the PW3 is believed, then, against seven persons hence, this version,beingdifferentfromcomplaint,bothcannotbebelieved. Thiswitnesshasalsostatedthatthevictimcameat5.00A.M.But

85

uponseeingEXH.283,thecomplaintisfiledat7.45A.M.which showsthatupto7.45thevictimwasnotinsenses.Itistherefore notprobablethatpriorto5.00A.M.Thevictimwouldhavesaid anythingtotheprosecutionwitnessno.3.Probabilityistheprime testinthecriminaltrialandthatwhatisnotprobablecannotlay foundationfortheprosecutioncase. Even the official witnesses like PW43, if found untrustworthy, then, though they may be disinterested, their version has to be testedandtheirreliabilitycanbedecidedaccordingly. (iv) EXH.283isthecomplaintevenif,thecomplaintisbelievedinthe formasitis,thenitbecomesclearthatinthesaidcomplaint,the victimhasstatedthattherapewascommittedatroomno.106.As has been complained, upon oral insistence of accused no.4, the victimtookonepegofbearandthenaftertheaccusedno.4adopted courseofbeatinghertocompelhertoconsumethedrinkbeing consumedbytheaccused.Inthiscomplaint,ithasbeenalsostated thatalltheclotheswereremoved.Thequestionisiftheclothes havebeenremoved,theskirtofthevictimwherein14different cutshavebeenmadehasalsobeenremovedthenhowtherecanbe presenceofsemenontheremovedclothes.Further,itisjustnot probableasdoesnotseemswallowablethatinthepresenceofone man,anotherwouldcommitintercourseandthatinpresenceoftwo persons,thethirdwouldcommitintercourseandmoreparticularly brotherinlawcommitsintercourseinpresenceofsister'shusband i.e.Brotherinlaw.Thesecontentsareinherentlyimprobableand

86

that the complaint is the piece of document which cannot be believedatall. (v) Medicalcasepapersofthevictimarebroughtonrecordwherein version before Casualty Medical Officer made at 12.15 P.M. (noon) of 1.1.04 is brought on record through deposition of prosecutionwitnessno.40.EXH.80ismuddamalarticle74to79.If these documents are seen together, the version of the deceased victimbeforeCasualtyMedicalOfficerisfortheaccusedno.1to4 andaccusedno.12whichisnottallyingwiththevaryingcaseof theprosecution. (vi) EXH.561showsthealcoholinthebloodofthedeceasedvictimto beupto0.0531%.Ithasbeensubmittedthatthestatutorylevelof thealcoholis0.05%butthealcoholfoundthattooat12.15P.M.of 1.1.04i.e.aboutafter12hoursoftheincidentis0.0531%whichis certainly higher than the statutory level of alcohol. This would cometomeanthatevenafter12hourswhenthevictimhasnot reached to the normal levelofalcoholwhileherversionbefore PW43,at7:45a.m.mustbequitehigher.Thereforeshemustbe notinthesensesandmustbeunconsciouswithoutanyknowledge andsenseswhichcannotconcludeimprisonmentfortheaccused. (vii) Hadtherebeenforcibleadministrationofdrugsthanthesaidmust befoundsprinkledoverontheclothesofthevictimbutthatisnot found.Secondlythevictimhasstatedthattheyweretakingbear butthentoreach0.0531%ofthealcohol,thequantityofthebear

87

hastobeforsomuchquantity. (viii) In the history, name of accused no.2 to 4 & accused no.12 is writtenbutinthehistorynameofChandan&Mandanaremissing. Thisdifferenceinthehistoryat12.15P.M.andcomplaintat7.45 A.M.createsadoubt. (ix) InthecomplaintEXH.283,thestoryoffarmhouseanddanceparty are missing but, in the history, it is stated. The version before Causality Medical Officer and before police officer are not consistent.

(x)

Thereisnoreferenceofcarinboththedocuments.Inthehistory beforeCausalityMedicalOfficer,thereisonlymentionofword undercompulsionandthewordrapehasnotbeenused.

(xi)

Itisnobody'scasethathistorywasnotproperlyrecordedbythe Causality Medical Officer hence the same read with EXH.283 shouldbetallyingwitheachother.

(xii) Inthe medical evidence,guanococaiandspermatozoahavenot beenfoundfromthevaginalswabofthedeceasedvictim. (xiii) Dr.ParulBhargavandDr.N.R.Shahtheheadofthegynaecology departmentofcivilhospitalhavenotbeenexaminedaswitnesses.

88

(xiv) Newversionisbeforetheprosecutionwitnessno.39Dr.Krupaben. Inviewofaboveglaringmaterialomissiontheprosecutioncaseis undercloudsofmanydoubtswhichtherefore,guidetoholdthisa casetobefitcasetograntbenefitofdoubt. (xv) Theprosecutionhasoftenchangeditsstory.Atsomeofthepart, theparticipationofaccusedno.2and3ismissing,atsomeofthe part, name of the accused no.12 is missing, in EXH. 283 the complaint,accusedno.2and3havebeenexcluded.Thisallshows theprosecutioncaseisunbelievableandfalse. (xvi) Theprosecutionhassuppressedtheapplicationofdeceasedvictim dated 3.1.04 which shows dishonesty of the prosecution. The prosecutionhasalsosuppressednumerousdocumentswhichitself issuggestivethattherearenumerousdoubtsontherecordofthe case. (xvii) Theversionofthevictimtoooftengetschanged.Theversionof thevictimisincontradictionwiththedepositionofprosecution witness no.3, themention ofthecarbytheprosecutionwitness no.3isnowherementionedbythevictimandthatitisinconsistent witheachother. (xviii)Accusedno.2and3arerealbrothers.Accusedno.4&12arereal brotherinlawstoeachotherhenceintercourseinpresenceofone anotherismostimprobableanddoesnotstandtoreason.

89

(m)

EXH.297isthepanchnamadrawnon1.1.04atabout10.00a.mIn

thispanchnama,noapparentstainshavebeennotedascanbeseenat item number 3 in this panchnama while it being read with complaint EXH.283,medicalcasepaperEXH.80,itbecomesclearthatitisablack skirtandseminalstainsonblackskirtcaneasilybeseenbynakedeyesas eventhecrustyappearancewouldgiveanevidenceofhavingseminal stainsbut,EXH.335page2issuggestiveof14dotsontheskirtofthe deceasedvictim.Theprosecutionwitnessno.11,page6,para6istothe effectthatwhiletheclothesofthevictimwererecovered,itdidnothave anystains.Prosecutionwitnessno.48page16alsoneedstobeseen. (n) ThereportoftheDNAcannotbebelievedforthereasonthatalong

withsemenoftheaccused,therehastobevaginalsecretionbutinthe instantcase,thereisnone.Panchnamadrawnon1.1.04atabout11.30 A.M., the deceased victim has admittedthatnothing hadhappenedat room no.205 but it is surprising that still however vide EXH.299 panchnamainpresenceofFSLofficerMr.Pathakforroomno.106&205 were drawn and on 1.1.04 at about 15.00 P.M., certain items were recovered. (o) On 16.1.04 at about 11.50 A.M. a detail panchnama has been

preparedbyanotherInvestigatingOfficer.Thisisthedateandthetime which is after obtaining the semen sample from the accused no.4. EXH.257themedicalcertificateoftheaccusedno.4iscleartostatethat saliva,semenandbloodwerecollectedoftheaccusedno.4.Itistherefore verymuchprobablethatthesaidsamplesmighthavebeenusedtofalsely

90

implicatetheaccusedno.4becausehaditnotbeenso,theFSLmight haveusedsemenforDNAtestbutthesampleofthebloodoftheaccused no.4hasbeenutilizedforthesaidpurpose.Prosecutionwitnessno.37isa treatingdoctorofaccusedno.4whosedepositionisalsototheeffectthat accusedno.4wasexaminedon16.1.04. (p) UponperusalofEXH.307,itbecomesclearthattheteamofthe

FSLwasinvitedtoassisttheinvestigatingagency.OneShriM.M.Pathak whowasverymuchpresenton1.1.04wasalsopresenton16.1.04.This pointissuggestiveofthefactthatundertheguiseofdetailedpanchnama on16/01/2004,theinvestigatingagencyhastriedtoprobetoexhibitnew recoveriesonrecordafterabout16daysoftheinvestigationandafter about15daysoftheallegedoffence. Uponperusalofthepanchnama,itseemsthatroomno.106&205 oftheHotelweresealedbutthenitisquitesurprisingthaton16.1.04the saidsealshadbeenopenedupforwhichpurposenopermissionhasbeen obtainedfromthecourt.Ld.AdvocateMr.Panchalhasemphasizedthat theveryobjectofapplyingsealstoboththeroomstomakeboththeroom tamperprooftoseetoitthatthechancestotamperisavoided.But,here the whole object is frustrated. This panchnama is a document in an attempttofilluplacunaoftheprosecutioncase. (q) Thereportfromthecarseatsoftheaccusedno.1issuggestivethat

thegangrapehasbeencommittedinthecaroftheaccusedno.1.Here again,theprosecutioncasechanges. (r) Itneedstobenotedthattheaccusedno.4hasnotcompelledthe

91

deceasedvictimtocomeatthehotel.Shecameofherown.Eventhe prosecutionwitnessno.3wasaccompanyingher.Asfarastheirvisitof thehotelinthenoonisconcerned,whenitisanadmittedpositionthat whileprosecutionwitnessno.3waswaitingintherestaurantinthenoon andthevictimwentalongwiththeaccusedno.4insidetheroomwhich suggeststhatthequestionofrapeintheeveningistotallyoutofquestion. (s) (i) (ii) Followingpositionarealsoadmittedbytheaccusedno.4: Hehadloveaffairsforabouttwoyearswiththevictim, TherewasexchangeofSMSwitheachother,

(iii) Frequent calls i.e. telephone calls on mobile were common betweenthetwo, (iv) Theaccusedno.4cametoAhmedabadandstayedatHotelAshok Palaceon31.12.03, (v) Thevictimalongwiththeprosecutionwitnessno.3visitedHotel AshokPalaceatnoon,stayedthereforabouttwothreehoursat whichpointoftime,theprosecutionwitnessno.3waswaitingin therestaurantandtheaccusedno.4andthevictimremainedinside theroom. In view of the above admitted position, Ld. Advocate for the accusedno.4hasmainlysubmittedthattheprosecutioncasehas failedinthetestofprobabilitywhichisthereforehighlyuncreditworthy. (t) Inviewofthepropoundedprinciplesofcriminaljusticedelivery

92

system, when there are two possibilities, one which is favouring the accusedneedstobeacceptedandthecasewhentheaccusedisentitledto givebenefitofdoubt,thesaidshouldbegrantedtotheaccused. (u) It has been emphasizedbyLd.AdvocateMr.J.M. Panchalthat

EXH.138aforwardingletteraddressedtoFSLissuggestingthefact thattherewereinalleightarticlessentfortheexamination.Thisletteris dt.17.01.2004andthatinviewofthis,reportsEXH.141,144,151and 153ifarereadwiththedepositionofPW11andthatofDNAExpert,it becomesclearthatassuch,ACPInvestigatingOfficerhasnoreasonto cometotheconclusionthatminutesearchisrequired.Itisalsosurprising that when the deceased victim herself is stating on the very first day whichhasbeenrecordedinthepanchnamadt.01.01.2004thatnothing hadhappenedinroomno.205ofAshokPalaceHotelandshewasraped inroomno.106,forwhatreasontheminutesearchwascarriedoutin roomno.205whichremainsasamystery.Itisalsoastonishingthatthe saidminutesearchwascarriedoutfrom8:30p.m.to11:30p.m.wherein thesampleswerecollectedwithoutobtaininganyorderfromtheCourtof laweventoopenthesealappliedon01.01.2004. (v) The outcome of DNA test can never be termed as a final and

conclusive proof, as the fact of contamination, lack of proper preservation,sendingthesamplesintimeandinthecaseonthehanditis acaseofmixedsemenwhichcannevergiveconcludingresults.These arethehurdlesinthewayoftreatingthereportastheconclusiveone.

93

(w) PW11hasadmittedthatafterreceivingthesamplesatFSL,hehas carriedoutthetestonlyontheselecteditemsforwhichnoexplanation whatsoever has been given by PW11. In view of the propounded principles,nocredibilitycanbeattachedtoPW11asthetesttoconsider theofficialwitnesstobecrediblewhentheofficialwitnessdoeshisduty honestly,butintheinstantcasePW11Dr.AnilMehta,DNAExpert does not seem to have performed his duty as he is expected of and therefore,thiswitnesshasnotofferedanyassistancetotheprosecution caseandhasratheraddeddoubtsagainstprosecutioncase. (x) IncaseofA1,serologicalreportandDNAarematching,butin

caseofA4nocorroborationoftheDNAreportisavailable.Thearticles collected from the room no.106 have been shown with existence of semen,butitcannotshowvaginalsecretionofdeceasedvictim. (y) EXH.150andEXH.151aretheFSLreportswhereinEXH.151is

forthetestofloquiintheDNA.Atthisjuncture,sincethisattemptis madeaftergettingthesamplesofA4,itclearlylinksitwithcloudsof doubtofplantationbyuseofsemensamplesofA4tofalselyimplicate A4. (z) Thedutyofthedefenceisonlytoprobabalizethedefenceandthat

theprosecutionhasalwaystodischargetheburdenofprovingtheguiltof theaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubtwhichtheprosecutionhasfailed. (aa) The prosecution case has not maintained consistency on the materialaspectaboutthenumberofaccusedinvolved.Thisitselfissuch

94

avitalfactorwhichissufficienttodisbelievetheprosecutioncaseand/ ortodrawanadverseinferenceagainsttheprosecutioncase. (bb) PW2isthedoctorofpaneloffourdoctorswhichhascarriedout thepostmortemexamination.Onconjointreadingofreplyofquestions no.162,163,182,194,195,199,200and281,itseemsthatexceptincase ofpenilepenetrationthekindoftheinjuryinuterusisjustimpossible. Asperthepostmortemreport,injuriesintheuterushavebeennoted.On the other hand, the prosecution has miserably failed even to establish sexual intercourse on the deceased victim, hence the proving of commissionofrapeistoofar. It cannot beforgottenthathealingprocessisoneofthenatural process of biological mechanism of everyindividual.Hadtheinjuries beencausedontheinterveningnightof31.12.2003and01.01.2004,then on 07.01.2004 when the deceased victim died the process of healing wouldhavealreadycuredher,exceptinacasetheinjuriesmighthave causedduringlast23daysofdeathofthedeceasedvictim. (cc) As per the postmortem report all the four penal doctors have signedthereporton08.01.2004,butthesaidreporthadbeenhandedover totheInvestigatingOfficeron12.01.2004.Theactofkeepingthereport inthecustodyofPW1evenafterthesamewassignedbythemembers of penal is suggestive of thefact thatthesaidreport waskeptatthe instanceofthepersonwhowasinterestedinconcoctingsomethinginthe report.

95

(dd) Thecaseofthedeceasedvictimisnotconsistent,nottrustworthy andnotreliableasshewentonchangingnumberofaccusedinvolvedin thecrime,theroleplayedbydifferentaccusedandtheplaceofthecrime whetheritisroomno.106orroomno.205ofAshokPalaceHotelorthe carofA1.Itbecomesclearthatthephysicalconditionofthedeceased victimwastooweakandthatascanbeseenfromthereportoftheFSL, evenat12:15p.m.shewashaving0.531levelofalcoholinherblood. Thefalsityandtrutharesointermingledwitheachotherthatitisnot separablenow.Hence,theaccusedisentitledtoclaimbenefitofdoubt. (ee) PW3hasgivenherdepositionontheinformationreceivedfrom thedeceasedvictim.PW10andPW20respectivelyonpage3andpage 1 of their depositions are also stating of their having no personal knowledgeabouttheoccurrence.Allthethreeprosecutionwitnesseshave not deposed on the basis of their personal knowledge, hence, their evidenceisbasedonhearsayevidenceandthesameisnotadmissiblein law.Theprosecution,therefore,isnotentitledtobaseitscaseonthesaid threeprosecutionwitnesses. (ff) EXH.94isthestatement/applicationdt.17.01.2004giventothe

National Commission for Women by the elder sister of the deceased victim(PW3)isnottallyingwithherowndeposition. (gg) What comes on record is suspicious conduct of Naurin and Hemant,unnaturalconductofPW3,falseandflimsyexplanationwith full of infirmities, contradictions, omissions, etc. which make the

96

prosecution'scaseimprobableoneandresultantly,nonbelievableone. (hh) PW43hasnotbeendeclaredhostiletothecaseofprosecution. Thefirstversionbeforehimisnotonrecord.Thissuppressionbythe State machinery suggests malice, dishonesty, ulterior motive and is a clearpointertothetruthoftheallegationoftheinvestigationbeingunfair andimproper. (ii) Thewitnessesintheinstantcasearenotatallfairwitnesseswho

arealwaysfoundtohavemadealleffortstosuppressthegenesisofthe prosecutioncaseandhence,theycanneverbereliedupon.PW43on page14 states that he has not seen the injuries on the person of the deceasedvictimwhichwouldsuggestthattherewasnoinjuryforwhich hueandcryhasbeenmade. (jj) Tobelievethedocumenttobeadyingdeclaration,consistencyis

thetestapartfromitbeingtruthfulandvoluntary.Itissatisfactionof conscienceoftheCourtwhichisinsuchcasesaprimeconsideration.The onus cannot be automatically shifted. It can only be shifted if the prosecutionprovesitscasebeyondreasonabledoubtbyadducinglegal, reliableandimpeachablesubstantialevidence. (kk) PW49 is the Investigating Officer of the rank of ACP. His depositionatpage120onwardsneedstobeweighedwithEXH.563the complaintgivenbyPW3on13.01.2004.

(ll)

Theversionofthedeceasedvictimisthroughoutinconsistentqua

97

complicityoftheaccused,theplaceofoccurrence,droppingofmaterial witnesses by the prosecution, pick and choose theory adopted by the Investigating Officer, unfair and dishonest investigation, total lack of investigationofthe carofA1,thecaseofmediatrial,circumstantial evidence being in favour of the accused rather than in favour of the deceased victim and over projection of PW3, the one who has masterminded the investigation are the elements which create doubts about the culpability of A1 to A4 andA12. Hence, it is a fit case whereinalltheaccusedneedtobegivenbenefitofdoubtandshouldbe acquittedaccordingly. (mm) CITATIONSOFA4: AuthoritiesrelieduponbyLd.AdvocateMr.J.M.Panchal appearingfortheaccusedno.4. (1) In case of Vijaysing Dharmdas Thakkar V/s. The State of

Gujaratreportedin1996(1)GLHP.971ithasbeenobservedthatu/s.25 oftheEvidenceActtheconfessionalstatementmadebeforethepoliceby theaccusedisinadmissibleintheevidenceandtherefore,itcannotbe takenintoaccountatall. (2) Incaseof SukhabhaialiasSukhaDhamjibhaiChaudharyV/s.

TheStateofGujaratreportedin1985GLHP.882ithasbeenobserved thatthepartwhichisconfessedbytheaccusedbeforethepoliceneedsto beexcluded. (3) Incaseof AghnooNagesiaV/s.StateofBihar reportedin AIR

1966SupremeCourtP.119ithasbeenobservedthatalittlereflection

98

willshowthattheexpressionconfessioninSs.24to30oftheEvidence Actreferstotheconfessionalstatementasawholeincludingnotonlythe admissionoftheoffence,butalsoallotheradmissionsofincriminating factsrelatedtotheoffence. (4) Para176ofcaseofState(NCTofDelhi)V/s.NavjotSandhu@

Afsan Guru reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.1715 (Parliament Attack Case) has been emphasized to submit that the contentsfromthemediainterviewarenotadmissible. (5) In case of Kappinaiah V/s. Emperor reported in AIR 1931

MadrasP.233(2)aftercommissionofrapethevictimwomancommitted suicideafterthreedays.Thequestionastowhetherherstatementcanbe treatedasdyingdeclarationu/s.32andSection6oftheEvidenceActhas been replied by the English Judges in negation. It has been observed thereinthattherapeisnotthecauseofherdeathortransactionresulting indeathandthestatementmadebythevictimimmediatelyaftershehad beenravishedisnotadmissibleinevidenceu/s.8onaccountofthefact thatthevictimhasnotsteppedintothewitnessandresultantly,thesaid statement can neither be confirmed nor corroborated and that her complaintcannotbeprovedasSection8oftheEvidenceActmakesit inadmissibleinlaw. IthasbeenalsoobservedthatSection8coverstherelevancy

ofconduct.Iftheconductofawomanwhohasbeenravishedissuchthat shelodgesacomplaint,thenthatconductisrelevantandthetermsin whichthecomplaintwasmadearerelevantasconduct,buttheyarenot

99

relevantasdirectproofoftheact.Theparticularsofthecomplaintmayso farastheyrelatetothechargeagainsttheprisoner,begiveninevidence not as being evidence of facts complained of, but as evidence of the consistencyoftheconductofthewomanwiththestorytoldbyherinthe witnessboxandasnegatingconsentonherpart. (6) Caseof SudhakarV/s.StateofMaharashtra reportedin AIR

2000 Supreme Court P.2602 has been relied upon and it has been submittedthatthemootquestioniswhethereverywomansubjectedto rape would commit suicide and it is a normal tendency and normal behaviourofthevictimandifthereplyisinnegation,itcannotbesaidin the instant case that the deceased victim has committed suicide on accountinstigationoractiveabetmentbytheaccused. (7) Case of Bhagirath V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

AIR1976SupremeCourtP.975hasbeenreliedupontosubmitthatthe Courtcannotmakeanewcaseforprosecutionandconvicttheaccused. (8) CaseofSahajRamV/s.TheStateofU.P.reportedinAIR1978

SupremeCourtP.618hasbeenreliedupontosubmitthatreconstruction oftheprosecutioncaseisnotpermissible. (9) CaseofTheStateofU.P.V/s.HariPrasadreportedinAIR1974

SupremeCourtP.1740hasbeenreliedupontosubmitthatitisnotopen totheprosecutiontoasktheCourttodiscardtheverysubstratumoftheir caseandtoconstructanewtheoryfoundedonahypothesis.

100

(10) IncaseonM.P.LohiaV/s.StateofWestBengalreportedinAIR 2005SupremeCourtP.790themediatrialhasbeendeprecatedwhichis used for creating public opinion. It has also been deprecated on the groundthatitamounttointerferencewiththeadministrationofjustice. (11) Incaseof DilavarHussainS/o.MohammadbhaiLaliwalaV/s. StateofGujaratreportedinAIR1991SupremeCourtP.56andincase of Datar Singh V/s. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1974 SupremeCourt P.1193 andincaseof State(DelhiAdministration) V/s.LaxmanKumarreportedin1986SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.2 ithasbeenobservedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtthatemotionsand sentimentshavenoroletoplayintheadministrationofjustice.

(12) IncaseofAkhileshHajamV/s.StateofBiharreportedin1995 SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.883ithasbeenobservedthatemotional considerationscannottaketheplaceofproof. (13) In case of Mahendra Shamaldas Soni V/s. State of Gujarat reportedin1993(1)GLRP.616istoappreciatetheevidenceincaseof circumstantialevidence. (14) Emphasizing upon the case of Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.733 and the case of Harishchandra Ladaku Thange V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 1 Supreme

101

CourtCases(Cri)P.755 ithasbeensubmittedthatpara10to16are propoundingtheprinciplethattheCourtcandrawaninferenceofguilt, whenalltheincriminatingfactsandcircumstancesarefoundtobetotally incompatible with the innocence of accused. The circumstances shall havetobeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtandthesameshouldbefully establishedandallthefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywith thehypothesisoftheguiltoftheaccusedandthecircumstancesshouldbe ofaconclusivenatureandtendencyandtheprosecutionshouldbeableto prove that thechainis completeevenafterlookingatthedefenceby rememberingtheprinciplethatthesuspicionhowevergrave,itcannotbe asubstituteofaproof.

(15) In case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit V/s. State of Maharashtrareportedin1981Cri.L.J.P.325isalsoontheprinciplesto bekeptincenterincaseofcircumstantialevidence. (16) Caseof SharadBirdhichandSardaV/s.StateofMaharashtra reportedinAIR1984SupremeCourtP.1622andcaseofMoolChand V/s. Jagdish Singh Bedi reported in 1992Cri.L.J. P.1539 are relied upontosubmitthatwhentwoviewsfromtheevidencearepossible,the onewhichisfavourabletotheaccused,shouldbeaccepted. (17) Ram Singh V/s. Sonia reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.1 when in police custody the extra judicial confession cannotbetermedtobeanadmissionasevenforatemporaryperiodthe custodyhasbeenwithdrawn.

102

(18) Para26ofthecaseof SubhashChandV/s.StateofRajasthan reportedin 2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.256 isemphasizedto emphasistheprinciplethattheprosecutionshouldprovethecaseagainst the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence of Investigating Officer should be rhythmatically explaining the chain of eventstakenaspartofinvestigation. (19) Emphasizing on para21 of the case of Sohan V/s. State of Haryana reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.587 it has been submitted that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accusedkeepsonmovingwiththeaccused. (20) Case of Mohanlal Amarji Marwadi V/s. State of Gujarat reportedin 1996(1)GLHP.1059 isreliedupontosubmitthatwhile appreciatingtheevidence,theprobabilityshouldbetakenasamaster key. (21) Emphasis is supplied on para16 of the case of Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.1198 to submit that there cannot be universalapplicationthatnoladywouldputhercharacteratstake.Each caseshallhavetobedeterminedonthetouchstoneoffactualmatrixof thecase. (22) IncaseofNarayanAliasNaranV/s.StateofRajasthanreported in(2007)3SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.198ithasbeenobservedthat

103

whentheevidenceofprosecutrixisfoundtobefullofcontradictions withoutanycorroboration,itcannotbecomeasolebasetoconvictthe accused. (23) Para6ofcaseofBibhishanV/s.StateofMaharashtrareported in 2008 Cr.L.J. P.721 has been emphasized to submit that when the evidenceofthedoctordoesnotshowanyinjuryonthepersonofthe prosecutrix,nosignofsemenwasfoundontheprivatepartofthebody andneitherherclothesweretornnortherewasanypresenceofhairofthe accusedontheprivatepartoftheprosecutrixandwhenafterexamining thegirl,thedoctordeposedthattheprosecutrixwashabituatedtosexual intercourse,theaccusedisentitledtobenefitofdoubt. (24) Para6 and 7 of case of Jinish Lal Sah V/s. State of Bihar reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) P.395 have been emphasizedtosubmitthatincaseonhand,theprosecutrixherselfhad planned her departure from her house and had willingly gone to the accusedno.4andinsuchasituation,inabsenceofanyothermaterialto showtothecontrary,theaccusedcannotbeheldliabletohaverapedthe prosecutrix. (25) Caseof B.N.SinghV/s.StateofGujarat reportedin AIR1990 Supreme Court P.1628 has been relied upon to highlight the test of probabilityasthechieftestforappreciationofevidenceincriminaltrial. (26) IncaseofAshokShankerbhaiV/s.StateofGujaratreportedin 1992(1)GLHP.509,ithasbeenobservedthatwhenthetendencyofthe

104

witnessistofalselyinvolvetheaccused,inabsenceofotherdependable evidence such kind of oral evidence should be eliminated from consideration, (27) In case of Arjun Marik V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1994 SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.1551ithasbeenobservedthattheCourt should scrutinize the evidence with extraordinary care by close and minutescrutinyoftheevidence. (28) Case of Shyama Sundar Hantal V/s. State reported in 1982 Cri.L.J.NOCP.202(Orissa) hasbeenreliedupontoemphasizethat working of the human mind ismysterious.It isnotnecessaryfor the defence to show as to whysomeof thewitnesses haveappearedand testifiedagainsttheaccused. (29) IncaseofRambilasV/s.StateofM.P.reportedin1997Supreme CourtCases(Cri)P.1222,ithasbeenobservedthatlackofmotiveto falselyimplicatetheaccusedbythewitnessisnogroundtobelievethe evidenceputforth. (30) IncaseofHarkiratSinghV/s.StateofPunjabreportedin1997 SupremeCourtCases(Cri)P.1068ithasbeenheldthatinviewofthe materialcontradictions,theevidenceoftwooftheeyewitnesseswasnot foundreliableandtheconvictioninthateventwassetaside. (31) Incaseof SukharV/s.StateofUttarPradesh reportedin 2000 Cri.L.J.P.29ithasbeenobservedthatincaseofchanceoffabrication,

105

Section6oftheIndianEvidenceActandmoreparticularlyruleof res gestaecannotbemadeapplicable. Section6oftheIndianEvidenceActisanexceptiontothegeneral rulewhereunderthehearsayevidencebecomesadmissible,buttobring suchhearsayevidencewithintheprovisionsofSection6oftheIndian Evidence Act, one is required to establish that it must be almost contemporaneouswiththeactsandthereshouldnotbeanintervalwhich wouldallowfabrication. (32) CaseofBawanKumarV/s.StateofM.P.reportedinAIR1994 SupremeCourtP.1251 andcaseof UmaShankarV/s.StateofU.P. reportedinAIR1979SupremeCourtP.1456arereliedupontosubmit thatwhenthewitnessisfoundobligingwitness,hisevidenceshouldbe discardedasawhole.ItwassubmittedthatthePW3too,hasattempted toobligeA2andA3. (33) CaseofNaginSomaV/s.TheStateofGujaratreportedin1966 GLR P.306 has been relied upon to submit that the incriminating statement of the accusedshouldbebracketedasapracticein case of panchnama. (34) IncaseofMayurPanabhaiShahV/s.StateofGujaratreported in1982Cri.L.J.P.1972ithasbeenobservedthattheoralevidenceofthe doctoralsoneedstobeappreciatedlikeanyotherwitnesses. (35) Case of State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Gulzarilal Tandon

106

reportedin AIR1979SupremeCourtP.1382 hasbeenrelieduponto submitthattheevidencegivenbyanexpertu/s.45oftheEvidenceActis nothing,butcorroborativepieceofevidenceanditshouldbetakeninthat spiritonly. (36) Caseof SubhashbhaiChandubhaiPatelV/s.StateofGujarat reportedin 2007Cri.L.J.P.320 hasbeenreliedupontosubmitthatin caseoforalevidencetenderedonthestrengthofinformationgivenbythe deceased, the same being the hearsay evidence, is not admissible in evidence.

(13VIII)

SUBMISSIONOFA9:

LearnedadvocateMr.AmitM.PatelhassubmittedfortheA9that headoptstheargumentsoflearnedadvocateMr.Dhruvaandfurtheradds thatthereisnosubstantialevidenceagainsttheaccusedNo.9andthat there is nothing on record except the arrest memo which shows the addressarrestingtheA9atAhmedabadwhiletheaccusedisresiding admittedlyatAnandTownandthatthisisacaseoffalseinvolvement withulteriormotive.TheA9therefore,becomesentitledtobegranted clearcutacquittal.

(13IX)

SUBMISSIONOFA11:

The Learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Shah has given his written submissions for the accused No.11 vide EXH.527 and has orally submittedfortheA11.L.A.Mr.Dhruvhasevendidsimilarexercisefor

107

A7 and A8 alongwith for A2 and A3.L.A Mr.Sardar has also submitted for A8,6 and A10.All the above shall be discussed and appreciatedatpart4ofthejudgementwherecaseagainstA5toA11is tobediscussed.

(13X)

SUBMISSIONOFA12:

LearnedadvocateMr.ShethnawithlearnedadvocateMr.Aminfor A12hasforcefullysubmittedthatsec.32(1)oftheIndianEvidenceActis the exception of therulethathearsayevidenceisnoevidence.Inthe instancecase,itseemsmuchimprobableandunnaturalthatthebrotherin lawi.e.TheA12willtolerateillicitrelationshipofhisrealbrotherinlaw i.e.ofA4as,thatisagainsttheinterestofrealsisterofA12.

(a)

TheprosecutionhasfailedtoestablishthatA12isKaran@Montu

@ Dharmendra. It is just not possible that a person is known by 3 differentnames,whereas,thedocumentsproducedalongwiththeF.S.are suggesting that the A12 has only name that is Dharmendra and that identityofKaran@MontucannotbeattachedtoA12.TheidentityofA 12hasnotbeenestablishedbytheprosecutionhence,itremainsdoubtful andthebenefitofitneedstogoinfavourofA12.

(b)

TheTestIdentificationParadewherein,A12isattemptedtohave

beenprovedtohavebeenidentifiedbyPW3isnotbelievableforthe simplereasonthatpriortothetestidentificationparade,hisphotograph cameinthepress,thePW3nevergaveanyidentificationmarkwhichthe

108

A12hasverypeculiar.

(c)

ItisnotpossiblethatA4wouldintroducethedeceasedvictimto

theA12.Further,thepeculiarappearanceofA12requiresotherpersons ofthesimilarappearancetostandintheT.I.Paradewhowerenotmade available.

(d)

BeatingthedeceasedvictimbyA4doesnotsoundprobable,the

evidence of PW3 is a hearsay evidence, the possibility of anything wrong,ifhadhappened,isonlyinthecarofA1andhence,theneedleof suspiciontohavecommittedtheoffenceofrapeisonlyagainstA1and thegangrapeifany,ifatallhastakenplace,itmusthavetakenplacein thecarofA1.Thateventheseatcoverofthecararefoundwiththestain ofsementhattooofA1thattallieswiththepointertobeagainstA1 only.TheA12wassleepinginanotherroomandhadnobusinessto comeintheroomNo.106whichisnotevenvenueaccordingtoanother prosecutioncase.

(e)

As has been stated by PW3, A4 and deceased victim had soft

relationship and therefore, the possibility of any rape having been committedbyA4isoutofquestion.Moreover,thesister'shusbandwould neverintroducehisbrotherinlawashisfriend.Theseall,ifcumulatively seen, do not tally with the prosecution case and that the said raises numerous doubts against the prosecution version to be true as being highlyimprobable.

109

(f)

PW3 is not a witness of truth as, she said that though the

photograph of A12 came in the newspaper she had not seen it, but, applying our common sense, one can say that PW3 could not have resistedhertemptationtoseethenewspaperandthatinviewofthis,the testidentificationparadeisafarasandloosesitsanctity.

(g)

The A12 has been shown sometimes resident of Delhi and

sometimesresidentofJaipurandlastlyofAjmer.Thenameofthefather of A12 is not coming out during the process of investigation. Consideringthesaidversion,itseemsthattheprosecutionstoryisan unbelievableoneandisunabletoestablishedidentityofA12tobethe samepersonKaran.

(h)

PW45,PW49andPW43alongwithotherinvestigatingofficers,

arenotatallsupportingtheprosecutionversion.ThePW43hasadmitted on page 11 of his oral evidence that the fact that Karan @ Montu residentofJaipurwasinsertedontheinformationgivenbythePW3and that,thiswitnesshasalsoadmittedthatthereportshouldbeinaccordance withthecomplaintwhichisnotinthepresentcase.

(i)

PW48hasadmittedthatinformationalongwiththephotographs

came in the newspaper, PW49 admits that P.S.I. Parmar was sent to JaipurtoinvestigateaboutMontu@Karan.Thepanchnamadrawnbythe officerswhowentoutsidethecityofAhmedabadtoinquireaboutKaran

110

@ Montu have not brought on record their proceeding, that the information about the absconding accused has to be noted down in M.O.B.Registerwhichisnotdoneoverhereandthattheothernameof Dharmendrahavenotbeeninquiredinto.

(j)

PW44isthedoctorwhohasexaminedA12,whohasnotedthat

theaccusedNo.12hasamoleonhisnose,havingstainsofpimpleandis havingkeloid.PW21,theExecutiveMagistratehasadmittedthatA12 toldhimthathisnameisnotKaran@Montu.IdentityofA12isavital issueandthatD.N.A.EvidencesuggestnoninvolvementofA12,PW3 not reliable, suicide note cannot be treated as dying declaration, ascendanceofA12isnottrue,rather,hehassurrenderedhimselfandthat, the prosecution case, is not reliable and trustworthy being full of improbabilities, the charges against the accused No.12 do not stand proved beyond reasonable doubts and that the same therefore, should resultingrantofbenefitofdoubtinfavouroftheaccusedNo.12.

(k)

CITATIONSOFA12: Followingcitationshavebeenrelieduponbythelearnedadvocate

forA12: (1) 1989(Bar3scc)pg.4inthematterofSuryaMurthyV/s.Govind

Swamiandothers.Paragraph10&headnoteonEvidenceAct,Sec.9is reliedupontosubmitthat,ifphotographinthenewspaperisshownthen, much importance cannot be attached to the identification madeat the identificationparade.

111

(2)

A.I.R. 1970 SC pg. 1321 in the matter of Buddhsen and

another V/s. State of U.P. Head Note A, paragraph 7, has been emphasizedtosubmitthatthepurposeofaprioridentificationseemsto betestthetrustworthinessofthatevidenceandthatRuleofPrudence demands to look for corroboration. The test identification parade is mainly to satisfy the investigating agency of the bona fides of the prosecution witness and to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimonyintheCourt.

(3)

A.I.R.1972SCpg.110RahmanV/s.TheStateofU.P.Harping

upontheprincipleinheadnoteBitissubmittedthatabscondingbyitself isnotconclusiveeitherofguiltorofguiltyconscience.

(4)

A.I.R.1974SCpg.1193DatarSinghV/s.TheStateofPunjab

Itistofocusthesubmissionthatprosecutionisnotentitledtoderive benefit from the suspicious circumstances that the accused did not surrenderorwasnottraceable.

(5)

A.I.R.1939PrivyCouncil,47 PakalaNarayanSwamiV/s.

EmperorHighlightingheadnoteAitissubmittedthatcircumstances musthavesomeproximaterelationtotheactualoccurrenceandmustbe ofthetransactionwhichresultedinthedeathofthedeclarant.Ithasbeen submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish such circumstanceandthattheaccusedaretherefore,entitledtothebenefitof

112

doubt.

(6)

A.I.R.1964SC900MotiSingh&AnotherV/s.TheStateof

U.P.HeadnoteDwithreferencetoSec.32(1)oftheEvidenceAct,was focusedtosubmitthatintheinstantcase,since,thedeceasedvictimisnot provedtohavedied,asaresultofinjuryreceivedbyherintheincident, herstatementrelatingtothatincidentcannotbesaidtobethestatement as to the cause of her deathor astoanyof thecircumstancesof the transactionwhichresultedinherdeath.

(l)

Lastlyitwasfurthersubmittedthattheinvestigationisdefective,

improper,malafidetofalselyinvolvetheaccused,thePW3andPW49 are not witness of truth, thedeceasedvictimhas notsteppedinto the witnessbox,EXH.283isnotadmissibleinevidenceandthatthesuicide noteisnotwrittenbythedeceasedvictimandthatthehandwritingexpert examinedasDW9bythedefenseisthewitnessoftruthandthatthe defense put forth in the further statement and by way of cross examinationstrengthenedbytheoralevidenceofdefensewitnesseshas throwntheprosecutioncaseonthegroundandthatthiscaseneedstobe thrownbeyondtheboardas,nothingagainstanyoftheaccusedstands proved.

(13XI)

REPLYOFLd.Sp.P.P.:

LearnedSpecialP.P.Mr.A.P.Desaihasrepliedtheargumentsof

113

all the learned advocates for the defense emphasizing upon Sec.8, illustrationJ,Sec.11illustrationA,Sec.24to27oftheEvidenceActto befavouringthecaseoftheprosecutionandhassubmittedthatthisisa casewherein,thestatementofthedeceasedvictimis,sinceinthenature ofdyingdeclarationandisbeingshieldedbySec.32(1)oftheIndian Evidence Act, the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the presumption running against the five accusedhasnotbeenrebuttedinviewofwhichalltheaccusedneedtobe heldguiltyforthechargeslevelledagainstthemvideEXH.18Charge framedbytheCourt.

(a)

Hehasrelieduponthecitationinhisreplymentionedhereinbelow

: A.I.R.1996SC1477 HarichandandanotherV/s.StateofDelhion Alibi(HeadNoteD), A.I.R.2001SC3031 MunshiPrasadandothers V/s. State of Bihar for Alibi (Head Note A), 2003 (0) Gujarat Law HeraldSC9761 (paragraph8)Sec.306r/w.Sec.109ofIndianPenal Code,A.I.R.1988Kerala1,forconfessionbeforedoctor.

(b)

Itwasthenurgedthattheabovejudgmentswiththesubmission

madeearlierareclearlyestablishingthattheprosecutionhasdischarged its duty thoroughly hence, all the accused need to be convicted and sentencedinthelargerinterestofjustice.

14.

Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,theprosecutionneedsto

114

proveitscasebeyondreasonabledoubttobringhometheguiltofthe accused.Followingissueshavebeenframedtoexaminethesaidaspect. ISSUES:

1.

Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

underthefalsepretextofnewyeardayparty,on31/12/2003thefive accusedhaveconsumedbeeroranyintoxicantsubstanceincontravention ofprovisionsoftheBombayProhibitionAct,1949andhavebeenfound drunkinpublicplacewithoutpermitundertheB.P.Act,1949andhave compelledthedeceasedvictimtoconsumeliquorandallthefiveaccused have,againstthedesireandwithoutconsentofthedeceasedvictim,gang rapedherinfurtheranceoftheircommonintentiontodoso,forwhichthe fiveaccusedcameattheAshokPalacehotelatShahibaughandtheA3 hasinvitedandconvincedthedeceasedvictimontelephonetocomeat thehotelafter10:00p.m.of31/12/2003infurtheranceoftheircommon intentiontorapethedeceasedvictim?

2.

Whethertheprosecutionprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthatas,

thepartofthetransactionmentionedinissueNo.1atthesamedate,time andplace,theA4haswrongfullyconfinedthedeceasedvictim,beaten the deceased victim, caused the deceased victim to be taken by A4 stupefyingintoxicatingsubstanceundertheguiseofbeerinfurtherance ofthecommonintentionofthefiveaccusedofgangrapingthedeceased victimonthatnightbythefiveaccused?

115

3.

Whethertheprosecutionprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthaton

thedate,placeandtimementionedintheissueNo.1thefiveaccused havevoluntarilycausedhurt,beaten,bittenandinjuredonthepersonof deceasedvictimwhilecommittingtheoffenceofgangrape,havegang rapedher,infurtheranceofthecommonintentionofthefiveaccused?

4.

WhethertheprosecutionprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthatA5

toA8andA10haveactedinfurtheranceoftheircommonintentionwith thefiveaccusedtoscreenthefiveaccusedfromthelegalpunishment, with knowledge that the five accused have committed the offences? Whethertheseaccusedhavedestroyedtheevidenceinformofbedsheet, seatcoveroftheMarutiZenwithintentiontoscreenthefiveoffenders fromthelegalpunishment?

5.

Whethertheprosecutionprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe

A11asapartofcommontransaction,withcommonintentionwithall the five accused, with knowledge that the deceased victim was gang rapedbythefiveaccusedagainstherconsent,A11beingpublicservant hascorruptiblymadereportinthejudicialproceedingswhichheknewto becontrarytothelawandagainstthefactandthatthesaidreportwas prepared to screen the five accused from legal punishment by not showingtheinjuriesonthepersonofthedeceasedvictimandbynot showing true description and number of injuries onthe person of the deceasedvictiminthereportprepared,andthereby,createdfalsereport andnotedintentionaluntruefactsinthereportandwhethertheA11has

116

destroyedtheevidenceinformofvaginalswabtoscreenthefiveaccused fromlegalpunishment?

6.

Whichoffenceshavebeencommittedandbywhom?

7.

Whatisthefinalorder?

15.
1.

Myfindingstotheaboveissuesareasunder:

Partly in the affirmative (A1 is held guilty u/s. 66(1)(b) and

u/s.85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, remaining four accusedaregrantedbenefitofdoubtquatheoffencesundertheBombay ProhibitionAct,1949).Fortheremainingpartofissueintheaffirmative.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Intheaffirmative. Intheaffirmative. Inthenegative. Inthenegative. TheA1,A2,A3,A4andA12havebeenheldguiltytohave

committedoffencesu/s.376(2)(g),323,328,342allreadwithSec.34of the Indian Penal Code. A1 is held guilty under Sec.66(1)(b) and u/s.85(1)(3)oftheBombayProhibitionAct,1949.

117

7*

The A1, A2, A3, A4 and A12 are held guilty to have

committedoffenceu/s.376(2)(g),323,328,342allreadwithSec.34of theIndianPenalCodeandA1isalsoheldguiltyunderSec.66(1)(b)and Sec.85(1)(3)oftheBombayProhibitionAct.

A5 to A11 are granted benefit of doubt from all the charges

levelledagainstallofthem.

Finalorderaccordingly

118

PARTII

ISSUESNOS.1,2AND3:

16.

Having carefully perused and upon evaluating the

depositionsofallthewitnessesandthedocumentsputforthbyallthe parties,whileappreciatingtherivalsubmissionsonfactandlawpoints, havinghumblyandthoroughlygraphedtheprinciplespropoundedbythe Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of the judgmentscitedbeforethisCourtandapplyingthesameonthefactsof thecaseonhands,thisCourthasframeditsopiniontoreplytheissues raised.

17.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthisisacase,wherein,

thecomplaintbythedeceasedvictimwasagainstthefiveaccusedfor having gang raped her. But, during the course of investigation, participation,roleplayedby,actandomissioncommittedbytheaccused Nos.5to11and13stoodrevealed.Though,alltheaccusedhavebeen chargedthetrialwentonquaA1toA12.Thecomplaintbythedeceased victimisrelatedtotheoffenceofgangrape,slappingandbeating,force toconsumeliquor,etc.committedbythefiveaccused.

119

Inthepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthiscase,theprincipal allegationsareagainstthefiveaccusedhence,itseemsjust,properand fittingtowritethisjudgmentindifferentpartswherein,thesePartIIand III shall be related to the five accused and the next Part IV for the remaining A5 to A11, the seven accused who shall be herein after referredtoas'theremainingaccused'.

18.

Following pointsneeds considerationto reply whetherthe

complaintEXH.283lodgedbythedeceasedvictimcanbetreatedasthe statementu/s.32(1)oftheIndianEvidenceActornot? (18a) Asisanadmittedposition,thedeceasedvictimhaddiedon

07/01/2004. (18b)

Sec.32(1)oftheEvidenceAct,attachesaspecialsanctityto

adyingdeclarationandunlesssuchadyingdeclarationcanbeshownto beunreliableitwillnotaffectitsadmissibility. (18c)

Once the Courtconcludes thatthestatementmadebythe

deceasedistruthful,thequestionofsearchingcorroborationforitdoes notarisesas,corroborationisnotrequired.Corroborationisneitherthe ruleofLawnorofPrudenceif,thedyingdeclarationisfoundfreefrom anyinfirmity. (18d) Statementwhichcanbesaidtobestatementu/s.32(1)ofthe

120

EvidenceActisrelevantonlywhenastatementismadebythepersonas toanyofthecircumstancesofthetransactionwhichresultedinhis/her death.Thisisrelevantincasesinwhichthecausesofthatperson'sdeath comesintoquestion.

(18e) occurrence.

DyingDeclarationistobeconsideredaslikeevidenceofany

otherwitnessandisinherentlycapabletogivecompleteaccountofthe

(18f)

Ashasbeenlaiddowninthejudgmentreportedat A.I.R.

2007SC1932betweenManibenT.MaheriaW/o.DanabhaiV/s.Stateof Gujarat,atparagraph18,thenecessitytotreatthedeclarationasadying declarationisthat,thatthestatementhadbeenmadebyapersonwho cannotbefoundorwhoisdeadandthus,incapableofgivingevidence andthatthestatementisoftherelevantfacts.

(18g)Applyingtheprincipleofthereportedjudgementat A.I.R.2007 SC 2709 in the matter of Shakuntala V/s. State of Haryana, the corroborationismerelyaruleofprudencewhichisnotrequiredinthe casewherethedyingdeclarationsoundsvoluntary,trustworthyandsuch wherein,thereisnotutoringorprompting.

(18h)

A.I.R.1998SC682 inthematterbetweenNajjamFaraghi

aliasNajjamFaruquiV/s.StateofWestBengal,HeadnoteBasheld thedyingdeclarationwouldnotlooseitsvalueonthegroundthatthe

121

deceaseddiedlongaftermakingdyingdeclaration,questionhastobe consideredonfactsofeachcase.

(18i)

If the victim has consumed liquor, can generally not be

termedtobecapableofconsentingforintercourse.

(18j)

A.I.R.2004SC1610 inthematterofB.ShashikalaV/s.

StateofA.P.HeadNoteBparagraph18says,itisnotnecessarythat the dying declaration would be admissible in evidence only when a statementismadeinexpectationofdeath,as,theLawdoesnotsayso.

(18k)

As displayed on the internet site of Judiciary viz.

www.judis.nic.in in the matter of Appeal (Cri.) being No.1166/2001

betweenDashrathaliasChampaandothersbytheHon'bleDr.Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain dated 24/10/2007, wherein,ithasbeenheldthat,F.I.R.andstatementu/s.161oftheCode ofCriminalProcedurecanbetreatedasdyingdeclaration.

(18l)

A.I.R. 2001 SC 2944 Anything which has nexus with

deathisadmissibleasdyingdeclaration.

19.

Afterhavingplacedonrecordthepointsthroughwhichthe

conceptofdyingdeclarationcanbeelaboratelyunderstood,itneedstobe statedthatinthiscase,sincethedeceasedvictimhaddiedthisCourtneed toexamineastowhetherthecaseonthehandhasanystatementofthe

122

relevantfactsbythedeceasedvictimwhichcanbeadmissibleandwhich canbesuchwhichissuitingintheideologyofSec.32oftheEvidence Act.Sec.32(1)whichreadsasunder:

Sec.32.Casesinwhichstatementofrelevantfactbypersonwhoisdeador cannot be found, etc., is relevant. Statements, written or verbal, of relevantfactsmadebyapersonwhoisdead,orwhocannotbefound,or whohasbecomeincapableofgivingevidence,orwhoseattendancecannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstancesofthecase,appearstotheCourtunreasonable,arethemselves relevantfactsinthefollowingcases:
(1) Whenitrelatestocauseofdeath(2)whenthestatementis

madebyapersonastothecauseofhisdeathorastoanyofthe circumstances,ofthetransactionwhichresultedinhisdeathin casesinwhichthecauseofthatpersonsdeathcomesintoquestion. Suchstatementsarerelevantwhetherthepersonwhomadethem was or was not at the time when they were made, under expectation of death and whatever may be the nature of proceedingsinwhichthecauseofhisdeathcomesintoquestion.

20.

Letusnowfactuallyseeastothedeceasedvictimwhohad

diedon07/01/2004wasthemakerofthestatementmadeat7:45a.m.on 01/01/2004beforethePW43atShahibaughPoliceStationanditisdying declaration which is satisfying the requisites of it to be truthful,

123

voluntary,withoutanyinfirmity,tutoring,prompting,andisunalloyed truthstatedbydeceasedvictim?

21.

Lookingtothefactthatthedeceasedvictimhasgivenher

complaintandthatitisfirstlyimportanttodecidewhetherthiscanbe treatedasdyingdeclarationornot,itisthoughtappropriatetofirstofall discussP.W.43fromthewitnessofGroupF.

22.
(1) (a)

WITNESSESOFGROUPF: PW43P.S.I.ShriTaral: PW43istheP.S.I.whohasrecordedEXH.283thestatement/

F.I.R. / Complaint of the deceased victim at about 7:45 a.m. of 01/01/2004.Thiswitnessstatesthat,whilehewasworkingasaP.S.I.at theShahibaughPoliceStationatabout5:00a.m.,twogirlsandoneboy cametohim.Outofthetwogirls,onewasintoxicatedandshewasbeing hold.Onegirlwassisterofthedeceasedvictimandanotherwasdeceased victim herself. The deceasedvictim was muchintoxicated hence,was madetosleeponthebench.Aftersometime,shestartedspeakingwhile thewitnessaskedherwhethershecantellabouthercomplaintandwhen thedeceasedvictimsaidyes,then,hestartedtakingthecomplaintbeing recordedbyhiswriter.Thehigherupsofthepolicewereinformedon telephone. The deceased victim gave her name and address and then, startedgivinghercomplaint.Thecomplaintwastakendownasspoken

124

byherwhichwasagainstfiveaccusedmentionedinthecomplaint.The deceasedvictimhadsignedinthemarginandattheendofthecomplaint. ThecomplainthasbeentakendowninthehandwritingofwriterNirubha (thiscomplaintisEXH.283).Afterthecomplaint,theoffencedeclaration reportwaspreparedandthecomplaintwasnumberedasC.R.No.2/04at Shahibaugh Police Station. EXH.284 is the said report u/s.157 of the CodeofCriminalProcedure.Theentrynumber11/04inthestationdiary wasdonebyP.S.O.Narsinhbhaiforthereport.

(b)

Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,itglaringlycomesupon

the record thaton 01/01/2004,thiswitnesswasinthenightduty,the complaintEXH.283wastakenat7:45a.m.,thedeceasedvictimalong withPW3wenttopolicestationatabout5:00a.m.,thecomplaintwas taken after the deceased victim attained normalcy. It stood revealed before the witness that the deceased victim was compelled to take alcoholicsubstance,thewitnesswasinthepolicestationupto9:00a.m. as he considered the offence reported to be a serious offence and he further felt that he may berequired bythe higher officers. Whilethe complaint was taken, PW3 being sister of the deceased victim, was present, the deceased victim was read over the complaint who, then, signedthecomplaintEXH.283,acopyofthecomplaintwasgiventothe deceasedvictimandthesignatureforhavingreceivedthecopywasalso obtained.TheP.S.O.registeredthecomplaintwhichwasregisteredas C.R.No.2/04andtheoffencewasdeclaredat8:05a.m.Of01/01/2004, thecopyofthiscomplaintmighthavebeensentalongwiththeCourt duty constable to the Court, the deceased victim was hold by the

125

Vaishaliben (PW3) while, she was brought to the police station who then,wasmadetosleeponthebench,rightfrom5:00a.m.to7:00a.m. thewitness,thestaffmembersandeventhePW3werecheckingasto whetherthedeceasedvictimhasattainedconsciousnessornot,theplace oftheoffencewastoldtoberoomNo.106ofhotelAshokPalacewhich the witness has learnt from the deceased victim through PW3. The complaint was given after the victim's attaining normalcy from the positionofintoxication,thesignatureofthedeceasedvictimwastakenin thecomplaintassoonastherecordingofcomplaintwasover,except EXH.283,noothercomplainthasbeentaken,thewitnesshasexplained thatwhyhecouldnotrecordthestatementofthePW3,thoughshewas inthepolicestationstatingthatbecause,assoonastheoffencecameto beregistered,theinvestigationwashandedovertoShriSharma.

(c)

Asstoodexplainedbythewitness,incaseofrapeitisadvisableto

takethecomplaintofthevictimherselfandtherefore,thewitnesshas takencomplaintofthedeceasedvictimandnottakencomplaintofPW3, thecomplaintwasagainstfiveaccusedandsaidcontentsofthecomplaint against5personsweregiventothewitnessbydeceasedvictim(page8of thedeposition).AfterseeingEXH.283thewitnesshasconfirmedthatthe complaintEXH.283wasagainstfivepersons.Thewitnesshadfeltneed todrawapanchnamaofthephysicalstateofthedeceasedvictim,four policepersonnelsweresuspendedwithreferencetotheincidentforacting improperlywiththedeceasedvictim,thewitnesshasgivenmessageto controlforthecarhavingpassingatDelhi,whenthecomplaintwasgiven bythedeceasedvictimcomplainantwasinhersenses(paragraph5of

126

the deposition), the report of the offence declaration was within 15 minutesofrecordingthecomplaint,thewriterofthewitnesswrotethe report,beforewritingthereportnoinvestigationwasdone,itwasstarted as soon as the complaint was over, the report to be prepared u/s.157 Cr.P.C. is in accordance with the complaint and no investigation or statementwas takenof anyofthewitnessforthereportbeingnotin accordancewiththecomplaint.ThewitnesshastoldtoPW3togivethe complaint but, she declined and has stated to the witness that the complaint wouldbe givenbythedeceasedvictim,inMarutiZenCar No.GJ1HB1267 accused No.1 was there who was brought to the ShahibaughPoliceStation,thewitnesshasaddedthatthenameofA1, address of A1 and Car of A1 has been mentioned in the complaint EXH.283,ithasbeenaddedthatthedeceasedvictimhadmentionedthe accusedNo.1andhadstatedthattheaccusedNo.1wasthere,thiswas statedbythedeceasedvictimwhilegivinghercomplaintthewitness hasexplainedonpage13thereasonfortheaccusedNo.1,thewitnesshas alsoexplainedthatthereisnomentionofcarintherecordasthewitness wasundertheimpressionthattheinvestigationwouldcometohim.

(d)

The reply elicited during the cross examination by my learned

predecessorclarifiesthat,whileboththesisters(PW3andthedeceased victim)came,thewitnesswasintheinvestigationroomasseniormost officer.Thedeceasedwitnesswaswrappedwithbedsheet.Nosignsof injuryonthefaceofdeceasedvictimwerenoticedbythiswitness,this witnesstoldtoPW3tobringanotherclothesforthedeceasedvictim,the ZenCarwasinthecompoundofpolicestationandA1wasdrivingthe

127

saidCar,thekeyofthesaidcarwashandedovertoP.S.O.tosenditto theForensicScienceLaboratorybytakingthekeysfromtheA1,while, thecomplaintwasrecordedtherewereabout10personsinthepolice station.

(e)

OpiniononTheDepositionofPW43:

(i)

Allthelearnedadvocateshavemainlyassailedonthefactthatitis

notthedeceasedvictimwhohasrecordedthecomplaint.Itwassubmitted thatthePW3hasgiventhecomplaint.

(ii)

ThisCourtisofthehumbleopinionthatthecomplaintEXH.283is

givenbythedeceasedvictimherself.Firstly,thePW3andthedeceased victimreachedattheShahibaughPoliceStationat5:00a.m.itself.But, then,thecomplaintwasstartedtoberecordedatabout7:00a.m.This wouldmeanthatforabout2hoursthePW3andthePW43havewaited forthedeceasedvictimtoregainnormalcy.Therewasnootherreason emergingonrecordtowaitforthesetwolonghours.Hadthecomplaint beengivenbythePW3then,itmusthavebeengivenat5:00a.m.itself as the PW3 was normal. Moreover, as it stands clarified and noted above,thePW3herselfhasdeclinedtogiveanycomplaint.Ratherthe PW3 has told to PW43 that the complaint would be given by the deceased victim which shows that the complaint was given by the deceasedvictimonly.ThePW43hasgivenhisopinionthatincaseof rape,thecomplaintshouldbetakenfromthevictimherselfwhichlends

128

assurancethatthewitnessshouldhavetakencomplaintofthedeceased victimonly.

(iii)

Alltheabovereferredobservationsonfactscumulatively,suggest

thatthecomplaintwasgivenbythedeceasedvictimherselfandnotby thePW3.

(iv)

Thiswitness statesthefactfromhispersonalknowledgeandis

statingthatthecomplaintwasregisteredbythedeceasedvictimupon whichtheoffencedeclarationreport,(onrecordvideEXH.284)wasalso recorded. The contents, signature of himself and the signature of the deceasedvictimhavebeenidentifiedandprovedtobecorrectbythis witness. In view of the fact that the C.R. No.2/04 was recorded in presenceofandbeforethiswitnessandbythewriterofthiswitnessand the resultant declaration report u/s.157 of Cr.P.C. Was also prepared which is on record at EXH.284, it can safely be held that the act of recordingthecomplaint,preparingthereportmusthavebeendoneinthe usualofficialbusinessattheShahibaughPoliceStationandmusthave beendoneinregularroutineofficeworkwhichcanbepresumedtobe true,correct,regularandproper.

(v)

Thereisnothingelicitedduringthecourseofcrossexamination

whichcanchallengetheveracityofthiswitnessandthecreditofthis witnesscannotbesaidtobesuccessfullyimpeachedbyanyofthepartof thecrossexamination.

129

(vi)

This official witness is the eyewitness of the spontaneous first

reactionofthedeceasedvictimabouttheoccurrence.Thiswitnesshas personalknowledgeabouttherecordingofthecomplaintasgivenbythe deceased victim, about the presence of PW3 throughout the process undertakenattheShahibaughPoliceStationandthattheoverallimpact of the deposition of this witness can lead the Court to hold that this witness is the witness of truth and that the witness is believable and trustworthywitnesswhoapparentlyseemtohavedonehisofficialwork inthewayheshoulddoit.

(vii) Thiswitnessoughttohavesendthedeceasedvictimfortreatment atabout5:00a.m.But,asstatedbythewitnessthatundertheimpression thatthedeceasedvictimwasundertheinfluenceoftheintoxicationthe witnesshasnotsendherforthetreatment.Thestatementinthecross examinationthatthedeceasedvictimwasnotsufferingfromanyserious physical ailment which requires treatment to the deceased victim is thoughpersonalopinionofthiswitness,butitdoesthrowlightonthe positionofthedeceasedvictimwhichisimportantfactorinthedeceased victim'scomplaint.Thefactremainsthatthiswitnesshaswitnessedthe physical state of the deceased victim, proves her presence before the witnessandthedeceasedvictimtobeauthorofthecomplaint.

(viii) Inviewofthedepositionofthiswitness,itbecomesclear(from page 2), that as submitted by the defence that prior to giving the complaint, the deceased victim wastakentoSolaPoliceChawkyand SolaPoliceStation.Further,priortogivingthecomplaintthemessageat

130

thecontrolroomwasalsogivenaboutthefactsofthecomplaint.

(ix)

Uponperusalofpage7,thewitnessstatesduringthecourseof

crossexaminationthatthewitnesscametoknowthatthedeceasedvictim andotherswenttoSolaPoliceStationandthatfromthere,theyweresent totheShahibaughPoliceStationonthegroundthattheoffencehasnot beencommittedinthejurisdictionoftheSolaPoliceStation,thewitness knowsthattheoffencecanbedeclaredinanyPoliceStationandifthe saidPoliceStationisnothavingthejurisdictionthen,thesaidoffencecan beregisteredwith0numberandthenafter,thesamecanbesenttothe respectivePoliceStation.

(x)

Frompage8thesuggestionmadebythedefenseitself,makesit

amply clear that first of all,Sola PoliceChawkyandthenafter, Sola PoliceStationandthen,itistheShahibaughPoliceStationwherethe deceasedvictimwasbrought.IntheopinionofthisCourtthevisitof deceased victim prior to Shahibaugh Police Station to other places explainsthedelayinrecordingthepresentcomplaint.Itisshameofthe systemthatvictimwomanhadtomoveposttopillarbut,hercrymetwith deafearsforwhich,nothingcanevenbethoughtagainstthedeceased victimorcaseputupbyher.ThePW43hasalsoidentifiedtheaccused No.1ascanbeseenfromthelastlineonpage8ofthedepositionwhohas beenidentifiedasaboywhocamealongwithPW3whichprovesthat theaccusedNo.1wasinthepolicestationrightfromthebeginningalong withdeceasedvictimandPW3.

131

(xi)

InparagraphNo.3thewitnesshasstatedthatthePW3informed

thewitnessabouttheincidentatSolaPoliceStationandthefactnotedon page14thatwhilethedeceasedvictim'scomplaintwasrecordedthere wereabout10staffmembersintheShahibaughPoliceStationneedsto beweighfromtheangleofthedeceasedvictim.Intheopinionofthis Court, it becomes clear that from about 4:00 a.m. To 5:00 a.m. The deceased victim and her sister PW3 went post to pillar. It seems an admitted position that the deceased victim was taken to Sola Police Chawky,thentotheSolaPoliceStation,thenthemessagewasgivento the control room, and lastly,theycametoShahibaughPoliceStation. The deceased victim was frequently loosing her senses after attaining normalcy,thecomplaintwastakendown,givenbydeceasedvictimbut, oneneednotetheironythatthegrievancewhicheverywomanwould hesitatetospeakevenbeforedearoneandnearonewasoverheardbyten policestaffas,therewere10policeofficialspresentinthepolicestation. MucheddofornotgivingminutedetailsintheEXH.283hastobeseen withthislensoverandabovetheprinciplethatminoromissionsdonot falsifytheversion.

(xii) Though, the P.I. Of the police station was informed he did not comeforlongandthedeceasedvictimwaskeptwithoutanytreatment simplylyingonthebenchkeptinthepolicestation.

(xiii) InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthePW43isthetrustworthy witnessthereisnoreasontodisbelievethiswitness.Thatthedeposition

132

ofthiswitnessrevealsthatthePW3alongwiththedeceasedvictimand more particularly, carrying with themA1, reached attheShahibaugh Police Station after taking their chances at Sola Police Chawky, Sola PoliceStationandthepolicecontrolroomwhichshowsthatPW3isan eyewitnessoflaterpartoftheoccurrenceandthattheA1istheperson whocametodropthedeceasedvictim.

(xiv) Even after reachingtheright policestationalongwitheventhe accusedwhowasunderthecloudsofdoubt,forhavingparticipatedthe offenceashasbeenstatedbyPW43thatnoneelsebut,thedeceased victimherselfintroducedA1asonesuchpersonwhotoowaspresent whiletheoccurrenceforwhichthecomplainthasbeengivenstrengthen thecaseofdeceasedvictimandtohavesosaidtothePW3thatA1is oneoftherapist.

23.

HANDWRITINGEXPERT'SDEPOSITION(WITNESS OFGROUPD):

(a)

ThehandwritingexpertShriJ.J.Patel'sdepositionisonrecordof

thiscasevideEXH.451.EXH.451isthedepositionofPW5ShriJ.J. PatelinsessionscaseNo.239/04.Thewitnessischiefhandwritingexpert fromF.S.L.Gandhinagar.Inviewofthedepositionofthiswitness,and moreparticularly,page100ofthedeposition,itseemsthatthesignature belowthecomplaintEXH.283isthatofthedeceasedvictimasistallying withthenaturalwritingofthedeceasedvictimandasopinedtherewas

133

neithercopyingnortracing.

(b)

Thewitnesshasadmittedonpage101thatN1toN59werethe

naturalwritingsandN61onwardsabout20signaturesweresenttohimas naturalsignatures. (c) N61andN62aremarkedonEXH.283andsenttothewitnessfor

hisopinion.Boththesesignatureshavebeenopinedtobethesignatures ofthedeceasedvictimastheyarefoundtobethesignatureoftheperson whosenaturalwritingwassenttothewitnessthehandwritingexpert. Weshalldiscussatalaterstageinthisjudgementastohowthenatural handwritingsenttothehandwritingexperti.e.thepresentwitnesswere thenaturalhandwritingofthedeceasedvictimandwhythiswitnesshas preferenceovertheDW9(reasonsonpageNo.____ofthisjudgment). But,sufficeittosayatthisstagethatthesignaturebelowEXH.283have been opined to be the signature of the deceased victim. This part of depositionofthiswitnessistallyingwiththedepositionofPW43.The reasonstobelieveeventhisdepositionshallalsobediscussedatlater stage. But, at this juncture suffice to say that this deposition of handwritingexperttoois,tallyingwiththedepositionofPW43andto thesaidextentboththesedepositionsaresupportingtheprosecutioncase asaresult,itstandsprovedthatthesignaturebelowEXH.283arethe signaturesofdeceasedvictim.

24.
(i)

TRUTHFULNESS OF CONTENTS OF EXH.283: Whetherstandsproved? Being empowered by Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, this

134

Courtneedstopresumeexistenceofcertainfactsasusualmentalprocess, humanconductandnaturaleventinthefactsofthecase.

(ii)

Theaggravatingcircumstancesalsoneedashortnoteoverhereso

as to examine the possibility of falsity in the first written version of deceasedvictimontheoccurrencebeforePW43.

(a)

TheaccusedNo.4wasplacedinpositionbythedeceasedvictim

where he was held in trust and was expected to protect the deceased victimbut,thatcouldnothappen.EvenA4toohastoldinthefurther statementabouttheloveaffairofhimwiththedeceasedvictimfortwo yearsandexchangeofS.M.S.andmobilephonebetweenthetwowhich hasbeenstatedasadmittedpositionbylearnedadvocateMr.Panchalfor A4.

(b)

Thedeceasedvictimwassubjectedtofurthersexualindignitiesand

perversion by teeth bites, by slapping her to compel her to consume liquorwhichmusthavebeenaseriousshockforthedeceasedvictim.

(c)

Violencewasusedoverandabovetheforcenecessarytocommit

rapeonthedeceasedvictimbythefiveaccused.Thedeceasedvictimhad to give account of the occurrencewhereany Indianwomanborn and broughtupintraditionbound,nonpermissivesocietywouldbeextremely slowand reluctanteventoadmitthatanyincidentlikelytoadversely affectherchastityhadeveroccurred.Thedeceasedvictimmighthave

135

beencautionedbymanyincludingtheaccused(asdeposedbythePW3) ofthedangerofbeingostracizedbythesocietyorbeinglookeddownby the society including her own family members, relative, friends, neighbours,etc.

(d)

Thedeceasedvictimwasboundtobeawaretofacetheriskof

loosingloveandrespectofherbelovedpersons,nearrelatives,parents, siblings,etc.andmustbeapprehendedofsocialisolationwithstigma. (e)

Thedeceasedvictimwasunmarriedanditcannotbeoutofher

mind that it is difficult nowto secure analliance whichisasuitable matchfromarespectablefamily. (f)

The deceased victim must be feeling extremely embarrassed in

relatingtheincidenttothepoliceofficerthattoo,infrontofotherpolice staffmembers,A1,PW3andothersbeingoverpoweredbyfeelingof shameonaccountoftheupbringinginatraditionboundsocietywhereby andlargeasexualattackonwomanisanallegationagainstthevictim herself. (g)

Thenaturalinclinationofthedeceasedvictimtosavefamilyname

andfamilyhonourandatleasttoavoidbringingitintoanycontroversy cansafelybepresumed.

(h)

The fear of social stigma and fear of being considered to be

136

promiscuousorinsomewayresponsiblefortheincidentregardlessofher innocencemustbeinthebackgroundofhermind.

(i)

Thereluctancetofaceinterrogationbytheinvestigatingagency,to

face the Court, to face the relatives, people and the risk of being disbelieved are the elements which might be coming in the way of deceasedvictiminrevealingtheincidentingreatdetailasthewomanlike usualhesitationisboundtobeinthewayinfreeexpression.

(j) rape.

Hardly,peopleunderstandthatthephysicalinjurycanhealbut,not

thementalinjurywhichcausestoeverywoman,if,becomesavictimof

Inviewoftheabovegivenfacts,thisCourthumblybut,firmly opines that the social circumstances, psychological impact of the deceasedvictimhavingbeenravishedandthephysicalandmentaleffect onthedeceasedvictimaresuchelementswhichareguidingtheCourt thattheminordiscrepancies,thenegligibleomissions,etc.shouldnotbe viewedseriouslyandcannotgoagainstthedeceasedvictim.Further,in viewof thepropounded principles, moreparticularly, inthejudgment reportedatA.I.R.1997SC768wherein,ithasbeenheldthatomissionto stateimportantfactshastobeconsideredalongwithotherevidenceto determine whether the facts so omitted never happened at all or not. Further,ifelicitoryexerciseisnotmadebythepersonwhoisrecording thestatement,complaintorF.I.R.then,themakerofthestatementcannot

137

be held liable as unearthing the truth is the pious obligation to be dischargedbytheinvestigatingagency.

Inthelightoftheabovediscussion,itisheldthatthereisnothing on record to doubt the truthfulness of the deceased victim and that nothingthatnowomanwillfalselyimplicateanyoneforallegingtorape hertheversionofthedeceasedvictimbeforethePW43isabsolutely true,dependable,trustworthyandcansafelybeactedupon.Itishowever, safetofurtherexaminethecase.

(k)

LearnedadvocateforA1hasemphasizedthatthenameofA1is

notgivenbythedeceasedvictimas,thesamehasnotbeenrecordedin EXH.283.Learnedadvocatefortheotheraccusedhavesubmittedthatthe prosecutionstorygetschangeasthedepositionofPW3,depositionof PW43andPW10andPW20revealsaboutthecomplainthavingbeen lodged against 5 accused. Whereas, EXH.283 more particularly, last paragraph specifically mentions figure four for the persons thus, on accountofthisvariationintheprosecutionstory,theprosecutionstory becomesuntrustworthyandcannotbeactedupon,cannotbebelievedto beagenuineversionoftheoccurrenceandthatitisacolouredversion.

(l)

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtEXH.283isthefirstwritten

accountoftheoccurrencebythedeceasedvictimherself.Thiscomplaint isclearlymakingitclearthatthevenueoftheoccurrenceisroomNo.106 of hotel Ashok Palace at Shahibaugh. (ii) It is a complaint against 5

138

accusedviz.A1toA4andA12thefiveaccused.(iii)Thecomplaint specificallystatesthecomplainttobeoftheoffenceofgangrapehaving been committed against the deceased victim by the five accused on 01/01/2004 anywhere between 12:40 a.m.to 3:30 a.m.as,in viewof EXH.398theprintoutof(incomingcalls)ofthePW3andinviewofthe EXH.367theprintoutoftheA1(outgoingcalls),itbecomesclearthat the A1 rang up the PW3 on her mobile at 01/01/2004 at 3:53 a.m. accordingtothetimenotedbyrelianceastheA4hasusedthatservice, receivedbythePW3at3:47a.m.(whichispossibleastimesettingin systemofboththemobilecompaniesmaybeslightlydifferent).Inthe factandcircumstancesofthecase,thenaturaltendencyoftheA4is eithernottoinformatallaboutthedepartureofdeceasedvictimorto informimmediatelytothePW3tolessenhisliabilityhence,thephoneat 3:53a.m.mustbeimmediateafterdepartureso,thedeceasedvictimmust haveleftwithA1atleastnotbefore3:30a.m.

EXH.283beginswiththephonecallofA3on31/12/2003atabout 10:00p.m.TheroleofA3beganfromthere.Itisquiteprobablethatthe A3cantalkfromanyphoneincludingthephoneofA1whosenumberis foundintheprintoutofthedeceasedvictim.Evenlogicallyitispossible as even as per the case of defense the A3 has arranged party and accordingtotheprosecutionitwasfalsepretextherethelogicsaysone whoishostonlywouldinvitehence,thephonecallofA3toinviteonly seemsrationalthus,thisparticipationofA3seemsquitenatural.

Thereafter,atabout10:30p.m.theA1cametoShahibaughunder

139

bridgetopickupthedeceasedvictiminhiscarMarutiZen.Thedeceased victim was taken away by the A1 to room No.106 of Ashok Palace Hotel.ThehotelisownedbyA2andA3where,A4andA12have speciallycomefromDelhitocelebratethenewyear.(Alloftheabove tallies even with the defense version). The deceased victim has very clearlystatedthattheA3toldherthatthepasstofollow.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,atabout12:40a.m.aphonecallfrom A1'smobiletoPW3wasmadewhendeceasedvictimtalkedtoPW3. ThistallieswithprintoutofA4&PW3hence,seemstobetrue.Allof themthen,wenttoroomNo.106ofhotelAshokPalacewhere,A4had orderedforbeer.Thismustbethetimeafter12:40a.m.aftertakingto PW3fromphoneofA1andasdescribedbythedeceasedvictimbefore A11thatwhilevisitatsomefarmhouseandasthedeceasedvictimtold toA11,shedidnotknowthenameofthesaidfarmhouse,but,ithas beenfurtherstatedthattheydidnotgotothedancepartyandreturned backtoAshokPalace.Thishistory,giventoA11canclearlybeseenin EXH.80thecasepaperandEXH.281theinjurycertificate.Ashasbeen stated by the deceased victim before A11, the five accused and the deceasedvictimsatatthehotelAshokPalace,then,wenttothefarm house and then, returned to Ashok Palace hotel. This history by the deceasedvictimtallieswithEXH.260themedicalcasepaperoftheA4 wherein,A4hastoldtothedoctorthatat23:45of31/12/2003,theywent forthefarmhousepartywhere,theystayedforhalfanhourandsincethe deceasedvictimwasfeelingcold,theycamebacktotheAshokPalace Hotel. Thus, this circumstance of telling the history of the deceased

140

victimandthehistorygivenbyA4aretellingthat,thedeceasedvictim was taken back to the Ashok Palace Hotel by about 12:40 a.m. on 01/01/2004.

Itisanadmittedpositionthatthedeceasedvictimhadloveaffairs withA4andinsucharelationship,thecommoncourseofthehuman conductandmoreparticularly,conductofthemaleinthemalesovereign societycanneverbetoadmitthatnoarrangementtogoindanceparty hasbeenmadethattoo,tothewomanwhoisindeeplovewiththemale. Hence,consideringtheusualmanconduct,theA4musthavesaidthat theywillgotothedancepartyagain,whichthedeceasedvictimmight havebelievedtobetruewhichtoo,istheusualconductofwoman.

Itseemsthatthedeceasedvictimwasfondofluxuriouslife,dance partiesandthattheA4andthroughA4remainingfouraccusedwere knowingthesaidattractionofthedeceasedvictimwhichcouldbethe reasonwhy,thedeceasedvictimcameallthewayfromherresidencein theAshokPalacehotelontheinvitationofA3.IforalevidenceofPW 37whichweshalldiscussindetailsinlaterpartwithEXH.260andmore particularly,uponperusingthehistorygivenbytheA4r/w.thehistory givenbeforeA11andnotedonEXH.80andEXH.281bythedeceased victim,itseemsthatupto11:45allwereandmorespecifically,A1,A3, A4andA12andthedeceasedvictimwereattheAshokPalaceHotel.It seemsthatpriortoleavingforsomefarmhouse,therewasoneroundof drink,thenafter,allofthemhasreturnedatabout12:45toroomNo.106 where,firstly,thedeceasedvictimandA4werealone,thenafter,ascan

141

beseenfromEXH.283,even,A2waspresentalongwithothersinthe room,thenafter,A4hasorderedforbeer,persuadedthedeceasedvictim toconsumebeer,uponherdenialfurtherpersuasion,then,beatenherand slappedherandcompelledhertodrink,thenafter,theA4hadremoved theclothesfromthebodyofthedeceasedvictim,intercoursedherasis clearinEXH.283withoutherconsentwhichalsogetsconfirmedfromthe historygivenbythedeceasedvictimbeforeA11,recordedbyhimand then after, A4 called A3 by telephone and then after, as stated in EXH.283 r/w. EXH.281, the history in the injury certificate, another roundofthedrinktookplacewhere,deceasedvictimwasrapedoneafter anotherinthepresenceofeachother.

25.

Inviewoftheabovereplytothequestionatthebeginningof

para24isansweredinaffirmative.Letushavemoreclosescrutiny.

(A)

Probability: This Court is awarethattheconjectureand hypothesis haveno

placeintheCriminalJusticeDeliverySystem,butthefactsemergedfrom record,canverywellbeperusedbytheCourttodocompletejusticeand tothoroughlyunderstandthecaseofthedeceasedvictiminapeculiar circumstancethataftertellingaboutthecircumstancesofthetransaction, whichledhertoherdeathandwhiledyingalsoasuicidenotehasbeen kept which is on record, this Court must make all sincere efforts to concludetojotdownwhatinfact musthavetranspiredfromtheoral evidence of the PW3, from the dying declaration EXH.283, the oral

142

versionbeforePW39Dr.Krupabenandpriortothatoralversionbefore PW48 while the panchnama was being drawn and all the different circumstances like history before A11 having been given by the deceasedvictimandhistoryoftheoccurrencehavingbeengivenbythe threeaccusedviz.A4,A1andA12alongwiththesuicidenoteExh. 571onrecord.

(B)

PlaceofIncident:

InviewofEXH.283,theplaceoftheoffenceisroomNo.106of AshokPalaceHotel.

The prosecution has acted considering room No.106 of Ashok Palacehotelasplaceoftheoffencewhichisalsorevealedinthereport EXH.284u/s.157oftheCr.P.C.

Frompage80onwards,inthedepositionofPW49,ashasbeen recordedduringthecourseofcrossexaminationofaccusedNos.2and3, ithasbeensuggestedthattheplaceoftheoffencehasbeentreatedbythe prosecutiontoberoomNo.106oftheAshokPalaceHotel.Ithasbeen suggestedthatthisvenueoftheoffencehasbeenfoundmentionedin EXH.284, EXH.296, EXH.298, EXH.299, EXH.313, EXH.316, EXH.138,EXH.218,EXH.307,EXH.347ANDEXH.348toEXH.350. (ThisCourthasrecordedthedetailsabouttheseexhibitsastorevealin thecrossexaminationofPW49whilejottingdownthegistoftheoral

143

evidenceofPW49.).Sincethedeceasedhascategoricallystatedbefore thePW43andtheinvestigatingofficersascanbeseenfromtherecord haveactedupontheversionofthedeceasedvictim,itbecomesamply clearthatthevenueoftheoffenceisroomNo.106.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,duringthecourseoftheargumentsand atsomeplacesduringthecourseofcrossexaminationanattempthas beenmadetocreateadoubtthatthevenueoftheoffenceiscarofA1 and not room No.106. But,this doesnot found anysupportfrom the dyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictimandas,sinceforthesaidreason, noinvestigationhasbeencarriedoutonthesaidaspecthence,doubting theversionputforthbytheprosecutionwithoutanybasiswouldamount to acting upon conjecture and hypothesis which is not permissible in Criminal Justice Delivery System. Moreover, when in the dying declarationthedeceasedherselfhasclarifiedthevenueoftheoffence, and when the said is amply supported by the oral and documentary evidence,thisCourthasnohesitationtoholdthatthevenueofoccurrence isroomNo.106oftheAshokPalaceHotel.

(C)

Whathashappenedpriortotheoffence:

InviewofEXH.283itisclearthatafterreceiptofatelephonecall fromA3,thedeceasedvictimhasstarted.Asdiscussedabove,tobelieve thatthetelephonecallwasreallyfromA3only,noproofisrequiredand thatatleastthemobileprintoutcannotbesaidtobeconclusiveproofof

144

telephonehavingbeenmadebytheA3atabout10p.m.Of31/12/03to thedeceasedvictim.ItisforthereasonthattheA4hasremainedin constanttouchwiththedeceasedvictimandthatA3wasincontactofA 4whocancertainlytalktothedeceasedvictimfromthatverytelephone whichintheprintoutwouldshowaphonecallbyuseoftheinstrumentof A4.Further,accordingtotheprosecutioncase,andnowevenacaseof thedefensealsotheallegedpartywasarrangedbytheA3.Thedeceased victim vide her dying declaration has placed it to be a false pretext whereas,thedefensehasplaceditasgenuinepartytoprovethedefense ofalibi.But,thefactremainsthatthepartiestotheproceedingsareon onelineasfarasthenewyearpartyisconcerned.

Itistherefore,verycommonthatA3wouldcertainlytelephoneto invitethedeceasedvictim.Wewillexamineatlaterstagewhetherwasit afalsepretextortherewasindeedaparty.Sufficeittosayherethatthe factthattheA3hadtelephonedtothedeceasedvictimdoesnotremaina matterofdoubtandseemstobetruthful.

EXH.283R/WExh.80thehistorybeforeA11isbringingafact ontherecordthatmeetingofthefiveaccusedwiththedeceasedatthe venueoftheoffencewastwiceintheinterveningnightof31/12/2003and 01/01/2004.Ifthehistorygivenbytheaccusedbeforethetreatingdoctor isperused,thenitbecomesclearthat,thehistorygivenbyA1recorded byPW38atEXH.262istotheeffectthat,A1hasbroughtthedeceased

145

victimat10:30p.m.fromBhuyangdevCrossRoadstoAshokPalaceon 31/12/2003.Thenafter,thevictimandotherswenttoB.R.Farm,Bhat and after remainingthereforafewminutes,thedeceasedvictimwas broughtbacktothehotel.

(D)

A12hasgivenhishistoryrecordedbyPW44andcanbeperused

fromEXH.84,thattheA12wasattheAshokPalacehotelfrom8:45 a.m.of31/12/2003,A1wenttobringthedeceasedvictim,A1brought hertoAshokPalaceHotel,inthecarofA1then,thedeceasedvictim was taken away to B.R. Farmhouse from where, after an hour, they returnedtoAshokPalacehotel.

(E)

A4hasstatedbeforePW37recordedinthemedicalcasepaper,

EXH.260accordingtowhichthedeceasedvictimarrivedafter10:30p.m. toAshokPalacehotel,shewastakentoroomNo.106where,shewasup to11:45p.m.andthenafter,atabout12:10a.m.shewastakentoFarm House party where, all remained up to half an hour, but, since the deceased victim was feeling cold, she was brought back to the hotel AshokPalaceandthen,wasalsobroughttoroomNo.106atabout12:40 a.m.onwards(00:40onwardsat01/01/2004).

WiththecontentsofthehistorygivenbyA1,A12andA4,and thedeceasedvictim,itbecomesclearthatthedeceasedvictimwaspicked upandbroughtat10:30p.m.of31/12/2003fromBhuyangdevareato AshokPalaceHotelwhere,shewaskeptforsometimeandthenatabout

146

11:45of31/12/2003to12:10a.m.of01/01/2004shewastakentosome farmhouse,where,onlywithin30minutesormaybesomemoretime, shewasbroughtbackagaintoroomNo.106.

Now, therefore, Exh.283 hasto beseen with thisangle, further even,deceasedvictimherselfhasalsostatedbeforeA11thatshewas standingnearsolaat10:30p.m.Monti(A1)pickedherupandtookher toashokpalacewherefrom,A1,A3,A4A12andthedeceasedvictim wenttofarmhouse.where,theydidnotgotodancepartyandcameback toashokpalacehotel.alltheaboveveryclearlyarticulatethefactthat priorto12:00a.m.deceasedwastakenouttosomefarmhousefromthe ashokpalacehotelandthen,shewasbroughtagaintotheashokpalace hotel.Thus,itisclearthatthedeceasedvictimwasatashokpalacehotel priorto12:00a.m.of01/01/2004andafterabout12:57a.m.(afterthe phonecallwithPW3)thatalso,shewasbroughtbacktothesameplace.

(F)

Asmentionedabove,iftheprintoutofA4isseen,itisclearthat

fromthemobiletelephoneofA4atelephonecallwasmadetothePW3 which the PW3 in her oralevidence statesthatshehadreceivedthe phoneofdeceasedvictim.Moreover,atthisverytimeof12:57a.m.of 01/01/2004,anincomingphonefromthetelephonelineofA4hasbeen recordedandshownintheprintoutofPW3.Therefore,itisclearthatthe deceasedvictimlastlycontactedPW3before1.00a.m.of01/01/2004, thus,atleasttillthen,nothingmusthavehappened.But,asdiscussed above, the deceased victim was taken back to the venue and more particularlyroomNo.106ofthehotel.EveninthehistorybeforeA11the

147

deceasedvictimhassaidafter12:30a.m.

(G)

Timeofoffence:

Asdiscussedabove,thedeceasedvictimhadatalkwithPW3(can beseenintheprintoutofPW3andA4)atabout12:57a.m.ascanbe seenfromEXH.367but,asseemsfromthedepositionofPW3,nothing hadhappenedtillthen.Ashascomeuponrecordintheoralevidenceof I.O.ShriGadhvi,thatthedistancebetweenB.R.FarmandAshokPalace hotel is 6 kms.Consideringthis,thedeceasedvictim musthavebeen broughtbackintheAshokPalacehotelinanycasebefore1:00o'clock. (ThedeceasedvictimstatesbeforeA11after12:30a.m.whichtallies).

ThePW3statesthatshehasreceivedthephonecallofA4at3:54 a.m. of 01/01/2004 as can be seen from EXH.367 and EXH.398, respectivelythemobiletelephoneprintoutsofA4andPW3 wherein, shewasinformedthatA1hasstartedtodropthedeceasedvictim(this showstimeofleavingofthedeceasedvictimfromhotel).TheA4either mightnothavetelephonedatalltoPW3butwhenmadeatelephonecall, itshouldhavebeenimmediatelyafterthedeceasedvictimhadleftalong withA1as,thatsuitstotheruleofnaturalhumanconduct.Afterthe telephoneofA4toPW3theA1hasalsotelephonedtothePW3which wasaround4:00a.m.of01/01/2004.

(H)

InEXH.287thehistorygivenbytheA12hasbeenrecordedbythe

148

doctorPW44,accordingtowhichevenon25/02/2005,afterabout14 months,fromtheoccurrencetheA12hasstatedthattheyhaveleftthe hoteli.e.AshokPalacesomewhereat3:45a.m.(of01/01/04).

TheoralevidenceofPW3tohavereceivedthedeceasedvictim somewhereat4:00a.m.,thehistorygivenbytheA12tohaveleftthe hotelatabout3:30to3.45a.m.,thehotelregisteronlyshowingcheckin timeforroomNo.106and205occupiedbytheaccusedandroomNo.110 occupiedbytheirdriver,whichisnotshowingthecheckouttime,noting thefactthatthedeceasedvictimherselfhasstatedbeforeA11notedat EXH.80casepaperinformofhistorygivenbythedeceasedvictimthat theoffencehasbeencommittedafter12:30a.m.of01/01/2004athotel AshokPalacenotingthefactthatinthehistorythedeceasedvictimhas statedthatthePW3wascalledatAshokPalacebytelephoningthePW3 everythingcomesaroundthatthedeceasedvictimwasbroughtbackto theAshokPalacehotelatabout1:00a.m.andthedeceasedvictimwas takenoutfromtheAshokPalacehotelatabout3:45a.m.of01/01/2004. Viewing all these things together, it becomes clear that, the time of commissionofoffenceshouldbeafter12:40a.m.toanytimebefore4:00 a.m.of01/01/2004atthevenueshownabove.

(I)

ModeofCommissionofOffence:

The deceased victim was taken to room No.106 of the Ashok Palacehotel.

149

Now, as has been mentioned in the dying declaration by the deceasedvictim,whentheA1broughthertotheAshokPalacehotel(as mentionedonthelastlineoffirstpageofEXH.283),A4,A3,A12,A2 werepresent.Here,thereferenceofA1comesasthepersonwhotook hertotheAshokPalacehotelandwhohasnotlefttheAshokPalace hotel.(Thisspeaksofpresenceofallthefiveaccused).Thedeceased victimhasclarifiedthatA4andthefriendsmentionedabovewhichis obviouslyinclusiveofalltheremainingfouraccusedinroomNo.106, thus,fromthispartitisclearthattheassemblyatroomNo.106wasofat least five persons and the deceased victim according to the dying declarationofthedeceasedvictimatthevenueoftheoffence.Beerwas orderedbyA4whichcame,A4insistedandpersuadedthedeceased victim to take the beer. Then after, the deceased victim declined to consumemorewhentheA4hasbeatenher.A4andA12werepresent in the room, the others went down. Then after, as narrated in the complaint the deceased victim was beaten, slapped, her clothes were removed,wasintercoursedagainstherdesirebytheA4.A4telephoned A3, A3 intercoursed by applying force i.e. he raped her, A12 was invitedwhotoo,inpresenceofA4andA3rapedher,injuredher,beaten andbittenherandthenafter,A2alsocamewhotoo,rapedthedeceased victimandthenafter,thedeceasedvictimdoesnotknowastowhathad happened.(Duringthewholecomplaint,A4whoispresentrightfrom thebeginningisnotsaidtohavegoneoutandthus,hispresenceisvery muchtherealongwithhisparticipationnotedinthelastparagraph.

Thereisabsolutelynothingonrecordtoholdthatanyoneofthe fiveaccusedwasnotpresentinroomNo.106andhasnotparticipatedin

150

theoffenceofgangrape.ThisCourtishowever,goingtodiscussinits minutedetailabouttheevidenceagainsteachoftheaccused.But,atthis juncture, when the mode of offence is being decided, the above discussionissufficient.

(J)

In EXH.283 the deceasedvictim has not given any information

about their visit at some farm house which has been highlighted by almostalllearnedadvocateforthedefensetoexhibtthedoubtsonrecord againstthesaidversion.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,firstly,thestateofthehealth of the deceased victim hadtobeconsideredhavingbeengangraped, having been passed through tremendous physical and psychological traumaandonaccountoftheforceused,thattoo,fromherownfriends andfurther,inpresenceofherlover,thedeceasedvictimhadlastawaken nessinwhichstate,shewashandedovertothePW3andultimately, evenafterreachingattheShahibaughPoliceStationafterregainingthe normalcy,thedeceasedvictimhasgivenhercomplaint,itisindeednota matterofmathematicalcalculationtostatetowhatextentthedeceased victimhadregainedhernormalcyandwhatmustbepassingthroughher mind, what time she must have taken to be able to speak being surroundedoftenstrangepolicemen,beingatunknownandunexpected placeofpolicestation,notingthepresenceofPW3,PW10andPW20, whatsenseofshameandembarrassmentthedeceasedvictimmusthave undergone. But, then,itcanbestatedinonelinethatnowomancan absolutelynormalandfittogiveminuteaccountofeverythinginsucha

151

case.

(K)

Thedeceasedalsomustbeundergoingadilemma,thatwhetherher

trusting the A4 and his friends would be looked upon as a wrong committedbythedeceasedvictimornotandwhether,herchoosingtogo night out for the New Year Party along with the five accused at the unknownplaceviz.TheFarmHouse(asstatedbeforeA11thenameof theFarmHousewasalsonotknowntothedeceasedvictim)wasproper ornotandthatinthewakeofseveralcontrastandunusualfeelingof agony,shameandembarrassment,thedeceasedvictimmustnotbeable toexpressinaproperandeffectivemanner.Theconstantapprehensionof beinglooked,looseandbeinglookedwithoutchastitymusthaveactedas ahurdle.ItisequallypossiblethataslikemanypeopleonthisEarth, deceasedtoo,mightbeapersonwithpoorreproductioncapacityandpoor expressions.Inadditiontoallthese,thefactcannotgounnoticedthat afterallitisanelicitoryexercisewhichhelpsanycomplainantinthis countrytoputuponrecordeachdetailofhercomplaintas,thatisthe wayinwhichsystemisworkingatthepolicestation.Theeditingatthe handsofthepersonbeforewhomthecomplaintisrecordedandthewriter whowritesthecomplainthasalsotobetakenintoconsideration.Asit may be, but, a one line story would be that the complaint and more particularly,whentheinformationhasbecomeadyingdeclarationithas tobeviewed,weighedandassessedfromthelensestodelivercomplete justiceandifthatlensarekept,EXH.283becomesacomplaintwhichisa combinationoftwodifferentoccurrencesorinotherwords,occurrence tookplaceintwoparts,atthevenueoftheoffence,intheintervening

152

nightof31/12/2003and01/01/2004.ThefirstpageofEXH.283ismainly relatedtosessionI.Aftertheintervalofgoingouttosomefarmhouse,the secondsessionhadbegunwhichseemstobeandasstronglyemergeson record to be the time of the offence and therefore, the complaint i.e. EXH.283hastobeseenonthatlinethatuptothelastbut,halfsecond line,thenarrationofoccurrenceisofsessionIandfromthehalfline,on thefirstpageofEXH.283beginssessionIIwhichisoftheperiodof offence. Thus, EXH.283 is held to be combination of two different occurrences misusing the description about the interval where, the deceasedvictimwastakenadmittedlytothefarmhouse.But,then,the saidhasbeendescribedbythedeceasedvictimbeforetheA11wherein (as can be seen from the medical case paper EXH.80, bunch of muddamaalarticle73)thedeceasedvictimhasstatedbeforetheA11that fromtheAshokPalacehoteltheyhadbeentosomefarmhouse,thename ofthesaidfarmhouseisnotknowntothedeceasedvictimandthere,they did not go to any dance party andhadreturned to AshokPalace,the deceasedvictimhasfurtherstatedbeforetheA1thatforthepasses(for new year party) her didi (PW3 who went to Taj Palace) was to be informed.

(L)

WhethertherewasadancepartyarrangedbyA3fromtherecord

ofthecaseornot?

InEXH.80,thedeceasedvictimhasstatedthattheyhadbeento farmhouse, but, did not go to dance party and came back to Ashok Palace. The PW3 was to be requested for the passes (of New Year

153

Celebration).Thiswouldmeanthattherewasnopartyattheplacewhere, thedeceasedvictimwastaken.AstoldbeforePW43bythedeceased victim,A3hasinvitedat10:00p.m.tothedeceasedvictimtemptingher thathispartyisready.But,whilethedeceasedvictimwastakenthere wasnopartyandtheycameback,A1hasstatedbeforethedoctorthatat about 12:30 a.m. of 01/01/2004 A4 and the deceased victim were dropped athotel Ashok Palaceandtheystayed atB.R. Farmforfive minutes.Whereas,A12hasstatedthatthedeceasedvictimwasbrought backfromB.R.Farmandtheyremainedthereforaboutanhour.Whereas A4saysthatonaccountofthecoldthedeceasedvictimwasbrought backandthedeceasedvictimsaidthateverythinghappenedat12:30a.m. of01/01/2004whichtallieswiththeprintoutofthePW3.Ittherefore, seemsthatasamatteroffacttherewasnopartywhatsoeverarrangedby A3as,thatistheonlypossiblepresumptionwhichcanbedrawnfrom thefacts,dyingdeclarationEXH.283,fromthestatementbeforeA11, fromoralevidenceofPW3andsupportedbyhistoryofA1,A4andA 12. (In any case the deceased victim came back in the hotel that is commonversionofallconcerned).

(M) NowthemostvitalfactneedsnoticethatA3hasstatedbeforethe PW36on05/01/2004afteraboutlapseof45daysoftheoccurrence. WhilestatingbeforethePW36,theA3hasonlyrefusedtherapehaving beencommittedbyhimonthedeceasedvictimon31/12/2003after22:00 o'clockatthevenue.

In the humble opinion of this Court, here had the party been

154

arrangedbytheA3,theA3oughttohavestatedsobeforethePW36, thedoctorandfurther,thereisnoallegationagainstthePW36ofhaving notnotedthehistorygivenbytheA3.Here,A3alsooughttohave givennamesofallthoseatleastsomeofthemwhowerepresentinthe party.Thisissuggestiveofcreationofdefenseofalibiwhichissimplyan afterthought,nopartywaseverarranged.

Thiscourtisconsciousthattheconfessionoftheaccusedwhilein custody is not to be proved against him but it is one of the strong circumstances and operates as estoppel when made before doctor and whenseemstobevoluntarywhichconfessionisnotusedasabaseto convicttheaccused.

Haditbeentrue,eventhedeceasedvictimwouldhavebeentold thatthefarmhousewasthevenueofthepartyarrangedbytheA3,she wouldhavesosaid.But,itisnotsostated. A1doesspeakaboutB.R.Farm,Bhatvillage,andhetoo,doesnot referittobethevenueofthepartyarrangedbyA3. A4,inEXH.260hasalsosaidaboutfarmhouseandpartybut,he too,didnotmentionwhosepartyandwhereitwas.

A12toostatesasnotedinEXH.287thatshewastakentoB.R. Farmhouse,but,evenhe,doesnotsaythat,itwasapartyarrangedbyA

155

3.Theseallcreatedoubtandispointertothefalsehoodofdefenceand truthfulness of deceased victim that there was no party and she was invitedunderfalsepretextofparty. Even A2 has stated before PW34, noted in EXH.239 the medicalcertificatethathehadnotintercoursedwiththedeceasedvictim at the venue at 22:00 p.m. Of 31/12/2003 and that at the time of occurrence,A2wasatGandhinagarCityPulseDiscoTheckeventhis witnessdoesnotsaywhethertherewasanypartyarrangedbyA3atB.R. Farmornot?Nordoeshestatesastoinwhosecompany,hewasatthat night,nordoesheproducedanythingtoestablishhispresenceatCity PulseDiscoTheckGandhinagar.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,itisjustimpossiblethatthepartywas thougharranged,byA3,butstillnotonlytheA3himself,but,anyone oftheremainingfouraccusedarenotstatingthatapartywasarrangedby A3ontheeveofNewYearDay.

Putting all these things collectively, the only reply emerges on recordisthattherewasnopartyandthatthedeceasedvictimwasinvited underthefalsepretextofthepartytomisusetheattractionthedeceased victimhadforparties,whichwaswithintheknowledgeofA4andothers which was used to celebrate the New Year Night at the cost of the deceasedvictimandthatthefiveaccusedweresuccessfulindoingso.

156

Conclusion: Theansweris:therewasnopartywhatsoeverorganizedbytheA3

andthatthedeceasedvictimwasinvitedunderthefalsepretextofparty and her attraction for parties (which is common for youngsters) was thoroughlymisused.

(N)

Whileweweretalkingaboutthemodeofcommittingoffence,the

only reply emerged from the record is that the mode of committing offencewastocompelthedeceasedvictimtoconsumetheintoxicating stupefying substance and to take the benefit of the said situation by committinggangrapeonher.Ashascomeupontherecord,A4isthe personwhohadcloseandsoftrelationshipwiththedeceasedvictimfor aboutoneandhalfyear(asstatedbythedeceasedvictimbeforeA11 recordedvideEXH.80andforabout1yearasstatedbyA4beforePW 37recordedatEXH.260)whomightbeinfullknowaboutchoice,liking anddislike of the deceasedandtherefore, to facilitatetheoffence,an arrangementofthebeerwasmadeatthevenue.

Ashasbeendeclaredbythedeceasedvictimthroughherdying declarationEXH.283beerwascalledforbyA4andthedeceasedvictim wascompelledtoconsumethesame.ShewasbeatenbytheA4tomake herdrinkmorebeerbut,theheightcanbeseeninEXH.260astatement ofA4informofhistorybeforePW37wherein,thePW37hasstated thatA1brought'R.C.'Fromthecommonknowledge,itcanbenotedthat R.C.is'RoyalChallenge'andwhenascanbeseenfromEXH.561the

157

deceasedvictimhad.0531%alcoholpercentageandwhenitcanbeseen fromEXH.263thatA1toohadalcoholpercentageof.0510%,evenat 6:20p.m.of01/01/2004,theonlyoneinferenceofthefactcanbedrawn thatthesaidRoyalChallengewastheintoxicatingdrink.Thedeceased victim was compelled to drinkandastheeffect of thesaidalcoholic substance, the deceased victim's physical position must not have remainedgoodwhileasdiscussedabove,allthefiveaccusedwerealso drunk.Thehelplessdeceasedvictimmustbeinpitiablestatebecauseof theeffectofalcoholandonaccountofforcefulattackbyfivemalesmost ofwhomwereherfriends.Shemusthavebeenintremendousmental traumaonaccountoftheunexpectedattackofrapebythegangofthe fiveaccused.Itisthephysicalforceuseduponthedeceasedvictimwith theadditionalfactorofeffectofalcoholthedeceasedmusthavegoneto drawsystate,butshehasclearlyprovedthepresenceofeachofthefive accusedbeyondanyreasonabledoubt.EXH.283,EXH.80oralevidence ofPW43,PW3andPW40areifseencollectively,thereemergesavery clear,doubtlessandacrystalpicturethatthedeceasedvictimwasgang rapedbyallthefiveaccusedanytimebetween12:45to1.00a.m.and 3:30to4.00a.m.of01/01/2004atthevenueoftheoffencebyconsuming alcoholicsubstanceandbymakingandcompellingthedeceasedvictimto consumethestupefyingalcoholicsubstancewhichseemstobethebeer oftheRoyalChallengebrandhavingthealcohol.

Thus,themodeofcommissionofoffencewasafterconsumptionof liquorandcompellingthedeceasedvictimtoconsumeliquorandashas been narrated in Exh.283 whichtallieswith Exh.80, themedicalcase

158

papersofthedeceasedvictimasalsotallieswiththeobservationofA11 after, clinically examining the deceased victim the sign of injuries whichshowthatasnarratedinthedyingdeclarationthatthedeceased victimwasbeatenandbittenwhilerapingher,shewashurtandbeatento compelhertoconsumetheintoxicatingsubstancewhichwasthemodeof committinggangrapeonthedeceasedvictim. (O) Whocommittedwhatoffence:

EXH.62thepostmortemreportreadwiththedepositionofPW2it becomesclearthatduringthepostmortem,theinjurieswerenoticedon differentpartsofthepersonofthedeceasedvictim,mostofwhichtally with the observation recorded by A11, which can be perused from EXH.80 and other documentary evidences. If EXH.283 is perused, it becomesclearthatalltheaccusedhaveconsumedliquoratthehotelon theinterveningnight.

DeceasedvictimhasstatedinherdyingdeclarationEXH.283that A4hasslappedherforcompellinghertoconsumebeer,A4hasagain slappedherwhile,shehasdeniedtoremoveherclothes,thenafter,A3, A12havealsoinjuredthedeceasedvictimonherbreast,shoulderand backsidebybitingher.Ashasbeencomplainedbythedeceasedvictim A1andA2hasalsobeatenthedeceasedvictimwhichisacumulative outcomeofEXH.283.Thus,itisclearthatA1,A2,A3,A4andA12 havecommittedoffencebyhurting,beating,slapping,injuringandbiting thedeceasedvictimanytimefrom1:00a.m.to4:00a.m.of01/01/2004at

159

theAshokPalacehotel.

While understandingEXH.283 thedying declaration,it isto be rememberedthatthedeceasedvictimisnotpresentbeforetheCourtto clarifyanythinginwordsandthattherefore,itisabundantdutyofCourt rather a sacred duty of administration of justice to read the dying declaration in its true perspective, in the light of surrounding circumstances and surrounding documents and the surrounding events andcircumstanceswhichclearlyemergedonrecordwhichcanplayrole ofthelighthousetoshowashipaharbour.

(P)

CircumstancesandDocuments:

We are to deal with the circumstances, oral and documentary evidenceprovingthe guiltofthefiveaccusedevenwhileconsidering their further statement(which shallbedealtwithinthepartIIIofthe judgementwhilediscussingthedefenceversion)andwhileappreciating and weighing the defence put forth as a breaking force to the genuineness,veracityandcorrectnessoftheprosecutioncase.But,atthis juncture,whenwediscuss,thegistoftheprosecutioncase,theabove discussion helps us to hold that, the prosecution has proved its case beyondanyreasonabledoubt.

InExh283,thedeceasedvictimhasveryspecificallystatedthat therewaspresenceofallthefiveaccusedintheroom,allofthemhave

160

onebyoneintercoursedwithherbyapplyingforce,inpresenceofeach other, she was beaten by A4 to compel her to drink, injured on her breast,back,shoulderbyteethbites,etc.byalltheaccused.Ifthewhole complaintisseeninitstrueperspectiveitisextremelyclearthatthereisa mentionaboutthefiveaccused.Eveninthelastparagraphthenameofall thefiveaccusedhavebeenmentionedanditiscategoricallystatedthatall the five accused have invited her under a false pretext of A3 has arrangedapartyandthen,havedonethisoffence.Whatisimportantto noteisthatsomewhereinthetextmoreparticularly,inthelastparagraph in7thlinefromthelast,allthe4wordshavebeenwritteninGujarati. But,then,ifthespiritofthewholecomplaintisseen,itseemsthatthe deceasedvictimwasextremelyclearandconfirmedaboutthepresenceof allthefiveaccusedandabouttheparticipationofallthefiveaccusedwho haverapedherbyapplicationofforceandbyinjuringher.Thedeceased victimhasfurtherclarifiedthatshedidnotknowwhathadhappenedafter shelostconsciousness.

Further,asdiscussedabovePW43istheP.S.I.Beforewhomthe complaintwasrecordedsupportsthefactofpresenceandparticipationof thefiveaccusedwhilespeakingonExh.283and284.Itclearlycomesup on record that this is the report (Exh.284) which was prepared immediatelyafterrecordingthecomplaintwhichistheofficialactatthe policestationafterrecordingcomplaint.Itisratherverymuchspecified byPW43thatassoonaswritingofcomplaintwasover,immediately beganwasthepreparationofthereportforoffencedeclarationwhichtoo wasreadywithin15to20minutes.Now,within1520minuteswhen

161

thereporthasbeenprepared,andwhentheofficerknowsthatithastobe inaccordancewiththecomplaintandwhenitisinclusiveofthenamesof 5accused,thereportsupportsthepositionthatatthatpointoftimewhen thecomplaintwaswrittenallconcernedhaveunderstoodandproperly perceivedthatitwasagainst5personsasitwassoacteduponbythe policeofficialinpreparingEXH.284report.

IthastobekeptinmindthatthewriteroftheP.S.I.PW43is simplicitor a person to do the ministerial job. When from the oral substantialevidenceofPW43itisverymuchclearthatthecomplaint was against five accused, when a clear reflection has been shown in EXH.284theoffencedeclarationreportwhichhasbeenpreparedthen and there itself only within 20 minutes of lodging the complaint, it becomesamplyclearthatthecomplaintgivenbythevictimwasagainst thefiveaccusedandthatthewholebodyofthecomplaintexceptthelast to seventh line mentioned herein before, everywhere the complaint is againstthefiveaccused.Thewordallthefourcannotbetakeninform whenitisrecordedbywriter,whenPW43statesthecomplainttobe againstthefiveaccused.Thespiritofthecomplainthastobeseenand nottheforminwhichawriteroftheP.S.I.haswrittentowhicheventhe PW43theP.S.I.beforewhomithasbeenwrittendoesnotagreerather the PW43 who has the personal knowledge of the complaint being recordedbyhiswriterandbeforewhomthecomplaintwasgivenbythe deceased victim, very clearly and firmly says that the complaint was againstthefiveaccused.

162

This Court, therefore, do not find any merit in the technical submissionbyld.AdvocatefortheA1thathisnameisnotmentionedin thecomplainthencehebeacquitted.

TheaccusedNo1hadnotexplainedhispresenceatpolicestation, notonlythat,but,iftheexplanationItosection376(2)oftheI.P.C.is seenthanalsothepresenceoftheaccusedissufficientandthepresence ofaccusedno.1isveryclearlyemergingfromthecomplaintinaddition toparticipationofall5accusedinoffenceofgangrapingthedeceased victim.Thus,EXH.283iscleartotheextentthatitisagainstallthefive accused.

(Q)

Conclusion:

ThegistofdepositionofPW43,somepartofthedepositionof PW3, some part of deposition of PW10, PW20, PW25 read with EXH.283thecomplaintandEXH.284theoffencedeclarationreportand further adding the deposition of the handwriting expert (Exh.451) opining the signature below the complaint to be the signature of the deceasedvictim,itbecomesclearthatitisthedeceasedvictimwhogave thecomplaintagainstallthefiveaccusedfortheoffencecommittedat roomNo.106athotelAshokPalace,Shahibaughinbetween1.00A.M.to 4:00 a.m. (anytime) of 01/01/2004, the offence was committed after consumptionofalcoholicsubstancethestupefyingdrinktofacilitatethe offencebybeating,hurting,wrongfullyconfiningthedeceasedvictimby

163

thefiveaccusedandaftercompellingthedeceasedvictimbytheaccused No.4toconsumethesaidalcoholicsubstancewhichwasconsumedby thedeceasedvictim.

(R)

OutCome:

TheEXH.283complaintisthedyingdeclarationandisadmissible underSection32oftheIndianEvidenceAct,isheldtobeabsolutely truthful,voluntary,genuinegivenbythedeceasedvictim,signedbythe deceased victim before the PW43, and it does not suffer from any infirmity,isreliable,dependableandsoundandsafetobeactedupon, provingthedateoftheoffencetobe1/1/04,timebetweenabout1.00to 4.0 a.m., at the venue of room No.106 of the Ashok Palace Hotel, Shahibaug,revealingoffenceofgangrapetohavebeencommittedbyall thefiveaccusedinfurtheranceoftheircommonintentiontocommitrape on the deceased victim to celebrate new year night by inviting the deceasedvictimunderfalsepretextofnewyearpartyandbybeating(by A4) and compelling her to consume alcoholic substance, forcefully intercourseherwithoutherconsentandbyhurtingherandusingcriminal force.

26.

Atthisjunctureinthiscasewhetherthedeceasedhaddied

suicidal or homicidal death is not the subject matter in this case still howeverinviewofoverallfactsandcircumstances,onthedepositionof thePW2andthepostmortemnoteEXH.62,uponbroadprobabilities

164

upon noting injuries on the person of the deceased victim, noting dribblingofsaliva,deadbodyfoundhanginginthehouseandnomarkof violence have beennotedonher bodyandin thebackground ofthe commissionofgangrape,thedeceasedisheldtohavediedsuicidaldeath on7/1/04.

27.

Sofirstly,EXH.283isthestatement,complaintandF.I.R.

given by the deceased victim, it is a written statement, and that the questionofcauseofdeathofthedeceasedisinquestionwhichisclarified bythedeceasedherselfthroughhersuicidenoteonrecordEXH.571to whichthoughcorroborationdoesnotrequireandthatsuchastatementis relevant, and that the said statement can be held relevant in any proceedingsinwhichthecauseofthedeathofthedeceasedvictimcomes intoquestion. Now,hadthedeceasedvictimbeenalive,shewouldhavestepped into the witness box. But, here the deceased victim is not alive and therefore,sheisnotabletostepintothewitnessbox.Whathasbeen statedinEXH.283hasbeensubsequentlybyvirtueofEXH.571,proved tobeatransactionwhichresultedintoherdeath.Itistheversionofthe circumstancesofthetransaction,asaresultthedeceaseddied. The judgment reported at 2008 Cri. L.J. 710 in the matter of RajendraDuttaZarekarV/s.StateofGoaithasbeenobservedthatrape leavesapermanentscarandhasaseriouspsychologicalimpactonthe victimandalsoonherfamilymembershence,noonewouldnormally

165

concoct a story of rape just to falsely implicate a person, is squarely applicabletothecaseonhandwhichistotheeffectthatthedeceased victimhasnotfalselyimplicatethefiveaccused.

Furtherinviewofthepropoundedprinciplestheversionofvictim ofrapeneedsnocorroborationexcepttherarestofrarecircumstances.

InviewoftheprincipleinthementionedjudgementintheCaseof Appeal (Criminal) 1166 of 2001 (by Honble the Supreme Court), it becomesclearthatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase, when the deceased victim is the only principal eye witness of the occurrence of gang rape,theexclusionofEXH.283woulddeflectthe endsofjustice,andthedyingdeclarationseemsabsolutelyvoluntaryand trustworthy in view of the oral evidence of PW43, PW3 and not acceptingitwouldresultintomiscarriageofjustice.(iii)Exclusionofthe statementatEXH.283wouldleavetheCourtwithoutascrapofevidence. (iv)ThedepositionofPW43andthatofthehandwritingexpertsupports thecontentsandsignature,theinformationneedstoberelieduponasis givenbydeceasedinextremity,itisaboutherownravishmentwhichno womanwouldfalselymake,thePW43statesthatdeceasedvictimwasin senses,deceasedvictimsversioninspiresfullconfidenceofthisCourtin its correctness, there is nothing on record by which it can even be whispered that the complaint is a result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination, in view of deposition of PW43 thedeceased victimwasinfitstateofmind,whichisalsosupportedbythemedical casepaperofthedeceasedvictimon recordatEXH.80andEXH.268

166

whereaccusedNo.11hasnotedthedeceasedvictimtobeconscious.(v) Thedeceasedvictimwasbroughttothepolicestationat5:00a.m.of 01/01/2004andtherecordingofcomplainthasstartedatabout7:00a.m. anditwascompletedatabout7:45a.m.,thedeceasedvictimherselfhas shownthevenueofoffencetothePW48whilepanchnamaEXH.298. Thisissuggestiveofthefactthatthedeceasedvictimherselfgaveher complaint.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatthedeceasedvictim was tutored or prompted by anyone. (vi) In view of the fact that the deceased victim was ravished,gangrapedbyher ownfriends, bythe personcloselyassociatedwithherasallofthemwereincontactwiththe deceasedvictimandA1toA4,werefrequentlymeetingthedeceased victimascanbeseenfromrecordandevenA12hastelephoniccontact withthedeceasedvictim.Evenoneofthemhadloveaffairswiththe deceasedvictimandA2andA3areclaimingintheirrepresentationthat thedeceasedvictimwasinterestedinthem.Theseareallthereasons, which clarify that the complaint is not a product of imagination. The opportunityforthedeceasedvictimtoobserveandidentifytheassailant was amply available to deceased victim in the facts of the case as admittedinfurtherstatementinthecaseofA1toA4priorintroduction withthedeceasedvictimandincaseofA12telephoneprintoutsuggest priorcontactandmeetingfromnoonof31/12/2003.

28.

Asdiscussedabove,thereisnoprobabilityorpossibilityof

thedeceasedvictimtofalselyimplicateanyoftheaccused.Nomotive whatsoeverhasbeensuggestedtofalselyimplicatetheaccusedandthat

167

when the deceased victim herself is putting the state machinery into motionbyfilingthecomplaint,itisimpossiblethatthedeceasedvictim wouldgivefalsecomplaintorfalseaccountoftheoccurrenceorwould file any complaint under any kind of compulsion. Further, this Court humblyopinesthatthestatementgivenbythedeceasedvictimrecorded in presence of PW43 is true, voluntary, without any element of prompting,tutoringandseemsdependable,andreliableevidence.

Thefactandlawpointsofnotedjudgmentsaresquarelyfittingin thecaseonhands.Thereisonlyonedifferencethatinthementioned judgement(CriminalAppealNo.1166of2001),thedeceasedvictimdied afterfourdaysoflodgingthecomplaintanddeathwasduetophysical injurywhereasinthiscase,itismentalinjury(mainly)andthedeathwas onsixthday.

Itisinviewofthepropoundedprinciplethattheclosescrutinyof thedyingdeclarationisnecessarybut,whiledoingtheclosescrutiny,the court cannot be oblivious to the hard facts of life that ordinarily, no womanwithwhateverlittlesenseshehaswouldeverfalselyallegearape havingbeencommittedonheras,sheatonesofherownchastity,put herself in dark, inviting all oblique guesses of the society, exposing herselftothewholeworldasapitiablecharacter.Itismuchapplicablein acaseofunmarriedwomansince,shewouldbeloosingallchancesof prospectivematrimonialoffersandthattheoccurrenceoftheallegedrape wouldexposehertothesocietyandwouldputherinanawkwardbox throughherownhands.Itis,therefore,clearthatthereareabsolutelyno

168

chancesofthedyingdeclarationnotbeingtruthfulandvoluntary.

29.

REMAINING OTHER WITNESSES OF GROUPF : (POLICE)

(A) PW48:

PW48isthefirstinvestigatingofficerwhohasbeenhandedover theinvestigationofthepresentcase.Thiswitnesshasstatedinhiscross examinationthatatabout7:30a.m.SeniorP.I.ShriRaolofShahibaugh PoliceStation,on01/01/2004,hascalledhimonphoneandtoldhimthat thewitnesswasrequiredtourgentlyreachatShahibaughPoliceStation as,therewasonerapecase.Thiswitnesshasdeposedtohaveseenthe PW43intheinvestigatingroomwhen,on01/01/2004hewenttothe ShahibaughPoliceStation,seenthewriterofPW43tohavebeentaking downthecomplaintofonewomanoutofthetwosittingbesidesthePW 43,whileheinquiredfromthePW43abouttheoccurrence,hewastold byPW43thatrapehastakenplaceinhotelAshokPalaceinShahibaugh and that sons of the owner of the hotel Ashok Palace, Chandan and MandanandSajal,Karan,etc.areinvolvedintheoccurrence,hehaving gone from police station to hotel Ashok Palace along with police constableHadmatsinhwhere,heinquiredaboutA2andA3andthen, aftervisitingthesiteofoffence,i.e.RoomNo.106locked,keptthekeys withhim,thecomplainantandthewitnesshavebroughtoneyoungman who was asked to be kept with the P.S.O., the deceased victim has

169

herselfshownthevenueoftheoffenceatAshokPalacewhere,thenafter, thiswitnessplaced'policejaapata'. Onpage15duringthecourseofcrossexamination,thiswitness hasalsotestifiedthatwhilehewenttothepolicestationatabout8:30 a.m.,atthatpointoftime,thecomplaintrecordingprocesswascompleted andeven,reportu/s.157oftheCr.P.C.andthecomplaintwerehanded overtothiswitness. It becomes clear that the presence of A1 has very much been showntobeattheShahibaugPoliceStation,evenpriortoreceivingof thecomplaint,theA1wasthenafterinterrogated,arrested,hisclothes wereseizedandwassenttohospitalformedicalcheckup.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,allthisprocesstallieswiththe aspect of genuineness mentioned herein above of EXH.283 complaint and report EXH.284 and includingtheparticipation of theA1 inthe crime.

Onpage19,thiswitnesshasveryspecificallystatedthatoverand

above the complaint, this witness has recorded the statement of the complainantafterrecoveringherclothes,whilegivingthecomplaintand thestatementthedeceasedwasspeakingproperly,onpageNo.21,ithas beenadmittedthatremandofA1wastaken,theobjectofwhichwasto investigateastowherearetheremainingaccusedwhichalsoshowsthat theA1wasrightfromthebeginningbetreatedasoneoftheaccusedof

170

theprincipalcrime. Theabovewitnesshashelpedtheprosecutiontoestablishthatthe deceased victim herself has shown the room No.106 of hotel Ashok Palace,itbeingtheplaceofoffenceandrightfromthebeginning,A1 wasbeingtreatedasoneoftheaccusedoftherapecase.

OnpageNo.26,thewitnesshasagainclarifiedandspecifiedthat

thedeceasedvictimwasaccompanyingthiswitnessandshehasshown roomNo.106.

on page 30, it hasbeenstatedthatduring theinvestigation,the

witnesshaslearntthatthedeceasedvictimwasbeatenandbitten,yadi EXH.275waswrittenasthewitnesshaslearntthatthedeceasedvictim hadconsumedsomealcoholicsubstanceonpage36suggests,thewitness volunteers to state that while, handing over the investigation to the witnessnecessaryendorsementwasmadeonthebacksideofEXH.284 onthereportu/s.157oftheCr.P.C.Atpage50questionNo.17the deceased victim was with this witness until she was sent for medical treatmentfrom8:30a.m.whenthewitnesstookovertheinvestigation, thedeceasedvictimwaswiththiswitnessfor3hours,thiswitnesswhile replyingtoquestionNo.22hasstatedthathehasseentheinjuriesonthe cheek,lipsandfaceofthedeceasedvictim(thistallieswiththecomplaint EXH.283andmedicalpapersEXH.80andEXH.268).Thewitnesshas alsobeenquestionedbymylearnedpredecessor,wherein,thiswitness

171

has admitted that he is not conversant about the role of police in investigationofsuchcasesforwhichdirectionshavebeenissuedbythe Hon'bleApexCourtandGujaratHighCourt,thedirectionguidingthe wayinwhichassistanceistobeprovidedtotherapevictimhasstatedby thewitnesstohavebeengivenafterthecase.

In the opinion of this court, this witness like PW43 has also provedthatthedyingdeclarationistrue,voluntaryandreliablyseemsto havebeengivenbythedeceasedvictim. (B) PW47:

On page 7, this witness has accepted that prosecution witness no.10 Mr.Hemant Chaudhary has stated before this witness that when they reachedtoShahibaugpolicestation,thedeceasedvictimhastoldthefact aboutoccurrencetothesaidHemantChaudhary.

Intheopinionofthiscourt,thissoundsquitenaturalandusualas prosecutionwitnessno.10&20areadmittedlyquiteclosetoprosecution witnessno.3andwereclosetothedeceasedvictimandthereforeitisnot possiblethatuntilreachingatpolicestation,bothofthemoratleastone ofthemwouldnottriedtoknowaswhathashappenedandhowithas happened?

172

(C)

PW51: Thiswitnessisthewitnesswhohasbeenassignedalimitedtaskof

furtherinvestigationaftertheorderofHon'bletheHighCourtofGujarat, on record EXH.424, in special criminal application no.182/04 was passed.Onlyfurtherinvestigationwastobedonebythiswitness. Letusseeastothiswitnesshaswhetherhelpedtheprosecution case or not? This witness has given his oral evidence as prosecution witness no.51 vide EXH.423 wherein it has been deposed that: this witnesswhilecarryingthefurtherinvestigationhascalledfortheprint outs details of mobile phones of accused no.2 and accused no.3, the statementsofdifferentwitnesses mentionedbytheaccused no.2&3 have been recorded, total 17 statements were recorded after having analyzedthematerialofprintoutofthemobilephonesandthecontents ofthestatement/areportoffurtherinvestigationwasfiled. During the course of the cross examination, the witness has admitted that hesupervised theinvestigationright from thebeginning sincetheinvestigationwasrelatedtotheoffenceregisteredatShahibaug policestationwhichwasinhisjurisdiction,untilchargesheetwasfiled on many of the occasions, the witness had talk with the prosecution witnessno.49(A.C.P.ShriOza).Theprintoutcalledformighteithersent totheirofficebythemobileoperatorsortheymaytelephoneusandin turnwemaysendamantocollectthesame,sometimetheprintoutin

173

the sealed cover also used to be sent directly to Investigating Officer withoutopeningitatmyofficesincetheconcernedInvestigatingOfficer has to do the primary studyof theprintout. Thesuggestionsthatby suppressingtheoriginalprintout,thewitnesshasnotallowedtheoriginal print out to be on record, original information sent by the mobile operatorshasnotbeenproducedbeforethecourtbuthasbeenproduced by taking it from computer and by altering the information so as to damagethedefenseversionofalibihasbeendeclined.Thesuggestion thatthefurtherinvestigationhasbeenintentionallykeptbythewitness withhim,thefurtherinvestigationisnotcarriedoutasperthedirection oftheHon'bleHighCourthavealsobeendenied. Certaindocumentaryevidencesfromthecustodyofthiswitness havebeenproducedonrecordandexhibitedattherequestofthedefense includingtheprintoutandcorrespondencetoorbythemobileoperators. The witness has admitted that with reference to the order by Hon'bleHighCourt,hehasinvestigatedastowhethertheaccusedno.3 hasarrangedanypartyon31.12.03atB.R.Farmornot?Itisdeniedthat theoutcomeofinvestigationsincewasfavouringtoaccusedno.2and accusedno.3,thesaidwasnotpermittedtocomeonrecord.Thewitness hasbeenaskedaboutthedistanceofdifferentplaceswhichhavebeen answeredbythewitnesswhereinaccordingtothewitness,thedistance betweenAshokPalaceHotel&B.R.Farmis6kilometres.Themaximum distance suggested by the defense and accepted by the witness is 28 kilometres which is city pulse S.G.Road to Grand Bhagwati via Memnagar.EXH.443fromtherecordofMetropolitanMagistratecourtis

174

showntothewitnessasthepurshisbyA.C.P.ShriBarotthatthemobile phonecompanieshavebeendirectednottodestroytheinformationabout print out of BTS until final disposal of this case but the witness has shown his ignorance to the said purshis as that not being part of investigation. The witness has called a fresh print outs for mobile no.9824066729&9824313333forwhichthewitnesshasexplainedthat thepreviousprintoutwerewithouttowerlocationandtowersiteandthat Hon'bletheHighCourthasorderedforthesaidhencethewitnesshas calledforthesaid.Thewitnesshasbeenassailedontheaspectofthe discrepancybetweenEXH.394&431forwhichthewitnesshasreplied thattheinterpretationofthediscrepancyetc.betweenthetwodocuments fromthemobileoperatorcanonlybeexplainedbytheexpertpersonof themobileoperator.Thisfacthasbeenstatedbythewitnessonpage16, onpage17,onpage19etc.Thewitnesshasdeniedtheallegationsof mischiefhavingbeenplayedintheprintoutsbynotproducingtheprint outsinthesameformaswasgivenfromthemobilecompany(page18), on page 20, the witness has admitted that he is not an expert of transmissionsystemandthathehasnotrecordedanystatementofthe officerofcellularcompanyandcomputerexpert. Theallegationthattodestroypleaofalibiandnottoshowitin accordancewithrepresentationofaccusedno.2,alterationsweremadein timings and tower addresses have been denied. The witness has specificallyexplainedonpage21abouttheinsertionsofthepointsinhis reportsubmittedtothecourtrelatedthatitisnotpossibletocometoany conclusionbasinguponthemobiletowerlocation.Theallegationsofthe

175

alterations having been made by cut, paste method by the help of computerhavebeendenied.

The different parts of report given to the court after further investigation to comply with theorder ofHonbleHighCourt, more particularlyafteravailingtheprintoutsofthemobiletelephoneofthe accused no.2 and accusedno.3havebeenassailedtosuggestthatthe reportisawrongandbiasedbutthewitnesshasthroughoutdeniedthe saidandhasmentionedthattheinformationofmobiletelephonescannot betermedtobetrustworthyevidenceforalibi,discrepanciesintheprint out have been shown to the witness which the witness has explained according to his understanding and perception about the mobile technology.

Ld.Advocateforthedefensehassubmittedthatthiswitnessisnot trustworthyandhisdepositionhasbeenabruptlycloseddown. Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourtinviewofthefactthatbyvirtue ofEXH.283thedyingdeclarationwhichdoesnotrequirecorroboration the case against the five accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubtwhentheaccusedno.2and3havetakenpositivedefenseofalibi,it istheirdutytoestablishandprovetheirdefense.Themethodadoptedby thedefenseofdoubtingthebonafidesoftheInvestigatingOfficer,trying tocreatedoubtagainsttheprosecutioncasethroughtheinstrumentof crossexamination,assailingonthediscrepanciesindifferentprintouts aresuchmethodswhichdonotsatisfytherequisitesoftheobligationto

176

bedischargedbythedefense.Extensivesubmissionarenotthesolutions fortechnicallabyrinthwhenthewitnessi.e.theInvestigatingOfficerhas veryspecificallyadmittedthatheisnotanexpertonthesubjectofmobile telephonetechnologyandthatwhateverhasbeenprovidedtohimbythe mobilecompanieshasbeenprovidedbyhimtothedefensewhichcame on record on the request of defense as the prosecution has though investigatedonthataspectbutultimatelyhasnotrelieduponittoprove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense ought to have examined the officers of the mobile telephone companies to establishtheforminwhichtheprintoutweresentbutthedefensehas only heavily alleged ontheInvestigating Officer. The discrepancies betweenthedocumentscannotbematterofarguments.Moreparticularly inthegivenfacts&circumstances,oneneedstoestablishthatthetrue printoutsaretheseandthatthemobiletechnologyisnotthedoubtful deviseandisfullproofdeviseofonesmovement.Thedefensecould havebroughtthegenuineprintoutthroughoralevidenceoftherespective authorizedpersonofthemobilecompaniesbutthatisnotdonebythe defense.Thedefensehasexaminedsomedefensewitnessesbutthenwhy thedefenseisfailedtoexaminetheofficersofthemobilecompaniesisa question.Inthecasewhenthedefenseisthoroughlydependingonthe versionputforthbythemobilecompaniesthroughwhichtrueandcorrect informationtoestablishitspleaofalibiistobeprovedthenthatbeinga positivedefense,thedefenseoughttohaveexamineofficersfromthe mobile companies and should not have remained silent by merely pointingoutthediscrepanciesfromtherecordwhichisthoughnotrelied uponbytheprosecutionasmadetobeproducedattherequestofthe

177

defense. Once the defense requests to produce some document, it becomes the duty of the defense to prove the contents of the said document.Intheinstantcase,thedocumentstookoutfromthecustodyof theprosecutionwitnessno.49&51havebeenexhibitedasthedocuments camefromthecustodyoftheprosecutionwhilecrossexaminationthough notreliedbytheprosecution,butthedefensehasrequestedtotakeiton record.Thedocumentshavebeentechnicallyexhibitedonaccountofthe request of the defense butthenthecontents of thosedocumentshave neverbeenprovedtobetrueandcorrectmerelybecauseitcomesfrom thecustodyoftheprosecution,itcannotbeacceptedwithoutformalproof of it when the witness as can be. The defense has satisfied itself by gettingthedocumentsexhibitedbutthecontentsofthesaidshallhaveto beprovedwhichhavenotbeenformallyproved,onlycustodyhasbeen established.Themobiletechnologybeingdevelopingscience,everyone cannotbeexpectedtobeexpertonthesameandthenthedefensecannot be established only by technical data coming from the source of the prosecutionwhenitisnotselfexplaining.Firstlytheprintoutisthefull proof of the movement of the person has to be proved. It cannot be forgottenthatprintoutrecordsmovementoftheinstrumentandnotthe movementofthepersonhimselfexceptthatitispositivelyprovedthat the mobile instrument was carried by person in the instant case by accused no.2 and accused no.3. Accused no.2 and accused no.3 have stated on oath (EXH.462andEXH.463) abouttheir carrying both the mobilephones,but,untilthesaidstandsproved,thedefencedoesnot provethedefense.Intheinstantcase,thedefensehasplacedonrecord meticulousdiscrepancieswhichmaybeapointeragainstthereliabilityof

178

theinformationonrecordbutthenthequestionhasremainedunanswered astothemobilecompanyhasgiventheinformationinthisproformaor somepersonwithvestedinterestattheofficeoftheinvestigatingofficer orfromtheteamoftheinvestigatingofficerhasdoneanymischieforthe personsentbythemobilecompanytohandovertheinformationora person sent by the Investigating Officer to take the information has playedanymischief.Inthiscircumstances,itdoesnotseemtobesafe, fairandjusttoholdthattheinvestigationisdefectiveandmalafide,even principles of natural justice demands to offer opportunity to the InvestigatingOfficerbeforetitlinghimtobedishonest.Atleastinthe givenfacts&circumstancesofthecase,thereisnothingonrecordto holdthattheinvestigationwasdishonest,furtherinvestigationwasdone to damage or destroy theplea of alibi raised bythe defense andthat anythingonrecordisavailabletoholdthataccusedno.2andaccused no.3werereallynotpresentattheAshokPalaceHotelroomno.106atthe crucialtimeofinterveningnightof31.12.03&1.1.04. (D) Mr.P.N.Barot,aretiredACPhasgivenhisoralevidence videEXH.289asPW45.Thiswitnessis,assuch,awitnessenteredinto investigatingprocessataverylatestageandtheinvestigationbyhimwas mainlyatthestagewhenA12cameintothepicture. During the course of crossexamination, this witness has deposedthat:hehadvisitedB.R.Farmandhadrecordedthestatement ofpersonsandemployeesatB.R.Farm;thewitnesshasinvestigatedon PW45:

179

the aspect of presence of PW3 anddeceasedvictim atAshokPalace Hotelinthenoonof31.12.2003asisrevealedonpg.6;thewitnesshas not recorded the statement of any of the employees of the mobile company;hehasnotinquiredaboutthecorrectnessofmobileprintoutof PW3anddeceasedvictim;hehasagreedtothesuggestionthatthereport prepared u/s.157 of the Cr.P.C. should be in accordance with the complaint;hecouldnotnoticefromtheinvestigationpapersthatA12is showntobetheresidentofJaipur;hehasnotinvestigatedontheaspect ofdifferentnamesofA12fromtheschoolatJaipur;hehasagreedtothe suggestionthathehasnotinquiredaboutthediscrepancyinthereport u/s.157ofCr.P.C.(EXH.284)whereinA12isshowntobetheresidentof Jaipurandthecomplaint(EXH.283)whereinA12isshowntobethe resident of Delhi, by giving an explanation that he did not find it necessary as during the course of his investigation, the identity of Dharmendra@Karan@MonturesidentofAjmerwasrevealed;atthe timeofarrest,A12hadsymptomsofskindiseaseandhisskinwasnot good,buthedidnothavestainoverallhisbody;thiswitnesswaswithA 12for23hrs.atHospitalformedicalinvestigation;asrevealedonpg.10 in presence of this witness,blood sample of A12 was taken,but the witnessdeniedtohavelearntthatA12hadeffectofparalysisonhisleft hand;asisrecordedonpg.14,thiswitnesshasnotrecordedthestatement ofanyexpertofmobilecompanyandhasevennotrecordedthestatement ofanypersonhavingknowledgeoftelecommunicationengineering;this witnessadmittedtohaveneitherstudiednortrainedforthereflectionof towermobilephone;hehasnotobtainedanycertificatetofindoutasto howmanytowersexistedinthearea.

180

As has been revealed in the oral evidence EXH.218 and EXH.291 are both the same documents namely panchnama of test identification parade of A12. As has been noted by my learned predecessoronpg.12,EXH.218istheoriginalpanchnamaandEXH.291 isxeroxcopytakenonrecordattherequestofdefence.Theendorsement at the end of EXH.218 in the original is not in EXH.291. The said endorsement is dt.28.02.2005 placing on record that the copy of panchnamahasbeengiventotheaccused. Itseemsthatthisendorsementismadeataplacefromwhichthe xeroxcopycanbetakenoutwithoutthesaidendorsement.Secondly,the receipt of the accused is in the original panchnama and that this discrepancybetweentwodocumentsdoesnotgrantanyreasonabledoubt againsttheprosecution'scase.Thesame,therefore,needstobeignored. (E) PW49,Mr.OzaisACPandInvestigatingOfficerwhohas takenovertheinvestigationfromtwoofhispredecessorsintwodifferent sessionscasesinthecasesbetweenthedeceasedvictimandfiveaccused. On 08.01.2004 he took over the investigation after the death of the deceasedvictim. ThiswitnesshasstatedinhisoralevidencethatA4hasshown roomno.106and205ofHotelAshokPalace,on05.02.2004(pg.4);the originalcomplaint(EXH.283)wassenttotheHandwritingExpertforthe PW49:

181

opiniononsignatureofthecomplainantinthecomplaint,onwhichthe FSLhasgiventheopinionoftheHandwritingExpert(pg.13);duringthe courseofinvestigationthiswitnesshasadmittedtohaverecordedthe statementofwitnessKamleshSolankiwhereinithasbeenstatedthatfive empty bottles of beer, two bottles of Royal Challenge Whisky, seven glasses,etc.werelyinginroomno.106(pg.31);witnessVinaylalSunillal hadgivenhisstatementwhereinhehasstatedtohavestayedinroom no.110ofHotelAshokPalace(pg.34);onpg.47ithasbeenclarifiedthat the statement of witness Madanlal was recorded on 22.01.2004 and inadvertentlythewritermighthavewrittenthedatetobe21.01.2004;the statementofDr.Krupabenwasrecordedon28.01.2004andthatofNaren @ Naurin was recorded on24.03.2004(pg.47); inEXH.78 medical casepapers,thereisamentionofDr.ParulBhargav;inpanchnamaat EXH.106thereisnomentionofavailabilityoflight,butitwasevening time and light was there (pg.52); it has been admitted that necessary arrangementsforrecordingthestatementsofwitnessesu/s.164ofCr.P.C. weremade, PW3hasnotstatedinanystatementaboutherabilityto identify handwriting of deceased victim (pg.62) [Since thereafter the reportsofhandwritingexpertfromboththesideshavebeenbroughton record,thisquestionlosesitssignificance,astheopinionofhandwriting expertsareonrecordandthesameonlyneedstobeappreciatednow];the brotherofdeceasedvictimBhavinJoshihasstatedinhisstatementon 28.01.2004thatbyhangingontheceilingfanwith'dupatta',hissister (deceasedvictim)hasendedherlife(pg.63);ithasbeenadmittedthatfor therooms,thecheckintimeof8:45a.m.of31.12.2003hasbeennoted, nocheckouttimehasbeennoted,afterwritingSajalbhaiM.D.Guest

182

residingatDelhi,thesamehasbeendeleted;thiswitnesswenttoclinicof Dr.Krupaben(PW39)torecordherstatement(pg.72);MarkNisthe prescription given by Dr. Krupaben during the investigation of this witness on which the name of the victim was not there and the prescriptionpaperswasnotonrecordupto08.01.2004,theoriginalof whichnevercametothewitness(pg.73,74);thiswitnesswasnotableto getanyevidenceduringhisinvestigationupto14.01.2004astothefactas towhethersandal,purse,money,drivinglicense,wristwatchwithsilver chain,silverring,'kada',blackcolourednicker/underwearwerelyingin thecar(pg.74);noinvestigationhasbeencarriedoutastowhichroute hasbeentakenby A1 toreachatSolaPetrolPumplanefromHotel AshokPalace(pg.75);itistruethathehasnotinquiredintothefactthat A1hasstartedat2:30a.m.fromHotelAshokPalaceandreachedatSola PetrolPumpat4:15a.m.(pg.77) [Exceptthisreply,thereisnothingon recordandnoinvestigationwascarriedouttoshowthatA1startedat 2:30a.m.fromHotelAshokPalace];thereisnothingtoestablishthatany evidence was destroyed from room no.106 and 205 of Hotel Ashok Palaceduring01.01.2004to07.01.2004,thedocumentsshowingroom no.106ofHotelAshokPalaceastheplaceofoffencehavebeenadmitted which are, EXH.284 (report u/s.157 of Cr.P.C.), EXH.296 (Yadi to CMO), EXH.298 (panchnama of scene of offence), EXH.299 (panchnamaofbothrooms),EXH.232,EXH.313,EXH.316,EXH.138, EXH.318, EXH.307 (yadi to FSL for visiting the site of offence dt.01.01.2004),EXH.347(pg.177remandreportofA1),EXH.348to EXH.350 (remand reports of A2, A3 and A4) (pg.80 to 82); this witnessconfirmsthataccordingtotheprosecutioncase,firstlyrapewas

183

committed in room no.106 (pg.85 Q.121); the statement of witness Madanlalwasrecordedon22.01.2004(pg.88);telephoneno.9879099994 is of A1 (pg.106); from 05.01.2004, (15:30 hrs.) to 08.01.2004, the investigation was not headed by anyone (pg.108); the explanation for drawingthepanchnamaforminuteinvestigationon16.01.2004hasbeen givenonpg.114and115. Ithasbeenadmittedbythewitnessthatthestatementsrecorded thatofthePW3on14/01/2004waswithreferencetoherapplicationto the Police Commissioner dated 06/01/2004 (EXH.454 on record), the witnesspleadedhisignoranceaboutanyapplicationhavingbeengivenby thedeceasedvictimon03/01/2004tothePoliceCommissionerandthatit hasbeenaddedthatifthesaidapplicationisshowntothewitness,hecan commentuponit,thewitnesshasadmittedthatthedoctorsSilajiya,Dr. Parmar,Dr.B.S.Shah,Dr.R.N.Tandon,Dr.E.S.Patel,Dr.A.P.Parmar havebeenshownaswitnessesinthechargesheet,ithasbeenadmitted that in theCity Control Room,staff membersare availableroundthe clockandforanyinformation,slipisbeingpreparedwhichisbeingkept onrecordandthatat5:51a.m.Of01/01/2004PW3telephonedtoC.P. ControlRoom,thepreviousInvestigatingOfficerhasnotseizedthesaid message,hehasevennotseizedmessagesifanygiventothevanNo.1or 2 of the Shahibaugh PoliceStation, thewitnessadmitsthatthisisan importantevidencebut,ithasbeenexplainedbythewitnessthatuntilhe learnsastowhatwasthemessagehavingbeengivenbythePW3,he cannotsayastowhetherthesaidwasimportantevidenceornot.The witnesshasadmittedthatthenamesofdifferentmobileserviceprovider

184

companieshavebeenshowninthechargesheetaswitnesses,but,their statements have not been recorded. No telegram whatsoever has been madebythefatherofA4isrecovered,ithasbeenadmittedthatShri Raol Senior P.I., Shri Chhagan Thakor, Shri Hadmatsinh, Ashaben, RatilalofShahibaughPoliceStationandJagdishbhaifromSolaPolice Station and head constable from the Sola Police station have been suspended with reference to the complaint in this particular case, the witnesshaslearntabouttheapplicationhavingbeengivenbyPW3on 13/01/2004forthefirsttimeduringthecourseofdeposition(EXH.563 herein),thewitnesshasalsodeposedthattheapplicationwasgivenatthe policecommissioner'sofficeandnamesofallthesaidemployeeswere therewitharequesttoinitiateactionsagainstthem,thewitnesspleadshis ignorance about the outcome of the inquiry at the departmental level againstallthesaidpolicepersonnelandthewitnessdoesnotknowasto whetherallthesaidpersonswereinserviceasonthedate,thewitness declined the suggestion of the investigation to be biased, improper or prejudicialandagainsttheinterestoftheaccused. Whilereplyingthecrossexaminationbythelearnedadvocatefor the accused No.12 on page 127, the witness has accepted that vide EXH.283complaint,itcametohisnoticethatMontuwasafriendof Sajal(A4)andheisaresidentofDelhiandthattheoriginalnameofsaid MontuisKaranandvidereportEXH.284(reportu/s.157oftheCr.P.C.). ItcametothenoticeofthewitnessthatMontu@Karanisaresidentof Jaipur,thewitnessagreedthatthereportshouldbeinaccordancewiththe complaint,itistruethatinthereportEXH.284,thereisonlymentionof

185

Karan@Montu,theinformationwhichcametothewitnessasinformed tohimthattheaccusedNo.12hadgonetoJaipurandAgrainsteadof goingtohisresidenceandforthesaidreason,theofficersweresentatthe hotels of Agra and Jaipur, EXH.284 report came to the notice of the witnesson15thor16thJanuary,since,therealaddresswasalreadyfound out during the investigation into the matter, 5 statements have been recordedofPW3bythiswitness,on10th January,thewitnessgotthe complaintfiledbythePW3videIC.R.No.23/04(ofNaranpuraPolice Station)aswascalledforbythewitness,andthenafter,on17thJanuary, 2004,theinvestigationofthisC.R.No.23/04filedatNaranpuraPolice stationwasalsohandedovertothiswitness,thatinC.R.No.23/04(of Naranpura Police Station and in another matter being Sessions Case No.239/04)thenameofKaran@MontuismentionedasaccusedNo.5 wherein, there isno mention as tothesaidaccusedistheresidentof whichcityandithasonlybeenmentionedthattheaddressisnotknown, thatinthecase(ofNaranpura),thereportundertheCr.P.C.istallying withthecomplaint,thePW3hasgivenhercomplaintu/s.506(2)ofthe IndianPenalCodeon09/01/2004beforethiswitnesswherein,thereisno mention of the name of the present Karan @ Montu, the application EXH.454 of the PW3 dated 6th January, 2004 was received on 06/01/2004 which was sent to the witness after having received, the witnesshaslearntthatthewritingandsignatureintheapplicationarethat ofthePW3,itistruethatintheapplicationEXH.454,Karanisshownas a resident of Jaipur, the witness admits that he has not produced the panchnama,madeforandwhilesearchofA12sincetheinvestigation wasongoingandduringtheperiod,theaccusedNo.12wasabsconding,

186

as revealed on page 135, according to this witness accused No.12 DharmendrawasthebrotherinlawofA4andtherefore,allinformation relatedtoA12includinghisname,addressandtheinformationaboutthe propertyonhisnamewaslearntbythewitness,onthespecificquestion astowhetherthewitnessisabletotellfromanyofthepapersofthe investigationthatthenameofaccusedDharmendrais@Karan@Montu it was replied by the witness that from the statement of PW3 on 14/01/2004andfromthestatementofVinaylalHemantlalKhristithe driverofS.K.Jain(FatherofA4),onpage138duringthecourseofcross examinationbythelearnedadvocateforA10,thewitnesshasreplied thatitstoodrevealedduringhisinvestigationthatthedeceasedvictim wasforcedtoconsumeliquoranytimebetween12:00a.m.To2:30a.m. On01/01/2004andthatthesaidintoxicatingdrinkwasbeer,thewitness haslearntthatoverandaboveaccusedNo.11Dr.ParulandDr.Nidhi weretheretotreatthedeceasedvictim(page140),thewitnesshaslearnt afterwards that after the primary examination by the casualty medical officer,thewitnessisbeingreferredtoGynacdepartmentandtheinternal injuriesarebeingmentionedbytheGynacdepartment,wherein,vaginal swabofthevictimisbeingtaken(page141).Asperthepostmortem doctor,theinjuriesofthebodyofthedeceasedwereabout5to7daysold was suggested which was admitted by this witness page 148, the witnesshasalsoadmittedthatDr.KrupabenTrivediPW39hasstatedto haveseenthesignsofburnsbyCigaretteBudspage148,frompage150 to191andpage208to212onwards,thelearnedadvocatefortheaccused Nos.2,3,7and8hascrossexaminedthewitnessatlength.Duringthe saidcrossexamination,numerousdocumentsbeginningfromEXH.383to

187

EXH.408onwardswereexhibitedattherequestofthedefense,duringthe course of this cross examination, several discrepancies, differences, glaringdissimilarities,etcweresuggestedcoupledwiththeallegationthat thesaidmischiefhavebeenplayedtowashouttheconcretedefenseof theaccusedofalibi,aquestiononthemobileprintoutsofthedeceased victim,PW3andalmostalltheaccusedwereaskedandattherequestof thedefense,thesaidwereexhibited. As can be seen from the extensive cross examination, all this exercisewasundertakentoestablishthepleaofalibiandtopointout dishonestandmalafideinvestigationwhichthisCourtshalldealatan appropriateplace. The witness was also assailed on the aspect of having not investigatedaboutthemovementsofPW3,investigationfromtheTaj UmedHotelwherethePW3wasstatingtohavegone,fornothaving recordedstatementsfromthefriendsandcompanionsandStaffofInder Residencyaccompanyingheronthatnight, otherfriendsofthePW3. Onpage174,thiswitnesshasadmittedthatduringhisinvestigation,he haslearntthatthedeceasedvictim,A1andA4hadbeentoB.R.Farm, BhatVillageontheinterveningnightof31/12/2003and01/01/2004,the witness has volunteered as recorded on page 175, the witness has declinedhisknowledgeabouthavinglearntthefactthattherapewas committedby3policemen,thewitnesshaslearntaboutthefactthatsome offencehasbeencommittedinaMarutiZenintheinterveningnightof 31/12/2003and01/01/2004,thewitnesshasvolunteeredasrecordedon page175thatduringhisinvestigation,ithasnotcometohisnoticethat

188

thedeceasedvictimhasconsumedliquorafterleavinghotelAshokPalace andbeforereachingatpetrolpump,thewitnesstoldhehasnoreasonto disbelieve the complainant, while she left Ashok Palace hotel, the accusedwaswithherandshewasinunconsciousstate,thewitnesshas deniedthesuggestionthatnorapewascommittedonthedeceasedvictim in hotel Ashok Palace and that the rape committed in the Car was a differentoffence. Whiletakingthecrossexaminationagainlearnedadvocateforthe accusedNos.2,3,7and8hassuggestedtothewitnessthatthoughthe witness knows that the deceased victim gave an application on 03/01/2004andPW3hasgivenanapplicationon13/01/2004andthough theinvestigationofboththesaidapplicationswasdonebythewitness but, since the said outcome was damaging the prosecution case, the witness is not admitting to have received such applications which suggestionhasbeendeclinedtobetrue,thewitnesshasadmittedthathe hasnottakenthestatementofthedoctorandthepoliceconstablerelated tobloodsampleofA2andA3explainingthattheinvestigationatthat stagewasdonebyShriSharmahence,hedoesnotknow.Thewitnesshas acceptedthatthereisacomputerinthepolicedepartmentwhereexpertof computerareworking.Itis,however,notacceptedthatanymischiefin the mobile printouts sent by the mobile companies was done at the computercentre.Thewitnessadmitsthatnoinvestigationwhatsoeverhas beencarriedoutbyrecordingthestatementofthetechnicalexpertsofthe cellularcompaniesandbyinquiringaboutthemobiletowersanditssites inthecityofAhmedabad,thesuggestionontheaspectofalibirecorded

189

atpage209onwardshasalsobeendeniedquaA2andA3,thewitness maintained that telephone Number 9824074588 was of one Jayandra Bhavsar,ithasbeendeniedthattheinvestigationwasonesidedandunder theinfluenceofmediaandthatithasbeenrevealedintheinvestigation thatsaidShriJayandraBhavsarisanaccountantofA3.Onpage211,the witnessadmitsthathehasnotinvestigatedtofindoutthelocationofA2 at 0:20 a.m. In the printout EXH.394 of mobile number 9824313333 between00:20a.m.to2:13a.m.nophonecallhasbeenrecordedwithin which time, one can go to any place, in mobile No.3311131 & 9824313333for57minutesnocallshavebeenrecordedduringwhich timeoncangoanywhere,andthattheprintouttofindoutlocation,area, etc.ofA2at0:53a.m.,1:23a.m.and2:13a.m.hasnotbeeninvestigated bythewitness.Thewitnesshasalsoclarifiedthatthenumberforwhich mobileprintouthavenotbeentakenoutwerenotfoundnecessarytobe obtainedbythewitnessandforthesaidreason,thestatementofthesaid telephoneholdershavenotbeenrecorded. Uponreplyingthequestionsofmylearnedpredecessor,thewitness has conceded that : he isignorantaboutthedirections oftheHon'ble SupremeCourttokeepaladyconstablepresentwhilethevictimofthe rapeishospitalized,thewitnesshasalsopleadedhisignoranceabouthis knowledgeaboutthejudgmentofDelhiDomesticWomenForum,the witnessalsodoesnotknowabouthisdutyofofferinglegalaidandlegal assistanceandthehelpofN.G.O.tothevictim,thewitnessisunableto sayastoanyprovisionsrelatedtoempanellinglegalaidlawyersatthe policestationunderhiscontrolwereevermadeornot,thewitnessadmits tohaveneverdrawntheattentionofhissuperiorforthemediapublicity

190

having been made, the witness admits to have not written to print or electronicmediatorestrainthemfrompublicizingthecase,duringthe courseofinvestigation,theChairpersonPurnimabenAdvaniofNational Human Commission (it should have been National Commission for women) came to Gujarat to meet him, had a talk with me and his superior, thewitness hasacceptedthatthepublicitythroughprintand electronic media about the occurrence could prove traumatic for the victim.

29.
(a)

INVESTIGATIONCONCLUSION: Uponproperandcarefulevaluationofthedepositionofdifferent

investigating officers and police witnesses and upon appreciating the submissions made by respective Ld. Advocates on the lacunas of investigation, this court has undertaken a scrutinizing exercise to determinewhetherthesaiddepositionandthesubmissionsontheaspect oflacunasandshortcomingsoftheinvestigationarewhethercompatible with any other reasonable hypothesis can be taken on account of dishonest, unfair and bias investigation is it able of granting straight benefitofdoubttotheaccused. (b) Thiscourtisofthehumbleopinionthattheinclinationofmore

minuteinvestigationorinclinationofmakinganotherpanchnamasofthe samesitebytheprosecutionwitnessno.49isonaccountofthefactthat on 7.1.04, the deceased had passed away and from 8.1.04 the investigation was handed over to A.C.P. Shri Oza who would be obviouslytendtodotheinvestigationmoreminutely.

191

(c)

The possibility of the impact of media publicity of the case,

sympathyonaccountofunnaturaldeathofayounggirletc.mighthave ledtheinvestigatingagencytoundertakethe exercisetomakeupthe irregularities and negligence committed by the previous investigating officers which must have been noticed by the incoming investigating officersbutthenthefactremainsthatinviewofthefactthatasdiscussed above EXH.283 is since a dying declaration and as in the facts & circumstancesofthiscase,corroborationtodyingdeclarationisnotatall required,thereisabsolutelynochanceofgrantinganybenefitofdoubtto theaccusedfromthelacunasintheinvestigation. (d) Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourtthelacunasorevenmistakesin

theinvestigationaretheweaknessesofthesystemoratgivenpointof timemaybesomecompulsionoftheinvestigatingagencyormaybelack ofskillorknowledgebutthatdoesnotmeanthatitshouldbefacilitating the accused to book their freedom except when it is clearly creating reasonabledoubtagainstculpabilityoftheaccused. (e) Inthepresentcriminaljusticedeliverysystem,thevictimhasno

controlovertheinvestigatingagency,itisforthisreasonthecauseofthe deceasedvictimshouldnotbemadetosufferonaccountofshortcoming intheinvestigation. (f) It has also to be remembered that the courts owns a great

responsibilitywhiletryingtheaccusedforchargeofgangrape.TheCourt needstodealwithitwithmaximumsensitivity,bykeepingtheeyeopen

192

to the social and psychological aspect of the case. It is also equally importanttorememberthatanyunmeritedacquittalencourageswolvesin thesociety,itismoresowhenthevictimsofcrimearehelplessfemale. Granting benefit of doubt from the weaknesses of the investigating agencywhoisnotunderthecontrolofthevictimandwhoisnotactingat theinstanceofthevictimwouldamounttounmeritedacquittalwhichis notpermissible. (g) Thedutyofthecourtisnottoentertaintheviolationofrighttolife

andhumanrightofwomenthattoowithviolenceontheprivatepersonof thevictimbuttogiveeffectiveandillustrativejudicialresponsetothe burningissueoutragingthesecurityofwomen.

Nocourtneedstoberemindedthattheoffenceofrapenotonlycauses physicalinjuriesbutalsoleavespermanentscarsonthemostcherished possessionofawoman,herhonour,reputation,dignityandchastityfrom notableexcerpts.

(h) Itistheidealsituationwhereineachcomponentoftheinvestigating

agency is familiar to deal with the cases like on hand and to keep themselves sensitize on the aspect of international jurisprudence of human rights as the investigating agency too has duty to protect and promotethehumanrightsofwomenbutthenthehardrealityisthateven the officer of A.C.P. range (prosecution witness no.49 herein) is not awareaboutallsuchthingsbutthenthemilliondollarquestionwhichthe systemneedstoansweris'shoulditbeandcanitbepermittedtoallow

193

theaccusedtousethatignorancetosecuretheirfreedom?Thecourtasis dutyboundshouldheartheloudcryforjusticecamethroughEXH.283 thecomplaintbythedeceasedvictimwhichisasheldearlierisadying declarationofthedeceased. (i) Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,theattemptbythedefenseto

focusthelacunasofinvestigationontheaspectofincome,expenditure, movementofprosecutionwitnessno.3includingthatontheintervening nightof31.12.03to1.1.04isnolacuna.Onehastorememberthatthe prosecution witness no.3 is not being tried as no offence has been committedbytheprosecutionwitnessno.3,thefocushastobeonthesay ofthedeceasedvictimbyconcentratingonherversiononly.Whatthe deceasedvictimhasstatedisimportanttodecideinnocenceorculpability ofthefiveaccusedandnothowtheprosecutionwitnessno.3hasacted, whereshehasgone,withwhomshehasgoneonthatnightandwhatare hersourcesofincome,etc. (j) The phone calls by the prosecution witness no.3 to the police

controlroomwasheavilyassailed,thoughnosuchcallormessagehas comeonrecord. (k) This court is of the opinion that even if, anyphone call to the

control room has been made by the prosecution witness no.3 on the intervening night, it is not capable to destroy the strength of dying declarationofthedeceasedvictimasfirstlyitisnotontherecordwhether theprosecutionwitnessno.3hasmadeanycallandifmade,forwhich purpose? And secondly the strength of the dying declaration of the

194

deceasedisthemostenlighteningdocument. (l) Thesubmissionofthedefensethatnonproductionofmessageat

control room by the prosecution witness no.3 should only result into irresistible conclusion againsttheprosecution isthesubmissionwhich cannotbeentertainedasitcannotgooutofthemindevenforafraction ofsecondthatprosecutionwitnessno.3ismerelyawitness.Itisdifferent thingthatcoincidentallysheisaneldersisterofthedeceasedvictimbut thedeceasedvictimwasthevictimandwastheonewhohadputthe criminal justice delivery system into motion by filing her complaint EXH.283at7.45A.M.of1.1.04. (m) Theprosecutioncaseintheinstantcasecanonlybetheversionof

thedeceasedvictimwhichcomesoutfromherpersonalknowledgewhich isherbestevidenceandwhichistheevidenceofthefirstwrittenaccount givenaboutthe occurrence bythedeceasedvictimherselfwhoisthe victimoftheheinouscrimeofthegangrape. (n) The difference between EXH.283 the complaint wherein the

accusedno.12hasbeenshowntoberesidentofDelhiandinEXH.284, thereport under section 157ofCriminal ProcedureCodewherein the accusedno.12hasbeenshowntoberesidentofJaipurhasbeenheavily focused by the defense but if the deposition of the concerned investigatingofficerShriBarotisseen,theprocedureadoptedtoarrest accusedno.12canbeperused,thevisitofthepoliceofficersatJaipur, Agra,Ajmercanbeseenandthatthefactthatinthenoonof31.12.03 itself,accusedno.12wasintroducedtothedeceasedvictimandtothe

195

prosecutionwitnessno.3andthattheaccusedno.4residentofDelhiis introducingaccusedno.12ashisfriendconcealingthefactthatheishis brotherinlawwhocamealongwithhimtoAhmedabadthenitisvery easytounderstandtheconfusionsuccessfullycreatedbytheaccusedno.4 and accused no.12 in collusion with each other in the mind of the deceasedvictimandtheprosecutionwitnessno.3. (o) Theprosecutionwitnessno.49hasstatedthatultimatelyhefound

outtherealaddressoftheA12andthattheinvestigatingagencyhadto keepwiththemaccusedno.4tofindoutaccusedno.12.Puttingallthese thingstogetherthediscrepanciesbetweenEXH.283thecomplaintand reportEXH.284isnothingbutsuccessofaccusedno.4andaccused no.12toconfusetheprosecutionwitnessno.3andthedeceasedvictim.It isclearthatwhilegivingthecomplaintEXH.283,thedeceasedvictim describedtheaccusedno.12tobeofDelhisincewasaccompaniedwith theaccusedno.4whobelongedtoDelhiwhichwaswellwithinknowof thedeceasedvictim.Itistheperceptionofthedeceasedvictimtothe factsputupbeforeherbuttheprosecutionwitnessno.43admitsthatas farasthefactthattheaccusedno.12isresidentofJaipurhasbeentoldby prosecutionwitnessno.3andthatinthereportEXH.284,heisshownto be resident of Jaipur. Merely this situation does not destroy the prosecutioncase.Itisratherpointertothecircumstancesabouttheact andomissioncommittedbyallthefiveaccusedandmoreparticularly accused no.4 and accused no.12 with common intention sharing the criminalitythroughtheact.

196

(p)

Prosecutionwitnessno.49hasstatedonpageno.176thatarapein

theZencartookplace.Thissentencewasalsohighlightedbythedefense statingthatthereisnoconsistencyintheversionoftheprosecutionand that the place of the offence which is material aspect is now being changed by the prosecution and therefore benefit of doubt should be giventotheaccused. (q) Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourttheversionputforthbythe

deceasedvictimisonlyversionwhichiswithpersonalknowledgeabout theoccurrence.Allotherstatementsareopinionsofanindividualmaybe thatoftheinvestigatingofficerorthatoftheeldersisterofthedeceased victim. It is settled position of appreciation of evidence that personal opinions,conjecturesandbeliefshavenoroletoplaywherethetestto bringhomeguiltoftheaccusedistoprovethecasebeyondreasonable doubts.Whentheprosecutionwitnessno.49istellingthattherapedid takeplaceintheZencar,ithastobetakenonlyashispersonalopinion. Thereisneitheranycomplaintbythedeceasedvictimoranyonenorany investigationonthesaidaspect.Furtherif,thissubmissionisaccepted, thereiseverydangertobederailedfromthetrack.Thetrackisthegang rapebythefiveaccusedwhichwascommittedinroomno.106ofthe Ashok Palace Hotel on the intervening night of 31.12.03 and 1.1.04 somewhere between 12.45 to 3.30 A.M. and nothing else. The prosecution case is EXH.283 complaint and any deposition of any memberoftheinvestigatingagencycannotformanewprosecutioncase. (r) Theprosecutionwitnessno.49&51areconfrontedontheaspectof

their investigation and further investigation on the print outs of the mobile phones alleged to have been used by the deceased victim, by

197

prosecutionwitnessno.3andbythefiveaccusedandothers.Thoughthis courtistodealwiththisissue,atlengthasitiscloselyrelatedwiththe principaldefenseofalibiraisedbytheaccusedno.2and3,inthepartIII of the judgment but suffice it to say at this stage that when the prosecutionhasproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubtundersection 376(2)(g)ofIndianPenalCode,thepresumptionundersection114(a)of theIndianEvidenceActstartsoperatingagainsttheaccusedandthatto rebutthepresumption,thedefensehastoputupaverystrongevidence forAlibiwhichisapositivedefense.Atthisjuncturethiscourthumbly but firmly opined that the defense cannot remain silent by merely pointingdiscrepancyanddoubtingthedocumentswhichtheprosecution hasobtainedduringtheprocessofinvestigationbuthasthenafternot relied upon the same as its evidence. If the defense is choosing a documentfromthebunchofthedocumentscollectedbytheprosecution butthennotrelieduponbytheprosecutionandthedocumentforwhich nobody'sstatementhasbeenrecordedandnobodyhasbeenexaminedin thecourtoflawtoestablishthecontentsofthesaiddocument,itbecomes thedutyofthedefensetoformallyprovethesaiddocumentandinacase when defense is wanting that the court should doubt rely up this documenttoraisereasonabledoubtagainsttheprosecutionversionthen suchadoubtcanonlybebasedonapositiveevidencebeingledbythe defense.Inthiscase,defensehastriedtotakebenefitofthetechnicality togetthedocumentsexhibited(fromEXH.383to408)butproofforthe samehasnotbeengivenandtothatextentthecontentscannotbesaidto havebeenestablishedbythedefenseortheuntruthwhichisallegedby thedefenseinthedocumentcannotbesaidtohavebeenprovedbythe

198

defense. (s) Thedefenseoughttohaveexamineauthorizedofficersfromthe

mobileserviceproviderstoestablishthattheprintoutstakenonrecord fromthecustodyoftheinvestigatingofficerarenotthegenuineprintouts andhavebeenconcoctedbytheinvestigatingagencytoputthedefensein thepositionwherethedefenseofalibiwillbedisbelievedbythecourt. (t) Ultimately, the defense of alibi is closely associated with the

defenseofimpossibilityorimprobabilityofhavingbeenpresentatthe siteoftheoffence.Section11oftheIndianEvidenceActisrelatedwith thedefenseofalibi.Ifillustrationisseen,whichisdraftedintheyear 1872,onewouldcometoknowthatthestatutemakershadintheirmind toprovideadefensetotheaccused,ifthepresenceatthevenueofthe crimeishighlyimprobablewhichisalmostimpossibletoreachatthesite ofoffence,thenthesaidisrelevantfactiftheillustrationisseen,itis relevantthatoneisatLahoreandthecrimeiscommittedattheCalcutta andthereforeineveryhumanprobabilityoneatCalcuttaonthedateand timeofcrimeonthesamedate,cannotbeatLahore. (u) Intheinstantcase,themaximumdistanceproposedbythedefense

in which the accused no.2 and accused no.3 have travelled is 28 kilometres as against that the accused no.2 and accused no.3 were admittedly travelling in four wheeler and one can safely cover the distanceof28kilometreswithin20minutesorsay30minutes.Therefore, itisabsolutelyprobablethataccusedno.2andaccusedno.3mighthave comeandhavecommittedtheoffenceasallegedbythedeceasedvictim

199

any time between 12.40 to1:00 A.M.to4.00A.M.approximatelyof 1.1.04atthevenueAshokPalace. (v) Thiscourtabsolutelydonotseeanysubstanceinthesubmissionof

thedefensethatthefiveaccusedareentitledtogetbenefitofdoubtfor thelacunasandinactiononthepartoftheinvestigatingagencysincethe strengthofdyingdeclarationdoesnotallowthesaidtoprevailupon. Itisdifferentthatincaseoftheotheraccused(otherthanthefive

accused) on account of any inaction or lacuna coupled with any substantialevidenceiftheremainingaccusedareentitledtobenefitof doubtthesamecancertainlybegrantedasEXH.283doesnotalleged anythingagainsttheseremainingaccusedandthatforthesaidreason,the remainingaccusedarenotundertheclinchofthedyingdeclaration.Itis for the said reason for theremaining accused,theprosecutioncaseis what came up against the accused on account of progress in the investigationandthereforeintheircase,ifthesubstantiveoralevidence anddocumentaryevidenceisputtingforthaweakcasewhichisfurther weakenbythelacunasoftheinvestigationthentheremainingaccusedin thehumbleopinionofthiscourtarecertainlyentitledtothebenefitof doubtifthefacts&circumstancesagainsteachaccusedsoproved.

31.

LACUNAININVESTIGATION:

200

(a)

AmongstthemostforcefulsubmissionsbyLd.Advocatesforthe

accused,aglaringsubmissionwasabouttheinvestigationtobedefective, notbonafide,carriedoutwithulteriormotive,notinaccordancewiththe establishedprocedures,improperandwithsoleobjecttofalselyimplicate theaccused. (b) Letusseewhicharethosedestinationstouchedduringthecourse

ofsubmissions.Ithasbeensubmittedthatthelacunaslikethepanchnama ofseizureofthekeysofZencarofA1hasnotbeendrawn;thearticles seizedfromtheroomnos.106and205havenotbeenconveyedbywayof sendingalistofarticlestotheownerofHotelAshokPalace;panchnama ofchangeofclothesbyA1hasnotbeendrawn;panchnamaofphysical state of deceased victim has not been drawn; videography and photographyofroomnos.106and205andthatofpostmortemhavenot beendone;PW48hasadmittedthathedidknowthatthereusedtobe twokeysofeachroomintheHotel(whatasurprise!);A1wasarrested somewhere at 4:30 p.m. on 01.01.2004, but was taken for medical examinationat6:00p.m.of01.01.2004;theidentificationparadeforthe articlesseizedwerenotdonethroughthedeceasedvictim;thepanchnama ofSolaPetrolPumpwherethecarwaslyingwasnotdrawn;PW43knew thatA1hasbeenbroughttogetherbythedeceasedvictimandPW3,yet, necessary proceedings against A1 were not initiated; though Hemant ChaudharyandNaurinVarmawerepresentinShahibaugPoliceStation on01.01.2004rightatthemomentwhen,thecomplaintwaslodged,their statementshavenotbeenrecorded, PW43admitsthathehadtogive messagetothecontroltocatchholdofthecarofA4whichhadpassing

201

ofDelhi,butthesaidmessagehasnotbeenbroughtonrecord;PW47at pg9admitsthattheaspectofnickerhavingbeenfoundinroomno.205 hasnotbeeninvestigatedtofindoutastowhosenickeritwas;inspiteof thefactthatA4andA12werepresentinroomno.205fromthemorning of31.12.2003andinspiteofthefactthatvidepanchnamaEXH.291the deceasedvictimmentionedofboththeroomsi.e.roomnos.106and205 improperinvestigation,noinvestigationhasbeencarriedoutaboutthree differentnamesintheformofaliasidentityofA12whichcouldhave strengthened the case of prosecution; though A12 was arrested on 23.02.2005,thetestidentificationparadewasconductedon28.02.2005 whichisindeedverymuchdelayed;PW47onpg.12admitsthatP.I.Mr. Raval,ASIMr.Damor,policeconstableHadmatsinhandwomanpolice constable Ashaben were suspended on account of their act of misbehaving with PW3 and deceased victim, but the said documents havenotbeenbroughtonrecordandsoonandsofor. (c) In the humble opinion of this Court, it is true that there are

numerouslacunasanddefectsintheinvestigation,butthemootquestion is,shoulditbecomeapenaltytothedeceasedvictim,whenitisnobody's casethatdeceasedvictimhadanycontrolovertheprosecutingagency? Thesystemwehaveinourcountryismoreorlessdependentoneliciting abilityofthepersoninvolvedintheinvestigationwhoareunfortunately nottrainedtoskilfullyelicittheinformation.Ontheotherhand,prevalent illiteracyandlackofawarenessofcommonmanabouthisrightsaretoan extentthatthedutyoftheInvestigatingAgencyistakenasmercybythe citizens.Thereareafewwhoaresufficientlyawaretoknowaboutthe

202

rightsanddutiesoftheInvestigatingAgency,butevensuchpeopleare helpless,astheyhavenocontrolovertheInvestigatingAgency.Itwould be mockery of justice, if the lacunas and defects of the Investigating Agencywouldbeprovidedasthetoolstothewrongdoersorforthat mattertoanyonetosmartlyenablethemtoscreenthemselvesbehindsuch shield.Suchinterpretation,ifwouldbeaccepted,itwillactagainstthe lawandorderandwouldaddtoanarchy,whichistoodangerousforany civilizedsociety.Inaway,theInvestigatingAgenciesaretheagentsof the State who owe the duty to thecitizenof this country striving for subsistenceoflawandorder.Suchanagentisexpectedtoactlikean angletothevictimsofseriouscrimesandjusticeseekers,buteitheron accountofworkpressure,constancyintheflowofwork,monotonyinthe joborforanyotherreason,personsintheInvestigatingAgencyattimes losetheirsensitivityandnotonlythat,theirstatussubconsciouslymake themfeelthatwhatevertheyaredoingistheonlypossiblebestexercise tofindoutthetruthortoholdthesleevesofguiltywhichinsomecases, harmtheprosecutioncase.Theinvestigationcarriedoutinthiscaseisa classicexampleofthesaidirony.ThisCourthumbly,butfirmlybelieves thathumblenessandprinciplesofnaturaljusticedemandsnottoconclude thattheinvestigationwasdishonest,evenitmaynotbedishonest,asthe investigatingagencyisnotontrial.However,withallthesobriety,this Court frankly wish to put on record the submissions made by Ld. Advocateforthedefenceontheaspectofinvestigationbeingimproper, butitdoesnotmeanthatthesaiddefectwouldreadilygrantbenefitof doubtinfavouroftheaccused.Itwouldhavebeendifferentiflacunas, irregularity or impropriety in the investigation would have raised any

203

reasonabledoubtabouttheculpabilityoftheaccusedandimplicationof theaccusedinthecrime,butsincethatisnotthecasehere,thisCourtis not inclined to grant any benefit of doubt to the accused which was acclaimedloudly. (d) It is wellsettledthatunlessitbecomesclearonrecordthatthe

investigator has deliberately delayed in recording the statements of materialwitnesseswithaviewtodecideaboutshapetobegiventothe caseandtointroducetheeyewitness,thecredibilityofentireprosecution storycannotbebroughtunderthecloudofdoubt,onthisCourt. (e) Muchhasalsobeenarguedabouttheinvestigationbeingslipshod,

slack,casual,shoddymannered.Agreatdealofstresshasalsobeenlaid byLd.Advocatesforthedefenceagainstthemanneroftheprosecutionin notexaminingthewitnesseswhosestatementshavebeenrecordedandit has been further submitted that an adverse inference against the prosecutionneedstobedrawn,astheprosecutionhasnotactedfairlyasit hasdroppedmanymaterialwitnesses. (f) Inviewofthesettledlegalposition,theprosecutionisnot

duty bound to examine each and every witness so as to multiply the witnessesandultimatelytoburdentherecordoftheCourt.Itisnotthe quantityofthewitness,whichisimportant,butitisqualityofthewitness and the deposition put forth before the Court for scrutiny is more important.

204

(g)

In the instant case, the prosecution cannot be blamed to have

examined the witnesses who are having serious animus against the accused to falsely implicate them, rather the prosecution has fairly examinedeventhosewitnesseswhowerelikelytobeturnedhostilein favourofA2,A3,A4andA5toA10andthosewitnessesarePW26, PW28 to PW31, PW42 and PW46 who were admittedly in direct employmentorincloserelationwithA2,A3andofA4(PW46).The prosecution submits that some of them were present at Ashok Palace Hotelontheinterveningnightandthattheyhavedishonestlyresiledfrom theirstatementbeforetheinvestigatingagency,hence,thoughtheyare hostile,theirdepositionsshouldbetakenintoaccount. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,sincetheinvestigationis notsufficientlydoneandisnotuptothemark(maynotbedishonestor unfair) it does not soundprudent andmaintaining theneatinterestof justicetousethedepositionoftheinvestigatingofficers,statingthatthe hostile witnesses have stated before them a different version, to adjudicateculpabilityofdifferentaccused.Itiswhilenotingthefactthat theinvestigationhasnotbeencarriedasitshouldbeideallycarriedoutin suchcasesofoffencesagainstwomenastheinvestigatingagencyhasnot procuredmanyevidenceswhichitcouldhaveprocured. (h) Since the prosecution has even examined the witnesses as

mentionedabove,inthepointhereinabove,itwouldbeinappropriateand unjusttosaythattheprosecutionwasunfairtotheaccused.

205

(i)

Itwassubmittedbythedefencethattheprosecutionhasadopted

policyofpickandchooseinexaminingtheprosecutionwitnessesand therefore, also adverse inference should be drawn but, in view of the above reasoning, adverse inference cannot be drawn and that while concluding,itisopinedthatneithertheinvestigationwasdishonest(may beabitinefficient)northeprosecutionwasunfair. (j) Beforeconcludingthetopicopenedup,anadditionalnoteisalso

requiredtobetakenthatinthispeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthe case, when the defence has examined as many as nine witnesses, the defencecouldhaveexamined,aswasatliberty,thosematerialwitnesses whomthedefenceconsidersmaterialandlikelytofavourthem,toplace their defence. When the prosecution has rebutted the presumption of innocenceoperatinginfavourofthefiveaccusedbut,ithasnotbeen done,hence,alsothisisnotthefitcasewhereanadverseinferenceneeds tobedrawnagainsttheprosecution. (k) Allthelearnedadvocatesforthedefencehaveinvitedtheattention

ofthisCourtaboutglaringbut,deliberatelacunascommittedbytheAsst. CommissionerofPolicethePW49andhavesubmittedthatitisto falselyimplicatetheaccusedandhence,theaccusedneedtobegranted benefits. Theillustrationswere:

206

PW49hasnotseizedanyrecordorregisterfromPW39,Dr. Krupaben;hehasadmittedlynoknowledgeabouttheoriginalofMarkN prescriptionofDr.Krupaben.PW49alsoadmitstohavenoknowledge about the original occupancy chart of Hotel Ashok Palace and it is admittedlynotseizedbydrawingthepanchnama;PW49onpg.74ofhis depositionadmitsthatintheprescription,hehascertifiedthetruecopy fromtheoriginalinaroutinemanner;theroutetakenbyA1afterleaving HotelAshokPalacewithdeceasedvictimon01/01/2004hasnotbeen investigated by PW49, the statements of hotel staff were taken from 23.01.2004to27.01.2004,thoughtheywerethefirsttoknoweverything thathadhappenedontheinterveningnightof31.12.2003and01.01.2004, theexplanationoffurtherminuteinvestigationandnecessityofdrawing anotherpanchnamaon16.01.2004thatofroomno.106and205ofHotel AshokPalaceisnotsmoothlyswallowable,moreover,thispanchnamais drawnaftercollectingthesamplesofsemenandbloodofA4whichis doubtful,'Ghooghri','kada',etc.thepersonalbelongingsofthedeceased victimcouldhavebeenidentifiedbyher,PW49hasadmittedonpg.108 thaton05.01.2004upto15:30hrs.P.I.Mr.Lathiawasinchargeofthe investigationandthereafter,upto08.01.2004nobodywasinchargeofthe investigation.[Insuchaseriousmatterofgangrape,theinvestigationwas not handed over to anyone from 05.01.2004 to 08.01.2004 which is indeedamatterofdeepconcern.Italsoseemsthaton08.01.2004the investigationwashandedovertoPW49,sinceon07.01.2004thevictim diedandthematterwasfocused.] Furtherstatementofdeceasedvictim wasnotrecordedbytheinvestatingofficeraftershewasdischargedfrom the hospital on 02.01.2004 for which neither any statement nor any

207

explanation has been noted downashas beenadmittedbyPW49 on pg.109.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thelacunashavebeendealt withaheadandthesamelogicwouldbeapplicabletothePW49but,an additionalpointisthatifoneenlistswhathasnotbeendone,itissurelyto beboundlesshence,thepositiveoutlookisneededastowhathasbeen doneandwhethernotdoinghasprovidedanybenefitofdoubtinfavour oftheaccused.ThereplyofthisCourtisinnegativequathefiveaccused.

32.

APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF HANDWRITING EXPERT AND CONCLUSION THEREOF:(EXH.451broughthereinwhichisdeposition ofPW6ofSessionsCaseNo.239/04)

Vide EXH.451 a certified copy of the oral evidence of witness No.6,JagdishbhaiJethabhaiPatel,thehandwritingexpertfrompage1to 102 recorded vide EXH.73 in the Sessions Case No.239/04 has been takenonrecordofthiscasebyconsentofboththeparties.

At the cost of repetition, it needs to be recorded here that the prosecution agency has made due exercise on the aspect as to the signature and handwriting of the suicide note at EXH.571 which according to the prosecution was written and signed by the deceased

208

victim. To hold so, to find out the truth on the said aspect, the investigating agency has collected the natural writing of the deceased victim and sent it to the F.S.L. to secure opinion of the F.S.L. The opinioncamestatingthatthesuicidenotewaswrittenandsignedbythe deceasedvictim. AnotherquestionwasrelatedtothecomplaintEXH.283andmore particularly,signaturebelowEXH.283whetherisofthedeceasedvictim ornot.Tofindoutthetruthonthisaspectalso,theaidofthehandwriting expertwassoughtwhichtoowasopinedbytheF.S.L.inaffirmative. As mentioned, the deposition of the F.S.L. Handwriting Expert takeninanothercasebeingSessionsCaseNo.239/04aswitnessNo.6has beenbroughtonrecordofthiscaseasEXH.451. Ontheotherhand,thedefensehasalsoexamineditswitnesses. ThedefenseputforthwastotheeffectthatEXH.283isnotanadmissible pieceofdocument,asthesignaturebelowthecomplaintEXH.283isnot thatofthedeceasedvictim.Rather,ithasbeenpositivelysuggestedthat EXH.283hasbeensignedbythePW3anditwasgivenbythePW3. The defense has also sent to their handwriting expert the documents admittedlysignedbythePW3andthesearethedocuments,whicheven accordingtodefense,havebeenwrittenandsignedbythePW3. DW9, Dr. S.C. Mittal, a handwriting expert, examined by the defense has opined on the aspect of the signature and writing of the

209

suicidenoteandthecomplaintEXH.283tobethatofPW3.

(A)

EvaluationofthedepositionofPW6of

SessionsCaseNo.239/04:(Exh.451herein) TheprosecutionhastestedcorrectnessofEXH.283andEXH.571, thesuicidenotetoreplytothequestionwhetherthesaidarehandwriting ofthedeceasedvictimornotforwhichthedocumentstakenasnatural writingwereoneredcolouredregister(chopda)tohavebeenwrittenby thedeceasedvictimwhilepursuinghercourseofbeautyparlourwhichis onrecordofthiscasevideEXH.573,theotherwritingstakenasnatural writingswerealsoEXH.574runninginto10pageswhicharedocuments, an application toBankofBarodabythedeceasedvictimintheyear, 2003,heraccountopeningformofyear,2002,thethreechequesalong withitsbacksidesignaturesrespectivelydated03/03/2003,04/03/2003, 09/09/2003andGujaratHigherSecondaryBoardAdmissionReceiptof thedeceasedvictimalongherphotographandsignatureonthesame. Thus, the Gujarat F.S.L. Handwriting expert was provided four documents,aredcolouredregisterEXH.573,asuicidenoteEXH.571and document containing 10 pages EXH.574 mainly containing the documentsofBankofBarodaandGujaratHigherSecondaryBoardby theprosecution. On the other hand,DW9Dr. MittalwasgivenEXH.571 the

210

suicidenote,EXH.572thecomplaintbythePW3containinghertwo signatures dated 07/01/2004 (base of the Sessions Case No.239/04), EXH.454,theapplicationbyPW3dated06/01/2004inherhandwriting andbearingsignatureofthePW3,andthecomplaintEXH.283,etc.

TheprosecutionreliesuponEXH.451,thesubstantialoralevidence ofthehandwritingexpertMr.J.J.Patelendorsedbyhiscolleaguethe handwritingexpertMrs.Shah.Ontheotherhand,defensereliesuponthe opinionofthehandwritingexperttheDW9Dr.Mittal.

Puttingintheplainway,theprosecutionsaysthattheredcoloured chopda,thedocumentsofthebank,thedocumentsoftheGujaratHigher SecondaryEducationBoardarenaturalwritingandthatthesuicidenote isadisputedwritingandthesignatureonExh.283totallytallieswiththe naturalwritingofthedeceasedvictimandthus,theauthoriscommonfor allthesedocuments.

Thedefenseversionputforthbythehandwritingexpertisthatthe authorofthesuicidenote,(Exh.571here)andEXH.454(theapplication ofPW3dated06/01/04)arethesameandthatisPW3.

(B)

ThisCourthasevaluatedbothoftheabovetostrikethebalance

betweenthetwoextremerivalopinionswhichhavethebearingonboth thecasesonhand.Inthecaseonhand,thesignaturebelowEXH.283is thatofthedeceasedvictimornotisveryimportantas,thesamehasall

211

requisitestonameitasdyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictim.The handwritingexpertMr.J.J.Patelhasopinedthatitisindeedsignedbythe deceased victim for which he took the above referred documents as naturalwritings.

(C)

AtEXH.451,thewitnesshasmainlystatedthatnodissimilarity

betweendisputedwritingandnaturalwritingwere foundandthatN61 onwards are the signatures which have been compared with the questioneddocumentandthatthewitnessdidnotfindanycopyingand tracing. On page 101, it has been clarified that N/1 to N/59 natural writingatEXH.573(redcolouredchopdawrittenbythedeceasedvictim whilepursuinghercourseatbeautyparlour)andN/61toN/62(EXH.283 thecomplaintherein),andN/63toN/78weresenttothehandwriting expertasnaturalwritings.Onperusalofpage2itbecomesclearthat MarkDandD1isadisputeddocument(EXH.571hereinthesuicide note). In paragraph 6 it becomes clear that the final opinion of the handwritings send to the investigating agency is given by two handwriting experts. The witness was cross examined at great length wherein, on page 62, the opinion of the witness that the handwriting scienceisaprogressivescience,onpage64,thewitnesshasclarifiedthat after receiving natural writings the witness sought for more natural documents,hehastalkedontelephonetosendmoreauthenticsignature of the deceased victim, the witness has received different kind of signatureswiththefirstname,withtheinitialname,withthefirstname andwiththesurnameandinbetweenalphabetofthenameofthefather andfullnameofthedeceasedvictim.,itisadmittedthatthefirstnameof thedeceasedvictim,alongwith hersurnamealonewerenotpresentin

212

anynaturaldocumentsbutitwasclarifiedthatthisnameincludingthe father'snameinbetweenwasavailableandthatwassenttothewitnessas naturalwriting,thewitnessrepliedthequestionspassedbythedefence onnumerousaspectofhandwritingsciencebutherethiscourtisonly concernedtologicallyandscientificallyheldastowhohaswrittenthe suicidenoteandwhosigneditandthecomplaint?

Onpage70,thewitnesshasclearlyopinedthathedidnotfindany forgeryindisputedandnaturalwriting.Onpage72andpage73ithas beenstatedthatMrs.D.J.Shahthecolleaguehandwritingexperthadalso accesstothedocumentandthattheauthorofdisputedandnaturalwriting isoneinthesameperson.

Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal has argued that the natural and disputedwritingaresimilariseventhebaseofthedefencebut,thesaid writingaresimilarwithEXH.454,EXH.94theapplicationatNational CommissionforWomenandthecomplaintdated07/01/2004ofCriminal CaseNo.239/04EXH.572.Thissubmissionhasbeenputintheformof questiononpage96towhichthewitnesshasopinedthatthedocuments which have not been minutely examined in his laboratory cannot be opined off hand. During the cross examination, the witness has maintainedhisopiniondiscussedabove.

(D)

AppreciationoftheopinionofDW9Dr.Mittal:

DW9, Dr. S.C. Mittal is a handwriting expert and has been

213

examinedbythedefensetoestablishthedefenseversion.Inparagraph7 of the deposition the witness has clarified that he has undertaken the exercise of giving his opinion at the instance of one Mr.S.K. Jain, ManagingDirector,S.K.IndustriesPvt.Ltd.Thiswitnesshasspecifiedin his deposition that the suicide note, the A1 to A14 inclusive of the statementtotheNationalCommissionforWomen(byPW3)EXH.94,a letter/applicationdated06/01/2004addressedtoA.C.P.Ahmedabad(by PW3) EXH.454, complaint dated 07/01/2004 before the Naranpura Police Station (by PW3) EXH.572 herein, red coloured register containingMarksN1to59(EXH.573herein),N60to62,F.I.R.no.2/04 dated01/01/2004attheShahibaughPoliceStation,EXH.283admitcard ofthedeceasedvictimoftheGujaratHigherSecondaryEducationBoard dated 13/10/1997, admitted signature of the deceased victim on the documentsofBankofBarodaetc.wereexaminedtoreplythequeriesas towhetherthesuicidenotewaswrittenandsignedbythewriterofA1to A14orbytheauthorofnaturalwritingmarksN1toN78.Whetherthe twopagesbetweenpage45&46oftheredcolouredregisterwerewritten bythepersonwhowrotetheadmittednumeralsandwritingsmarkA1to A6 or not and whether the English signatures Mark N 61 and N62 (signatureonEXH.283complaint)arewrittenbythesamepersonwho wrotetheadmittedEnglishsignaturesontheBankdocuments(N63to 78).

The opinion given by Mr. J.J. Patel Gujarat State Handwriting Expert,F.S.L.Gandhinagaralongwithitsreasonsdated05/02/2004was alsosenttothewitness.

214

Asdeposed, theDW9hasopinedthatthesignatureMarkD1is notwrittenbythepersonwhowroteN62toN64,78to78/2and65/1and 66/1 attributed to the deceased victim. The two signatures are having differentauthorshipandthatthequestioneddocumentD1(signatureon the suicide note) is not written by the deceased victim, the signature below EXH.283 the complaint cannot be connected with writer of admitted English signatures attributed to the deceased victim, the signaturebelowEXH.283isopinedtobenotthatofthedeceasedvictim, thequestioned signatureMarkD1iswrittenbythesamepersonwho wroteA4,A6andA4attributedtoVaishaliJoshi,D/1thesuicidenote iswrittenbyVaishaliJoshi,thequestionedGujaratiwritingDandD/1 (theentiresuicidenote)iswrittenbyVaishaliJoshiandtheredcoloured registerN1toN59isalsowrittenbyVaishaliJoshi,thesuicidenotehas beenwrittencarefully,consciouslyandthereisanelementofdisguise, there is strong evidence of their common authorship, the questioned, admittedandnaturalwritingsagreewitheachotherinmanyrespects.

ThedefensewitnesswascrossexaminedbythelearnedSpl.P.P. wherein, it comes up on record thatif thepersonis not used to sign regularly,theremaybe differenceineverysignature,thewitnessisa retired Central Government Employee and in this matter the witness travelledbyairfromDelhitoAhmedabad,alltheexpensesforwhich werebornebyMr.S.K.Jain, theopinionrenderedinthiscaseonthe handwritingisapaidprofessionalwork,thewitnesstookassistancefor translatingintoGujaratifromoneMrs.Bhatiawhodidnottravelwiththe

215

witnesswhilethewitnesswasgivenaccesstotheoriginaldocument,the inspectionoftheoriginaldocumentwasdonebytheflashmagnifying glasses, the mother tongueof thewitnessisnotGujarati andthatthe witnessisnotwellversedinGujaratLanguage(asisclearonpage11of thecrossexamination),accordingtothewitnessknowledgeof,meaning ofwordsarenotessentialfortheexperttoknowbutitisthecomparison ofletters,vowelsandcharactersneedstoknowtothehandwritingexpert, (frompage12ofthecrossexamination),thewitnesshasadmittedlynot usedasingleGujaratiword,inhisopinion,thewitnessisadmittedlynot familiar with 'rashva OO' and 'dirgha OO', the witness has not providedadvancecopyofhisopiniontotheCourtaswellastheSpl. PublicProsecutor,ascanbereadfrompage9ofcrossexamination,the reportproducedintheCourtwaspreparedbyDW9on27/09/2007but, hasbeenproducedon24/10/2007.

Asemergedfromtheexaminationinchief,boththewitnessesfrom therespectivesidesofprosecutionanddefenseareexpertwitnessesof theirfields,havetotheircreditofhavingdonegoodamountofworkon thesubjectandbothhavewideexperienceofhavingrenderedintheir servicesintheGovernmentOrganization.

(E) (i)

Thefollowingpointsarethedifferentiatingpoints: Thehandwritingexpertoftheprosecutionhasnotworkedforany

individualpartyandhasnotworkedforprofessionalfees.Ontheother hand,Dr.Mittalhasadmittedlyworkedforprofessionalfeesunderthe instructionsofanindividualinterestedintheoutcomeofthiscase.

216

(ii)

Onpage99oftheoralevidence,Mr.Patelhasstatedthatduring

histenureattheGovernmentOffice,hehasopinedforabout50to60 casesofsuicidenotewhere,specimenwritingwouldnotbeavailableand thatatleastin80to90%caseswerecriminalcasesoutofthosecases.As againstthat,theDW9hasadmittedonpage5ofhiscrossexamination that,hehasnotcomeacrossanysuchsituationorcasewherethekindof documentsareinvolvedinhisservicecareerofmorethan35years.

(iii)

The opinion obtained by prosecution is of two different

handwritingexpertswhichisintunewitheachotherwhereas,theopinion obtainedbythedefenseisofasinglehandwritingexpert.

(iv) The experts of the prosecution are two in number, both of whom are Gujaratis, conversant with Gujarati Language and are expertsoftheF.S.L.situatedintheStateofGujarat.Theexpertof thedefenseisanonGujarati.TheemphasisonGujaratiwordisonly forthepointthatthedisputeddocumentthesuicidenoteiswrittenin Gujaratilanguage.

(F)

Overandabovetheabovementioneddifferentiatingpoints,the

followingpointshavealsobeenconsideredbythisCourt:

(i)

AsfarastheGovernmentexpertisconcerned,hehasnomonetary

consideration;

217

(ii)

Theopinionofgovernmentexpertsplacedbytheprosecutionisof

twoexperts,oneofwhomhasbeenexaminedbytheprosecution.Since, Mr.PatelandMrs.Shahhavegiventheircommonopinion,thechances oferrorsareeliminatedinadditiontothefactthattheopinionisbytwo expertswhoarethoroughlywellversedwithGujaratiLanguage. (iii)

The facilities and latest technology is always available with

GovernmentExpertswhichwouldusuallynotbeavailablewithaprivate expertandhence,theelementofmoresharpopinionwiththehelpof scientific instrument will not be available in case of opinion by the privateexpert. (iv)

TheDW9hasassuchgivenhisopiniononphotostatcopyandhas

viewedthe original for45minutes,thatbeingso,andsincephotostat copiesarenotmuchreliableforgivinganopinion,theopiniongivenby thedefensecannotsurpasstheopiniongivenbythetwoexpertsofF.S.L. Gujarat. (v)

BetweenMr.J.J.PatelthePWandDr.MittaltheDW,thePW

Mr.PatelknowsGujaratilanguagebyhisbirthinwhichthedisputed suicidenoteiswrittenbythedeceasedvictim.Everylanguagehasits owncharm,peculiarity,mode,slopeofalphabetandthatonewhoknows thelanguagethoroughlywellisthepersonwhocanbetteropined.

218

(vi)

The prosecution witness Mr. Patel has given about 47 reasons

whichareanadditionalfactorotherthanthoroughknowledgeofGujarati languageandhencealso,thesaidopinionproducedbytheprosecution witnesshasbetterweightage.

(vii) Thedefensewitnessissincebroughtbytheaccusedtoputupthe defenseversion,heisnotexpectedtogivehisopinionsolelywithaview to assist the court in ascertaining the truth. He is paid to put up the defenseversionandtherefore,itisobviousthat,hewouldleantothe defenseandwouldnotgiveabalancedoutput.

(viii) It is not only important as to what has been done by the handwritingexpert,butitismoreimportantastobywhattheopinionhas beenformedbytheexpert.Intheinstantcase,thehandwritingexpert examinedbytheprosecutionhascalledformorenaturaldocuments,since thesignaturewasinEnglish,calledforEnglishwritingswhichallwere providedtothehandwritingexpertandthen,bycomparingthesamewith thesuicidenote,thesignaturebelowEXH.283thecomplaint,thesuicide note and other documents like bank documents, Gujarat Higher SecondaryBoarddocumentsitwasheldtohavebeenwrittenbythesame personwhichaccordingtotheprosecutioncaseisthedeceasedvictim. This conduct of calling for more documents for comparison by the prosecutionwitnessisrevealinghisinclinationtogivejustandgenuine opinion.

219

(ix)

This Court humbly opines thattheobjectof handwriting expert

examinedbydefensehasbeenexaminedas witnesstoprovethatthe suicidenoteandthecomplaintEXH.283areauthoredbythePW3which isthedefenseversionwhereasfortheprosecutionside,thecasewasonly based onasto whethertheauthorofcertaindocumentsisacommon personornot. (G)

InthecaseofGulzarAliV/s.StateofHimachalPradesh(SC)1998

(CCJ)244,ithasbeenheldthat,thereisanaturaltendencyonpartof expertwitnesstosupporttheviewofthepersonwhocalledhim.Itisbut, obvious that the DW9 services have been hired by the defense and hence,theDW9wouldinclinetotakeoathinfavourofthedefenseas, thedefenseispayinghisprofessionalfees. InthematterofRajmohanandothersV/s.StateofH.P.reportedat 1995 Cri.L.J. Page 810, it has been held that, in case of conflicting viewsoftwoexperts,thenaturaltendencyofanexperttosupportviewof thepersonwhohadcalledhimhastoberememberedandinsuchcase, evidenceofgovernmentexaminerbecomesmorereliable.

Boththeabovereferredjudgmentsareclearlyfittinginthecaseon hand.

(H)

Upon thoughtfullyconsideringtheentire discussionjotteddown

aboveontheaspectofappreciationofthehandwritingexpert'sevidence,

220

thisCourtopinesthat,thedefensehasnotbroughtonrecordanydiscredit tothehandwritingexpert'sopiniongivenbyMrs.ShahandMr.J.J.Patel whichinviewoftheabovereasoningalso,isworthytobebelievedasis creditworthyandconfidenceinspiring.

(I)

ThisCourthascarefullyperuseddifferentdocumentsnowheldto

havebeenwrittenbythedeceasedvictim.

ThedocumentEXH.574onpage10,theadmitcardofthedeceased victimofOctober,1997whichbearssignatureofthedeceasedvictim,the otherdocumentsatEXH.574ofBankofBaroda'sdocuments,cheques etc.arehavingsignaturesandhandwritingsofthedeceasedvictimofthe year,2003.

ThedeceasedvictimatsomeplaceshadsignedasB.B.Joshi,at someplacesas(Name)BipinbhaiJoshiandatsomeplaceswith(thefirst nameonly).Butthen,noting thefactfromEXH.574,pageNo.10the admitcardisoftheyear1997andnotinginthesamedocumentthatthe birthdateofthedeceasedis22/11/1980,thesaidsignatureclearlyhas beendoneatherageof17yearsandothersignatureshavebeendonein theyear,2002,2003,etc.itcanbeseenapplyingthecommonsensethat onewhoisnotaccustomedtosignfrequently,maynothaveconsistency inthestyleofsignatureorinthechoiceoflettersinthesignature,but, merelythat,doesnotmeanthatitcanprovideabasetoopinethatthetwo differentsignaturesofthesamepersonarenotofthesameperson.

221

DerivingempowermentfromSec.73oftheEvidenceAct,when, thesignaturesofEXH.574,thetendocumentsfromtheyear,1997to 2004,ofthefirstnameofthedeceasedvictimiscomparedwiththefirst partofthesignatureonsuicidenoteEXH.571,theCourtfirmlyopines thatboththesignaturesareapparentlyofthesamepersonthedeceased victim.Thesignaturedoneintheyear,2004couldnothavebeendone afterseeingthesignaturedoneintheyear,1997,thedocumentofwhich hasbeenfoundoutaftertherequisitionwasgivenbyMr.J.J.Patelthe handwriting expert to facilitate him to compare the signature and to obtainmorenaturalEnglishwritings.

TheadmitcardoftheGujaratHigherSecondaryBoard,1997if seen than the signature of the deceased victim therein is absolutely matchingwiththesignatureofthefirstnameinthesuicidenote.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,uponcomparisonofthesetwo words the suicide note is satisfactorily and beyond reasonable doubts seems to have been written and signed by the deceased victim. It is nobody'scasethatthesignaturedonebythedeceasedvictimintheyear, 1997wasdonewithanyotherintentionand/orthesignaturemadeon thesuicidenoteisdoneafterseeingsignatureoftheadmitcardinthe year,1997whichwasnotavailabletoanyoneuntilMr.J.J.Patelsought formoredocumentsofnaturalsignatures.

222

Eventhesignatureonthesuicidenoteisalsoabsolutelytallying withthesignatureofthedeceasedvictimonEXH.80,themedicalcase paperswhereinalso,nobodyhasdisputedthesignatureofthedeceased victimwhile,thewrittenconsentwasgivenbythedeceasedvictimfor herphysicalexaminationon01/01/2004.Even,thissignaturewhichis done with the first name of the deceased victim is identical with the signatureofthefirstnameinthesuicidenote.

While perusing EXH.283 the complaint, the signature of the deceasedvictimshownasN60andN62arealsobyherfirstnamealone. Eventhissignaturetotallytallieswiththesignatureontheadmitcardof the year,1997andthesignatureofthefirstnameinthesuicidenote EXH.571inthiscase.

UponcomparingitselfthisCourtisofthefirmopinionthatthe signatureoftheadmitcardintheyear,1997,thesignatureinthesuicide note and the signature in the complaint EXH.283 are all the three signaturesofthedeceasedvictim.Moreover,theothersignaturessentto Mr.J.J.Patelasnaturalwritingsarealsoclearlyseemstobethatofthe deceasedvictim.

(J)

Theadmittedwritingassuggestedbythedefenceandevenasa

matteroffactarethatofthesisterofthedeceasedvictimVaishaliJoshi PW3 herein are at least in three documents. (i) EXH.454 the application given by said Vaishali on 06/01/2004 to Additional

223

Commissioner Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad, signature on EXH.572, G.R. No.23/04 of Naranpura Police Station, the complaint of Vaishali on 07/01/2004,EXH.94,thefourpages,statementbyVaishaliJoshiinher handwriting handed over to National Commission for Women on 17/01/2004whichcameonrecordvidehercrossexaminationrecordedon page120asprosecutionwitnessNo.3.

Thesethreedocumentsareevenadmittedbythedefensetohave beenwrittenbythePW3.AccordingtoDW9,theauthorofallthethree writingsandthatofthesuicidenoteandsignaturebelowEXH.283areof thesameperson.

(K)

Thepeculiarhabitofboththesistersi.e.thedeceasedvictimand

the PW3 needs a very special note which observation itself has tremendousenablingenergytocometotheirresistibleconclusionthatin no case the suicide note should have been written by the PW3 and putting it specifically andpositively, thesuicide note musthavebeen writtenbythedeceasedvictimonly.

(L)

There are four letters in Gujarati which are important to be

reproducedtoputupthegistoftheobservationandtoemphasizeavery glaringdifferenceinthemode,mannerandchoiceofletterswhilewriting a particular word, may be particular name like that of A12 and the surnameofboththesistersinGujaratiScript.

224

(M) Gujaratiletter'G'whichisthe20thconsonantofthedentalclass andthefourthofnasalsandGujaratiletter6'whichthe15thconsonantof Gujaratialphabetandthe3rdNasaloflingualclassfromwhichnoword beginsinGujaratiscriptarethetwoletterswhichareusedbyboththe sistersforacommonparticularnameofA12,likedeceasedvictimwas usedtowrite'SZ6'(GujaratispellingofA12)whereas,PW3isusedto write'SZG'forthesameGujaratispellingaparticularnameofA12.

(N) Similarly,letter''and'X'areagaintwolettersoftheGujarati alphabet wherefrom, letter '' is the 31st consonant of Gujarati alphabetoflingualclassandletter'X'thirtiethconsonantofGujarati alphabetofthepalatalclass.

What has been observed by this Court is that for writing the spelling of their surname 'Joshi' in Gujarati, the deceased victim was writing[L but,thePW3writesthesamesurnameas'[XL'.We shall here onwards look at the uses made by respective sister in the descriptionmadehereunder.

(O)

ThisCourthascarefullyperusedandscrutinizedallthedocuments.

FollowingpointshavebeennoticedbythisCourt:

225

(i)

ThatPW3usedtowrites'G'insteadof'6'whichisavery

peculiarletterofGujaratialphabet,whilespelling'Karan'inGujarati script.'G'inGujaratiScriptis('G'GUFZFGM'G')and('6'SM>GM

GCL).InthedocumentsEXH.454andEXH.94,handwrittenbythe
PW3wherever,'Karan'(forA12)iswritteninGujaratiitiswritten as'SZG'byPW3but,ifthesuicidenoteisperused,itiswrittenas 'SZ6'forGujaratispellingofthenameofA12.Thisdiscrepancyof using 'G' by PW3 instead of '6' by the deceased victim, is too peculiar to individual and here lies one of the vital difference between the writings of both the sisters, i.e. The PW3 and the deceasedvictim.ThePW3haseverywherewritten'SZG'tospell A12andthedeceasedvictimhaswritten'SZ6'.Bothofthesehave phoneticdifferencecoupledwithdifferenceinappearance.

(ii)

Secondly,itisnoteworthythatinEXH.454andEXH.94,use

ofapeculiarletterintheGujaratialphabetbyPW3is''knownas 'shh'(8SM6GM'').TheuseoflastGujaratiletterinthesurname ofboththesisterstoo,istotallydifferswhenthesurnameiswritten inGujaratibytheboth.Thedeceasedvictimwasinhabitofwriting

8SM6GM'',forthesameletterPW3writes'X'XSMZFGM'X'.
ItisforthisreasonthatonperusalofEXH.454andEXH.94,atthe

226

end,signingthesurnameinGujarati'[XL'hasbeenusedwhichis alsointhebeginninginEXH.454.Whereas,thePW3isnotinhabit of writing '' but, instead of that in the Gujarat spelling of her surnamesheuses''insteadof'X'.
Now, with this observation, when the suicide note EXH.571 is perused,inthebeginning,tobespecificinthesecondline,thesurname hadbeenwrittenwhichmannerofwritingalongwithuseofletter'X'is absolutely differing from the document EXH.94 a statement of PW3 before the N.C.W. and EXH.454 an application by PW3 wherein, '[XL'iswritten.Whatisadmittedneednotbeproved.Thedefensehas putupitsdefenseputtingtheircaseexactlythatEXH.454andEXH.94 are handwritten documents admittedly by PW3 and EXH.572 is admittedly,signedbythePW3,but,inthesuicidenoteEXH.571,the modeofwritingsurnameandinEXH.94andEXH.454(bothofthePW 3),themodeofwritingsurnamearetotallydifferent.ThisCourthumbly but,firmlybelievesthatthesignaturesifcomparedofEXH.572andthe signatureofthesuicidenotethen,itcannotbeheldtobebythesame person.Inthesamewayifthesignaturemoreparticularly,thesurname part at the last of EXH.94 is even compared with the suicide note's signatureofthesurname,itistotallydifferent.Thisbeingthesituation, thisCourtfirmlybelievesthathadthesuicidenotebeenwrittenbyPW3, sheshouldhavewrittenGujaratiword '[XL' inthesecondlineofthe suicidenotelikeitiswrittenatEXH.94attheendandEXH.454inthe

227

beginningbut,thatisnotso.Inthesameway,hadthesuicidenotebeen writtenbythePW3then,inthefourthline,theword 'SZ6'shouldnot havebeenwritteninthemanneritisseeninthesuicidenote.Itoughtto havebeen'SZG'asiswritteninEXH.454attheitemserialno.4andat EXH.94,atpage2,13thlinefrombelowwheretheword'SZG'hasbeen used.

(P)

EXH.94 as discussed above is the bunch of the three different

statementshowntoPW3duringthecourseofcrossexamination.Last amongthemisthestatementofthewitnessHemantChaudhary.Ithas been admitted by PW3 in her crossexamination that since Hemant Chaudhary(PW10)wasnotconversantinwritingGujarati,shewrotefor him and it was only signed by the said Hemant Chaudhary. If, this statementofHemantChaudharyisseen,then,onthefirstpagefromthe aboveatthe14th lineandinthesecondpagefromtheabove2nd line, name of A12 seems to have been written. Both these words the particularnameofA12iswritteninthemannerdiscussedabove.

Moreover,italsoneedstobenotedthatthedeceasedvictimis inhabitofwritingspellingofJaiswalas'H{:JF,,'byusing'S'halfin Gujarati,whereas,PW3isinhabitofwritingthewordJaiswalas'

H{;JF,'(byusingwholeletter'S'inGujarati).Thisdiscrepancyin
writingGujaratiwordJaiswalistooglaringandconsistent.

228

Overandabovethediscussionhereinabove,evenapplyingtestof commonperceptionandimpressionatfirstsight,itismorethanclearand apparentwhilekeepingEXH.454writtenbythePW3andEXH.571(the suicidenote)writtenbythedeceasedvictimarethedocumenttohave beenwrittenbytwodifferentauthors. Consideringtheabovediscussion,itisnowcrystalclearthatthe suicidenoteoughtnottohavebeeneithersignedorwrittenbythePW3 andthatitiscertainlywrittenbythedeceasedvictim.

(Q) Now, let us see EXH.573 the red coloured register upon cursorilyseeingthisdocumenttheuseofword''hasbeenseen where a particular name 'JQ6]' is written at N/45 (1) which is writtenasVishnubhaiRavalinGujarati.Eventheoutsideofencircle ofN59also,anotherparticularnameVishnuprasadhasbeenwritten, whereinalso,theletter''isthesame.

Therefore,inviewoftheoralevidenceofhandwritingexpertShri J.J.PatelfromGujaratF.S.L.andinviewofhisopinionandashasbeen observedbythisCourtnotedhereinaboveandinviewofthecomparison ofthesignaturemadebythisCourtrecordedhereinabove,itisclearas crystalwhichdoesnotleaveanyroomfordoubtthatthesuicidenote (signed and written), the red coloured register (written), signature on EXH.283(signed),the10papersandthesignaturesthereinatEXH.574 areallthatsignedbythedeceasedvictimandnotbythePW3.

229

Whereas, the signature on EXH.572, the complaint dated 07/01/2004, the statement of PW3 at EXH.94 in the same bunch, statement of Shri Hemant Chaudhary both, given to National CommissionforWomenandwritingandsignatureatEXH.454arethat ofPW3.

In view of the above detailed reasoning, this Court has no hesitationtoholdthat,theprosecutionhassuccessfullyprovedbeyond any reasonable doubt thatthesuicidenoteandsignatureonEXH.283 complaintareofthedeceasedvictim,tobemorespecific,thesuicidenot EXH.571iswrittenandsignedbythedeceasedvictimandthecomplaint EXH.283whichhasbeenheldtobedyingdeclarationinthefactsand circumstances of this case, i.e. the dying declaration by the deceased victim, is signed by none else but, the deceased victim herself. It is therefore, clear that the dying declaration was not only given by the deceasedvictimwhichhadbeenrecordedbythewriterofthePW43in presenceofPW43andthesamehasbeensignedbythedeceasedvictim.

ItisinviewofalltheabovediscussionthesuicidenoteEXH.571, thelasttransactionofthedeceasedvictimandEXH.283thefirstwritten versionquathecaseisconcernedhavebeenherebyheldbythisCourtto havebeenauthoredandsignedbynoneelsebut,bythedeceasedvictim alone.

ItiswithreferencetothisglaringdifferencethatthisCourthumbly

230

believes that with all expertise possessed by the DW9, this glaring differencecouldnotbenoticedbyDW9whichismainlyforthereason thatheisnotwellconversantwithGujaratilanguage,itsletters,alphabets etc.Secondly,Mrs.Bhatiathetranslatorthoughhavebornandbeen broughtup(iftakentheDW9tobeperfectlyright)inGujaratithenalso couldnotnoticethisforthesimplereasonthattheletters'','X','G'and

'6' are extremely peculiar letters of the Gujarati alphabet having its
resemblancewiththeSanskritlanguage.

(R)

Sometimesinthecaseofsiblingsthemodeandmannerappearsto

besimilar.Itisperhapsonaccountofthepsychologicalaspect,thatthe youngersiblingsaremuchintheinfluenceoftheeldersiblings.But,then, ultimately,ashasbeennoticedhereinabove,certainminutedifferences distinguishthetwoauthors.UseofrightletterintheGujaratilanguageis thematterofseniorK.G.Level.But,thenwhatisonceimbibeddoesnot changeatalaterage.Thedistinctioninwritingparticularnameincaseof boththesistersisaclassicexampleofthissituationas,thedistinction emergesonlywhile,writingaparticularnamelikeKaran,Vishnu,Joshi, etc.

Concluding the whole discussion, at the cost of repetition, it is herebyheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubts thatEXH.283tohavebeendictatedandsignedbythedeceasedaloneand Exh.571thesuicidenoteiswrittenandsignedbythedeceasedvictim.

231

(S)

In view of the propounded principles, EXH.283 is the dying

declaration of the deceased victim and that it does not require any corroboration and therefore, EXH.283, if perceived in its true spirit keepinginthecentrefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,circumstantial evidence emerged in thecase,theevidencethroughdocumentsin the case,itismorethanclearthattheprosecutionhasprovedthecaseagainst thefiveaccusedofhavinggangrapedthedeceasedvictimbeyondall reasonable doubt and that is the point from which presumption under Indian Evidence Act against the accused starts operating against the accusedofthedeceasedvictimhasnotgivenconsentforintercourseto allthefiveaccused.

33.
(i)

GROUPBTHEWITNESSESFROMF.S.L.: PW50:

ThiswitnessisAssistantDirectorofF.S.L.andattherelevanttime wasworkingasScientificOfficer,InvestigationFSLatGandhinagar.

The witness has brought on record two yadis EXH.410 and EXH.412 respectively dated 24/01/2004 and 25/01/2004 as on two differentoccasionsthewitnesswasdeputedfromhisofficetovisitthe siteandtopreparethereportofthesitevisitwithreferencetotheYadi received. EXH.411,413to415areallthereportsofthesiteinspectionbythe

232

witnessandhiscolleague.

What emerges from the deposition of this witness is that this witnessisthepersonwhohasinspectedthesitewhilethepanchnamaat theNikolsimandpanchnamafortheinspectionforboththecarswere drawn.ItseemsthatthedepositionhasrelationwiththeA5,A6,A8 and A10. The witness has stated that he has suggested to do the photography.

But,asisclearfromtherecordnophotographywhatsoeverhas beendonebytheinvestigatingagencyorhasnotbeenproduced.

ItfurtheremergesfromthedepositionthatwitnessAshishOliver fromwhomthecontrolleddhablafromroomNo.102ofAshokPalace hotelwastakenisnownottraceableandthattheprosecutionhasnot examinedthesaidwitnesshence,thefactumofcontroldhablaremained onrecordasitwasandnothingcomesoutfromthat.

This witness has not proved any fact which may take the prosecutioncaseonthefootingwherefromtheA5toA10canbeproved tohavebeeninvolvedinthecrime. (ii) PW11, Dr. Anilkumar Mehta, Assistant Director of D.N.A. DepartmentofF.S.L.:

ThewitnessisPh.D.InMedicalPhysiology,isatrainedpersonfor

233

D.N.A.Figureprinting,hasbeenprovidedstainedareacuttings,reference blood, three blood samples on 01/03/2004 and six phials of the muddamaalon25/02/2005uponwhichthewitnesshassenthisopinion on22/03/2005,ashavingreceivedabout32coversincludingofsamples of top, skirt, bed sheet, blood stains, kerchief, bed roll, blanket, seat covers of Maruti Zen car having R.T.O. No.GJ1HB1267, blood samplesetc.whereon,bloodgroupA,BandOarefound. Ashasbeentestifiedfromtheskirt(ofthedeceasedvictim)semen wasfoundon13cuttingsArticleontheexaminationofD.N.A.Profiling. ThepatternavailableismatchingwiththesampleofA1andA4.Onthe cuttingsoftheskirtthereweremixedpattern.Thepatternwastallying with the D.N.A. Profiling of A1 andA4, thesemen stains onquilt, yellowkerchieffromthecar,werefoundandbothofitwererespectively tallyingwithD.N.A.ProfilingofA4andA1.EXH.138toEXH.158 documentshavebeenformallyprovedbythiswitnesswhicharerelated tocorrespondencebetweentheinvestigatingagencyandF.S.L.andthe reportsofarticlessentfortesting,theD.N.A.Profilingopiniongivenby thewitnesswasforalltheaccusedexceptA12.

LearnedadvocateMr.SardarforA1,A5,A6andA10hascross examined this witness. During the cross examination the witness has testifiedthathehashandledabout450casesduringhistenureuptillthat day,thewitnesswasnotinpictureupto17/01/2004onwhichdatethe samplesforthecaseof1st January,2004weresenttothiswitness,the witnessstatesthathehasonlytoexaminethesamplesasandwhenthey

234

areproducedbeforehim,noadverseeffectislikelywhatsoeveronthe S.T.R.Patternoftheexhibitonaccountofthesampleofthebloodcomes in time or late, according to the opinion of this witness if the blood sampleandtheexhibitswithwhichithastobematchedareproperly preserved,then,therewillnotbeanydifferenceintheD.N.A.Patterns, thepossibilityofdegradationinthesamplesispossibleifitispackedwet and the atmosphere has humidity, the witness agrees that the blood sampleofA1,A2andA3cametohimon01/03/2004,mostofthe instrumentsarefunctioningbyU.P.S.Andthesaidinstrumentsarenot workingonelectricity,nofilmofS.T.R.hasbeenprepared,theD.N.A. Patternofeachindividualisboundtobedifferent.

LearnedadvocateMr.PanchalfortheaccusedNo.4hasalsocross examinedthiswitness.Thewitnesswasassailedonnothavingadopted properproceduresattheF.S.L.,havingnotkeptappropriatestatistical datasoastogiveperfectresult,inthereporttherewasonlymentionof populationofGujaratandnotofnationallevel,thefigureatthereportat EXH.157moreparticularly,onpage11,ithasbeenadmittedlytohave beenwrittenmistakenly,thewitnesshasrepliedthatonaccountofthe numericalmistakestherarenessofthesamplewouldnotbeadversely affected,accordingtothewitnesstheskirtEXH.1to6,8,13and14were important,theEXH.6quiltcoverwascontaminatedhence,finalreport couldnotbegiven,thepossibilityofcontaminationwastheresincethe quilt was that of the hotel,thepossibilityofnot showingclearpeaks couldbeonaccountoflessD.N.A.,thewitnesshasadmittedthatheis unabletostateastothecuttingoftheskirtwerefromwhichpartofthe

235

skirt,cuttingswereofdifferentsizes,therewasnomentionaboutthesize ofthestainonthecutting,ithasbeenadmittedthatonthecuttingsofthe skirtmixedstainswerefoundanditwasnotonlythesemenofA1,the witnessdidnotagreeastothereusedtobevaginalsecretionaswell,the witnesshasaddedthatbyadoptingdifferentprocedureonlymalefraction resultisavailableandtheresultoffemalefractionwouldnotbeavailable, ithasbeenadmittedthatallthesampleshavenotbeenexamined,since fromthesalivathequalityofD.N.A.isfoundweakitwasdecidedto foundD.N.A.fromthesampleofblood,thewitnesshasagreedtothe suggestionthattheD.N.A.canbeavailablefrompubichair,fromthe underwear,therewereunidentifiedprofilesaswell,genotypeofsuch profilewouldhavebeentakenout,locioftheD.N.A.Profilepatternof theunidentifiedD.N.A.if wouldhavebeenfoundthen,itcouldhave beendecidedastothereweremorethanoneperson,theD.N.A.Profiling isnotfromthesampleofsemenofA4,thesemensampleofA4was received,theD.N.A.ProfilingofA4wasfromthebloodsample,the witnessdidnotagreethattheD.N.A.Profilingofthesemenshouldhave been done by the semen sampling, the witness agreed that when the histogramistakenoutoncomputertherewillbementionofdateandtime of the same, the witness has shown agreement to the suggestion that contaminationanddegradationoftheD.N.A.Sampleispossibleanditis oneoftheimportantfactorfordeterminationofD.N.A.Profiling.Inthe hightemperatureandintheatmospherewithhumiditythereispossibility of the sample being degraded. A book named D.N.A. Technology in forensicsciencewasshowntothewitnesswhohasshownhisagreement topage53to58whichwereshowntothewitness.

236

WhilerespondingtothequestionsbytheCourtthewitnesshas statedthattheF.S.L.inGujaratisrecognizedbyNationalAccreditation BoardofLaboratories,inIndiathereisaqualityassuranceprogramme beingimplementedandF.S.L.Gujaratisonesuchlaboratory,thewitness has admitted that except the exh.6 which is a quilt cover, no other samplesorexhibitswerefoundcontaminated,afterthequestionsbythe Court a further cross examination was done wherein, the witness has agreedthatthenoisepeakwhichhehasmentionedinhisdepositionhas notbeenmentionedanywhereinhisreport. *

Thiswitnessistheexpertwitnessthevalueofhisdepositionisas

such,u/s.45oftheIndianEvidenceActandthatitisonlytobeseen whetherheprovidesanycorroborationtotheprosecutioncaseornot. *

Learned advocate Mr. Panchaland learnedadvocate Mr.Sardar

haverelieduponthereplygivenbythewitnessduringthecourseoftheir crossexaminationtosubmitthatthereportcannotbetakenasconclusive. Ithasbeenarguedthatwhenthedeceasedvictimherselfhadstatedbefore Mr.Sharma(PW48)andithasbeennotedinthefirstpanchnamathatthe venueofthegangrapewasnotroomNo.205,thequestionwhichneeds replyisastoeventhevictimherselfisnottellingthevenueoftherapeto beroomNo.205,whythepanchnamawascarriedoutinroomNo.205 andwhythequiltfromroomNo.205wasrecovered. In the opinion of this Court it is not important that why extra

237

articles have been collected by the investigating agency. But, what is importantisthatwhateverhasbeendoneastheinvestigationprocesshas resultedorhaditbecomepointertotheculpabilityoftheaccusedornot. Hence,thissubmissionseemstobemeritlessanddoesnotofferany doubtinfavouroftheaccused. * Another submission which has been canvassed is that the

possibilityofcontaminationanddegradinginthesampleisverymuch thereandasitisanadmittedpositionthatthesamplesweresentatavery belatedstage,thereportofsuchsamplesshouldnotbebelieved.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thissubmissionisabsolutely not one which could be considered for the simple reason that while answering the question by the court the witness has very specifically statedthatonlyEXH.6wasfoundcontaminatedandotherarticles,were not,therefore,itisobviousthattheremainingarticleswerenotfound contaminated,thequestionthattheotherreportshouldnotbebelieved doesnotseemstobealogicalone.

TheattentionofthisCourthasbeendrawntodifferentquestionsof

crossexaminationandmoreparticularlyontheaspectofpossibilityof contaminationonaccountofconditioningwhilepacking,onaccountof thehumidity, andon accountof thehigh temperature,butinviewof specificreplyonArt.6,thissubmissiondoesnotfoundanyfavour.

Another submission is related to the failure of power supply

238

whethercanaffectthetestornot?

Thewitnesshasspecificallyrepliedthattheinstrumentsoftesting arebeingoperatedbyU.P.S.Andarenotbeingoperatedbyelectricityin whichcircumstances,eventhissubmissionfails.

The submission of the thumb impression mark having been not madeontheD.N.A.IdentificationformbyA1alsodoesnotappealto onesreason,thequestionsaboutstatisticaldataaboutthepossibilitiesof lacunasintheprocessbeingadoptedatF.S.L.,thepossibilityoftheresult incaseofsamplebeingmixed,thepeaksbeingshownbecauseofthe voice,etc.,havebeendealtwithbythewitnesshimselfduringthecourse ofcrossexaminationwhichseemstobequitesatisfactorily.

ItwasforcefullyarguedthatthesemensampleofA4wastakenon

16/01/2004andon17/01/2004,thesampleswereallegedlysenttoF.S.L., but,infactthesampleswerenotsent,but,itisaclearcaseofplantation as,thesemensampleobtainedintheCivilHospitalofA4havebeen usedforplantationbytheinvestigatingofficer.

Thissubmissiondoesnotholdthefiledforthereasonthatwhile responding to the questions in the cross examination, the witness has madeitamplyclearthatbloodisbeingusedforD.N.A.Profilingandthe semenofA4toowasreceivedattheF.S.L,hencethereisnoprobability ofuseofcollectedsemenofA4forplantation.Uponthisreport,the

239

submission to raise doubt against the investigation process does not appealtotheration. *

All the samples have not been examined by the witness is an

admittedpositionbut,then,thereisnothingonrecordtoestablishthaton accountofthepositionthatallthesampleswerenottestedtheinterestof theaccusedwasadverselyaffectedorthattheaccusedhavebeenfalsely involvedintheoffence,hence,thissubmissionisalsonotworthy. *

It has also been argued that since the vaginal secretion of the

deceasedvictimwasabsentinthereport,thisreportisnotworthytobe believed,but,onperusalofthereplyonpage16ofthedepositionofthis witness,itbecomesclearthattheprocedurewhichwasadoptedwassuch wherein, female fraction was not shown in the outcome and upon consideringthisreply,nobenefitofdoubtisavailabletotheaccused. *

ThelacunaofnottakingoutgenotypeoflocioftheD.N.A.Profile

patternasfarasunidentifiedD.N.A.areconcerned, doesnothelpthe defense,asbynottakingoutthiskindoftestitistheprosecutioncase whichwouldbeaffectedandnotthedefenseversion. Thewitnesshasexplainedthereasontopreferbloodtosemenand that seems to be quite satisfactory for having taken blood of A4 for D.N.A.Testalso.

(iii)

Learned advocate for the A2 and A3 has submitted very

240

forcefullythattheD.N.A.isaconclusivetestandthatsince,theD.N.A. ProfileoftheA2andA3hasnotmatchedwithanyoftheexhibitsthe A2andA3areabsolutelyentitledtoacquittalandsincetheprosecution hasmiserablyfailedtoestablishthattheA2andA3haverapedthe deceased victim through this conclusive test they need to be granted benefitofdoubtinanycase.

(iv) Learned advocate for A12 has vehemently submitted that the question of holding the A12 guilty is totally out of question as the D.N.A.Reportwhichisconsideredtobetheconclusivereportandwhich isthereporttosecureinnocencehasnotprovedtheinvolvementoftheA 12,hencetheaccusedisthoroughlyentitledtogetthebenefitofdoubt whichiscreatedonrecordonaccountofthereportunderconsideration.

In the humble opinion of this Court as far as A1 and A4 are

concerned,thereportonthecuttingoftheskirtofthedeceasedvictim, mixedpatternhavebeenfound,theD.N.A.ProfilingofA1andA4are alsotallyinghere.

ThisisastrongcircumstanceagainsttheinvolvementofA1and A4inthecrime.

HereitneedstobeclarifiedthatthisCourthasnotconsideredthe reportoftheyellowkerchiefandthereportoftheseatcoversofthecarof theA1since,though,theD.N.A.Profilingpatternistallyingwiththatof

241

A1 but, then, it was from the car of the A1 and that this does not necessarilylinkwiththeguiltinquestionforthereasonthataccordingto theprosecutioni.e.accordingtothedyingdeclarationofthedeceased victim,thevenueofoffenceisroomNo.106,thehotelandnotthecar. Thefacthowever,remainsthattheotherreportsareclearlylinkingA1 andA4withthecrimeofgangrape,itisclarifiedatthecostofrepetition thatcorroborationassuch,isnotrequiredbut,thisisonlytakenasoneof thestrongcircumstanceestablishingtheculpabilityofA1andA4and supportingtruthfulnessofthedyingdeclaration.

Qua the submission of A2, A3 and A12, this Court humbly

believesthatunlessanybodyfluidoftheaccusedcomesoutthereport maynotshowinvolvementoftheconcernedaccused.But,inacasethe bodyfluidcameoutandifthereafteralso,D.N.A.Profilepatternisnot tallyingorisnotmatchingwiththesample/exhibit,thenonly,thesaid wouldbegrantingbenefitofdoubttotheaccusedbut,intheinstantcase thequestionofgrantingbenefitofdoubtisassuch,outofquestionforthe reasonthatthedeceasedvictimisthevictimofagangrapeandthatthere isabsolutelynoreasonforthedeceasedvictimtofalselyinvolvetheA2, A3andA12.

Secondly,notonlyinEXH.283thecomplaintbut,whileendingher lifeinthesuicidenoteonrecordvideEXH.571alsothedeceasedvictim has very specifically implicated all the five accused and that there is absolutelynodoubtinthemindofthisCourtaboutinvolvementofA2, A3andA12aswellinthegangrape.

242

Moreover,thereisnothingonrecordtoestablishthattheA2,A3 andA12werenotpresentatthesite.Asdiscussedabove,incaseofsafe sex by A2, A3, and A12, there is no possibility of D.N.A. Report againsttheaccusedasuntilanybodyfluidoftheaccuseddropsthereis everypossibilitythattheexhibitwouldnotbetallyingwiththeD.N.A. Profileoftheaccusedbut,merelythatdoesnotmeanthatthesethree accusedwerenotinvolvedinthecrime.Itisneedlesstorecordthatin todaysmoderndaystherearesomanyscientificdevicesbywhichthe bodyfluidmaynotfallandstillonecancommitthecrime.Considering thisdiscussion,thisCourtisofthehumbleopinionthatthereisnothing on record, more particularly, either in the complaint, suicide note or anywhereonrecordthatbodyfluidofthesethreeaccusedfellonskirtor anywherehencetheF.S.L.reportscannotgrantcleanchittotheA2,A3 andA12. (v) Opinion:

Ashasbeenalreadyopinedbythewitnessitisnotnecessarythat the semen should be always compared with semen. It has to be rememberedthatthescienceonD.N.A.RequirescomparisonofD.N.A. Typingwithanyofthebodyfluidwhichmaybeblood,semen,saliva, etc.

The opinion of the F.S.L. with respect to the D.N.A. And the substantialevidenceofthiswitnessisassuch,iscorroborativepieceof

243

evidenceandthatitcanbeusedinsupportoftheprincipalfact,if,the principalfactstandsestablishedbydirectandindependentevidence.In theinstantcase,bydirectandindependentevidenceavailableonrecord, innocenceofthefiveaccuseddoesnotstandestablishedandthatonthe contrary, on account of the truthful dying declaration which does not requirecorroborationtheculpabilityofthefiveaccusedhasclearlystood established. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, submissionofdrawingadverseinferenceagainsttheprosecutionandnot believing the D.N.A. Report for the two accused and believing the D.N.A.Reporttograntbenefitofdoubttotheremainingthreeaccused soundstobeabsolutelymeritless.Thuseventhisgroupofwitnesshas alsosupportedthedyingdeclarationtobetruthfulandreliableasnothing bywhichitcanbedoubtedhascomeuponrecord.

34.
(A)

OFFICIALWITNESSESOFGROUPC:

PW21:

Mr.B.D.SolankiwastheExecutiveMagistrateinwhosepresence andinwhoseofficetestidentificationparade,on28/02/2005wasdrawn toidentifytheaccusedNo.12forwhichthePW3went,whoistheelder sisterofthedeceasedvictim.

The witness has deposed that yadi EXH.217 was served, two panchaswerecalled,dummypersonsresemblinginappearancewithA

244

12werecalled,A12wasmixedinthem,thenafter,PW3wascalled who took out from the line the A12 and has identified him as DharmendraaliasKaranaliasMontuMahendrabhaiJainandthatthetest identificationparadewassuccessfulforwhichEXH.218panchnamawas drawn.

Thewitnesswasassailedontheaspectthattheidentificationofthe dummypersonwasnotmadebythewitness,thewitnesswasinknow about the occurrence of the deceased victim through newspaper, the witnesshasnotwrittendescriptionoftheaccusedandtheidentification of dummy persons, their name and address, name etc., and has not obtainedsignaturesofthedummypersonsinthepanchnamaEXH.218.

ThewitnesshasclarifiedthattheA12hadnoidentifiablemarkon his face according to this witness, which person should be taken as dummypersonwasnotentirelylefttothepeon,ifthesignatureofthe dummy persons would have been taken in the panchnama, more credibilitycouldhavebeenattachedtothepanchnama,thewitnesshas accepted that the A12 has told him about the name of A12 to be DharmendraandnottobeKaranaliasMontuandthattheidentificationis thatofthefaceandpersonandnotofthename.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,thesuggestionsagainstthecredibility ofthetestidentificationpanchnama,doesnotraiseanydoubtagainstthe authenticity of such panchnama as the witness being an Executive

245

Magistrate,whoseoneoftheworkistoheldtestidentificationparadeand that in view of the oral deposition, when it seems that the test identificationparadewasheldastheroutineofficialact,then,itbeinga officialwork,thecorrectnessoftheprocedureandthegenuinenessinit cansafelybepresumed,thiswitnessisofficialwitnessandnotinterested intheoutcomeofthecase.

LearnedadvocateMr.ShethnafortheA12hassubmittedthatthe witness himself has admitted that the witness has held the test identificationparadeforthefirsttimeonthesaiddate.But,intheopinion of this Court, merely, that point will not raise any doubt against the genuineness of the panchnama. On the contrary, while the witness is doing the act for the firsttime hewouldhaveinclinationto bemore punctualandperfectinhiswork.

While replying the questions of the Court, the witness has submittedthatusually,inthetestidentificationparade,theaccusedisnot beingaskedquestionsbut,inthiscase,ithasbeenaskedas,intheyadi EXH.217 three names were mentioned. Hence, the witness thought it propertogetthenameconfirmed.

EXH.217istheyaditothewitnessandEXH.218isthepanchnama ofthetestidentificationparade.Thecontentsinthepanchnamahavebeen proved by the substantial evidence of this witness.Thepanchnama is revealingthatthePW3hasidentifiedtheA12asapersonwhomether on31/12/2003withwhatnameisnotimportanthereasthephysicallook

246

istobeidentifiedasthepossibilitycannotberuledthatifonehasguilty mindonewouldbealertenoughnottorevealhisofficialortruename. The contents of the panchnama have been validly proved by PW21 whichclearlyandstronglystandsupportedbythePW3hence,while readingthedepositionofPW21theExecutiveMagistrate,thePW3and EXH.218panchnama,thetestidentificationparade,wherein,theA12 wasidentifiedbythePW3seemstobequitesatisfactoryandconvincing and that conjoint reading of all the above, does not raise any doubt againstthegenuinenessoftheprocessoftestidentificationparadeandthe involvement of A12. More discussion has been done under the sub headingofA12andtherefore,toavoidrepetitionthesamehasnotbeen reiteratedoverhere.

35.

WITNESSESOFGROUPE: Siblings,FriendsandRelativesofthedeceasedvictim

I.

PW25:

(A)

Thewitnessisthebrotherofthedeceasedvictimwhohastestified

thatthedeceasedvictimwasandthePW3arehissisters,thedeceased victimhadstudiedupto10th Standardandthenafter,didacourseof beautyparlournearKiranParkwhowasthendoingtheworkofbeauty parlour, who was working at job solutions at the C.G. Road, on 31/12/2003whileallwereathomeatabout10:00p.m.atelephonecall

247

ondeceasedvictim'smobilecameandthedeceasedvictiminformedthat itwastelephoneofA3toinformthatA3haskeptadanceparty,the deceasedwenttherebytellingthatshewouldcomebackwithinhalfan hour,PW3wenttodropheruptoShahibaughunderbridge,thedeceased alsosaidthatA4hadcomefromDelhi,thewitnesswaswatchingT.V. fortheprogrammeof31st,sawittilllatenight,then,slept,roseuplate, themotherofthewitnessinformedhimthatPW3hadtelephonedand saidthatfivepersonshaverapedthedeceasedvictimandshehasbeen hospitalized, the witness could not go to hospital until the deceased victimcamebackathome,thewitnesssawthedeceasedvictimhanging ontherodhanginginthehookfixedintheceilingbytyingdupattaand by hanging herself. The witness called the family doctor, took the deceased to the hospital,thewitnessknows A1 to A4 andA12 by name.

Inthisexaminationinchief,theversionputupbythedeceased victim stands supported in the above manner and is tallying with the dyingdeclarationalongwithidentificationofthefiveaccusedtowhom thewitnessknowsbyname.

(B)

A submission that though in the car of the family doctor the

witness took the deceased victim to the hospital, since neither the statementofthedoctornorofthedriverofthedoctorisonrecord,hence theversionneedstobedoubted.

248

Ashasbeendiscussed,iftheinvestigatingagencyisnotrecording replyoftheconcernedwitnesses,theversionofthedeceasedvictimor the witness cannot be doubted as it would amount to miscarriage of justicesince,thedeceasedvictimhadnocontrolovertheinvestigating agencyandthatultimately,theybotharedifferent.

(C)

Duringthecourseofthecrossexamination,itstoodrevealedthatat

therelevantpointoftime,thewitnesshadaphoneofTatamobilehaving number8616661.

Since,inthecrossexaminationofthePW3ithasbeenaccepted bythePW3thattheTataMobiletelephonewasonhername,itwas arguedbythedefensethatsincethisnumberadmittedlybelongstothe PW3,theauthorofthecomplaint,mustbePW3.

IntheopinionofthisCourtwhen,thiswitnessbeingthebrotherof thedeceasedvictimwasusingthisphone,thedeceasedvictimgivingthis numbertothePoliceasherresidencenumber,seemstobequitenatural. Firstly,thiswitnesshasmadeitclearthattheirlandlineatthatpointof time was out of order. Now, the deceased victim being a young unmarried woman is whenexposed topoliceagency,outofher deep sense of security and in the social background of India she would normallygivethetelephonenumberwhichiscommontothefamilyand asnumberofanyonecanbebetterthanthebrother'snumberinthehouse soundsverynatural.Hence,theactofthedeceasedvictimtogivethis

249

numberisexpressinghernaturalconductandherstageofnotactingat theinstanceofanyoneisnotapointertoanydoubtthatthecomplaint waslodgedbythePW3or,otherwise,thePW3wouldhavegivenher ownmobilenumber.

(D)

ThewitnesshasplacedthefactontherecordthatPW10andPW

20 respectively, Shri Hemant and Shri Naurin are his friends and the relationshipofthetwosistersofthewitnesswiththesetwopersonswas onaccountofthesaidrelationship.

This witness hasclarifiedthatuntilthedeathofthevictim, the mediahasnotreportedtheoccurrenceexceptoncethattoo,averysmall news item, but, it is only after her death, it came in the newspaper, accordingtothiswitness,thedeceasedvictimhadnotgoneanywhereto giveanystatement,exceptthecomplaintgivenbythedeceasedvictimon 01/01/2004,PW3wenttopolicemaybe,twiceorthricepriortodeathof thedeceasedvictim.Itisadmittedthattheceilingofthevenueofsuicidal deathofthedeceasedvictimisabout13to14feetinbetweenthereisa overheadstoragethedistanceofwhichfromtheceilingwas5feet.Both thesidesofthehookwereinsidetheceilingandanironrodbentfrom boththesideswashanginguponthehookwithwhichthedupattawas tied,thehookwasabout2feetfarfromtheoverheadopenstorageplace, thewitnesshasclarifiedthathesaidabouttheironrodbentfromboththe sides and if the police has written only hook, he does not know, the suggestionhasbeendeniedthatthedeceasedvictimdiedasuicidaldeath byhangingontheceilingfanandthatsowasneverstatedbythewitness tothepolice,afterremovingthebodyofthedeceasedvictimfromthe

250

hangingposition,familydoctorwascalledandthen,inthecarofthe familydoctorthewitnesstookhertothe`LifeCareHospital',thewitness hasdeniedthatthedeceasedvictimwasnotpermittedtobeincontact with N.G.O., print media and electronic media and that it has been voluntarilystatedbythewitnessthattheelectronicandprintmediahave becomeactiveonlyafterdeathofthedeceasedvictim,women/social workersfromStreeKelavaniMandalusedtocomewithwhomdeceased victim herself was dealing who were coming to console the deceased victim. The suggestion of having murdered the deceased victim on 06/01/2004bythewitness,PW3,PW10andPW20hasbeendenied.

Duringthefurthercrossexamination,itstoodrevealedthatinthe statementofthiswitnesspolicereferredthedeceasedvictimasyounger daughter of this witness, the witness has stated that he might have reachedtothehospital(LifeCareHospital)atabout11:00or11:30,after 10minutesofreaching,hewasinformedthatthedeceasedhadpassed away, the PW3 came homeatabout10:30 p.m. Of 31/12/2003 after droppingthedeceasedvictim,thewitnesshasadmittedthathehasnot madeanycriestocallthesurroundingpeoplebut,hasonlycalledYash sonofthePW3tohelphiminremovingthebodyofthedeceasedvictim, thebladeusedtocutthedupattahasnotbeenseizedbythepolice,after the occurrence, the witness has not chosen to file the complaint as, accordingtothewitness,theprioritywastotakethedeceasedvictimto thehospital,whilerespondingthequestionbycourtthewitnesshasstated thatfrom01/01/2004to06/01/2004,noincidentwherein,thedeceased victimhasattemptedsuicidehastakenplaceinpresenceofthiswitness.

251

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thiswitnesshasthoroughly supportedtheprosecutionversioni.e.theversionofthedeceasedvictim, there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness, the witness seemstobenatural,reliableandquitefrank,certainlacunascommitted by the investigating agency cannot be clarified and explained by this witness,certainclarificationsasfittingrepliestothesuggestionsmadeby thedefensehavebeenputforthbythiswitness,thedeathofthedeceased victimdoesnotseemtobeinanyotherunnaturalwayexceptthesuicidal death by hanging herself, that the carelessness of the investigation of notingthedeceasedvictimasyoungerdaughterofthiswitnessisinfact, explainingtheprobableblunderofwritingrodtofanandunderstanding rodtohook.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,nottakingdownthestatementofYash, ofdoctoroftheLifeCareHospital,familydoctor,driverofthedoctor, notsecuringthelandlinenumberoftheresidenceofthedeceasedvictim, notseizingthebladebywhichthedupattawascutbythiswitness,not callingfortheopinionofF.S.L.aboutthecapacityofthedupattatobear theweightofthedeceasedvictimetc.,aretoosmallalampandthatthese aretheweaknesses,lacunasanddefectsoftheinvestigatingagencywhich cannotbepermittedtodamagetheversionofthedeceasedvictimthat too,givenintheformofdyingdeclaration.

Thiswitnesshasclarifiedofnoanotherincidentduring01/01/2004 to06/01/2004tookplace.Notcallingthesurroundingpeopleseemstobe

252

quitenaturalasthereissocialfearofbeingtauntedorfamilyhonourmay broughtincontroversy.

(E)

InviewoftheP.M.Report,thedeceasedvictimhasbeendescribed

tobeofmediumbuiltuppersonandthatshewasabout24yearsold woman hence the expected weight is not above 60 kgs. Considering whichthough,thereisnoreportfromtheF.S.L.itcansafelybeinferred thatthedupattathetwopiecesofwhichwerefoundoutfromthehouseof thedeceasedvictimandwhichhasbeenopinedbytheF.S.L.tobetrue two parts of one dupatta, must be capable to bear the weight of the deceasedvictim.Thiswitnesshasclearlyhelpedtheprosecutionversion andtoestablishthefactumofthesuicidaldeathofthedeceasedvictimto havetakenplaceinthemorningof07/01/2004.

(F)

The witness has admittedly not gone to the hospital for which

explanationshavebeenofferedinthecrossexaminationaswellaswhile questioned by my learnedpredecessor.But,theseare allaverypetty thingsandthatageneralattitudeistobeseenandbycuttingsomepiece ofthecircumstanceandbypastingitonanother,noconclusioncanbe drawnas,thesaidconclusionarelikelytobemisguidingconclusions. (II) PW3:

ThePW3isawitnesswhohasdeposedforlongfourmonthsspreading into13days.Thiswitnessistheeldersisterofthedeceasedvictim.

253

(a)

Duringthesubmissionsofallthelearnedadvocatesforthedefense

thedepositionofthiswitnesshasbeenhighlyopposed.Itwasmainly submittedthatthiswitnesscannotbetermedtohavebeensayingfrom herpersonalknowledge.Rather,whatshestatesabouttheoccurrenceand aroundtheoccurrenceisnothingbut,fromthehearsayevidencesinceshe hashearditfromthedeceasedwhoisnomorealiveandthatthefact whetherwassaidornotcannotbeconfirmedwiththedeceasedvictim andtherefore,assubmittedthedepositionofthewitnessshouldnotbe discarded.

ThisCourthumblybelievesthatwhateverthewitnesshasdirectly heardfromthedeceasedvictimisthefactinherpersonalknowledgeand that such a fact cannot besaidto beahearsayevidence,she hasthe knowledgeofthefactdirectlytoldtoherbythedeceasedvictim.Asthe conceptofthepersonalknowledgeisthatthatwhatdeceasedisspeaking from having heard must have heard directly. In this case the witness statesthethingswhichshehaslearntdirectlyfromthedeceasedvictim.

(b)

Moreover,asamatteroffact,sincethedeceasedvictimhaddied

whateverhadbeenstatedbythedeceasedvictimtothiswitnesswouldbe inwayanoralstatementinthenatureofdyingdeclaration.Thesaidfact is related to the circumstances of the transaction, which has led the deceasedtoherdeath.Intheinstantcasethatissincesuchafactwhich hasultimatelyledthedeceasedvictimtocommitsuicidethisfactwhich thewitnessistellingabouttheoccurrenceandaroundtheoccurrenceis

254

nothingbuttheevidencewhichcomesoutfromherpersonalknowledge andhence,isadmissibleevidence.

(c)

Againstthiswitness,thesubmissionhasalsobeenmadethatinthe

depositionofthiswitness,therearepagestogetherwhichareclearcut omissionsandcontradictionsaswell.

This is the fact which has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case and that if the deceased victim had stated something to this witness that becomes the earlier statement of the deceasedandthatithastobeaccordinglytaken.Afteralltheobjectofthe criminal justice delivery system is to unearth the truth and while unearthingthetruthminoromissionsshouldnotbetakennoteofrather that is sometimes reflecting to the fact that the witness is a natural witness.

Ithasalsotoberememberedthatthewitnessisnotgivingmemory testandthatexceptthetutoredandpromptedwitnessnoneelsecanspeak verbatim as what has been stated in the police statement. Hence, wheneverthewitnessisnotspeakingwordtoworditwouldleadthe Courtthatthewitnessismostlythewitnessoftruth.Intheinstantcase, thedeceasedvictimwastheyoungersisterofthiswitness.Nothinghas comeonrecordastowhatcouldbetheinterestofthiswitnesstofalsely implicateallthefiveaccused.Thatbeingso,ithastobetakenthatunless thedeceasedvictimcouldhavetoldtothiswitness,thiswitnesscouldnot

255

statethesaidfactonoath.

(d)

Letusseeastowhathasbeentestifiedbythiswitnessandtowhat

extentsupporthasbeenprovidedbythiswitnesstotheprosecutioncase. Hereatthecostofrepetitionitisclarifiedthattheprosecutioncaseis basedonlyontheversionofthedeceasedvictim.Theprosecutioncase cannotbesaidtobeversion,opinionorbeliefofanyoftheinvestigating officerorofthiswitnessorofanyoftheotherwitnesses.Ashasbeen heldearlier,inthiscasesincethedeceasedhasveryclearlystatedabout theoccurrenceandaboutwhathashappenedbeforetheoccurrence,there remainshardlyanydoubtaboutthegenuinenessabouttheversionofthe deceasedvictim.

ThiswitnesshassupportedthefactthatshewenttoShahibaugh underbridge,A1cametopickupthedeceasedvictiminhisZenCar,the witnesshadatalkwiththedeceasedvictimataround12:00midnighton the mobile phone of A4 (tallying with the mobile printout of A4 wherein,aphonecalltothePW3canbeseenhavingbeenrecordedat 12:42a.m.of01/01/2004),aphonecallfromA4cameatabout3:45on thephoneofthiswitness,tellingthiswitnessthatsheshouldtakethe deceased victim, upon inquiry by this witness it was told that the deceasedvictimistobetakenfromtheSolaPetrolPump,anotherphone ofA4came,whereinhehasconveyedthatA1anddeceasedvictimare waitingforthewitness,A4toldhertotelephoneA1,A1telephonedto thiswitness,A1wasnearpetrolpumpandinthecarthedeceasedvictim wasnotonthefrontseat,thedeceasedvictimwasinaverybadposition,

256

shedidnothaveskirtonherbodyandthetopwaspulledupuptothe throat,A10wasalsopresent,A20wasalsopresent,attemptstobring thedeceasedvictiminnormalcywereongoing,A1wastryingtorun away,thecarofA1wasbeingdrivenbyPW10andA1wassittingin theadjoiningseat,thewitnesshastakenheadofthedeceasedvictimin her lap, PW10 and PW3 have spread their jackets on the deceased victim,thedeceasedvictimwasinaverybadconditionanditwasnot learntastowhetherisshelivingornot,thePW3wasunabletodecideas whethertogotohospitalorpolicestation,stimulibyclosingthenostril andbypouringlemonwaterweregivenwhenthedeceasedvictimsobbed sothatitwaslearntthatshewasalive,theywenttoSolaPoliceChawky, oneofthepolicemanhelpedthedeceasedvictimbyspreadinghisshawl onher,thenafter,PW20wasalsocalled,throughoutthewayA1was convincingthathedidnotdoanythingbut,ithadbeendonebyA4,A3, etc.,A1toldtothewitnessthattheincidenttookplaceinthehotel,the witnessdialledNo.100fromhermobile(controlroom),whiletheywere coming from Sola Police Station to Shahibaugh Police Station, the deceasedvictimhadattainedpartialawakening,thewitnessinquiredwith the deceased victim as to who did this position of her, the deceased victimrepliedthatwhentheywenttoAshokPalacehoteltheywentto restaurant,A3toldthatpassesfordancepartyweretoreach,A4told thatthepasseswerecomingandwewouldgo,theyhadbeentothedance party,but, therewasnone,sotheyreturned,whilereturningfromthe danceparty,fromthemobileofSajal,deceasedvictimmadeatelephone call,thedeceasedvictiminformedthewitnessthatafterreachingAshok Palacehotel(withreferencetotheconversationitisobviouslyreaching

257

secondtime)A1,A2,A3andA4wereconsumingbeer,A4toldthe deceasedvictimtoconsumebeertowhichshedeclined,A4thenstarted beatingherandthenafterallthefiveaccusedhaverapedthedeceased victim. After this conversation they, reached to Shahibaugh Police Station.

The witness has further stated that at the Shahibaugh Police Station,PW43toldthatclothesofthedeceasedvictimwererequiredfor investigation and that PW10 was sent to take another clothes of the deceasedvictimwhichwerebroughtandthen,twowomenconstables werethere,whilethedeceasedvictimwenttochangetheclotheswoman constableAshabentoldhimthat,youarewronglygivingthenamesof theseboys,youmusthavegoneyourself.Thedeceasedvictimshowed theinjuriesonherbodywhilechangingherclothes,theinjuryofnail bitesonhercheeks,theswollencheeksbecauseofslapping,swollenlips, injuryontheshoulder,arms,breast,theburnsbytheburningcigarette thewitnesssawallthesethingsonthepersonofthedeceasedvictim.

Then after, the witness accompanied the deceased victim to the civil hospital where A11 was present, A11 was busy, the deceased victimhadtowait,shehadlotofpain,shewasmadetosleeponthe earth,theA11misbehaved,thereafterA11hasexaminedthedeceased victim and ultimately the deceased victim was admitted in the civil hospital,onthenextdayatabout3:30to4:00thedeceasedvictimwas dischargedfromthehospital,shewasnottreatedproperly,theywentto Dr.KrupabenTrivedithenafter,whoisagynaecologistpriortowhich

258

alsothedeceasedvictimandthewitnesswentto23doctorsbut,since it was a rape case, they declined to take the case, Dr. Krupaben has examined the deceasedvictimwhilethewitnessandher motherwere present,deceasedvictimwasadvisedforadmissioninthehospital,but, sincethedeceasedvictimwasnotreadytobeadmittedonlymedicines wereprescribed.

Thewitnesshasgivenanapplicationon06/01/2004(exh.454) whileshe andher father wenttoPoliceCommissioner'sOffice which applicationwasdeposedtohavebeenmadeforcorrections,thewitness hasidentifiedA12asapersonwhowaspresentattheAshokPalace hotelon31/12/2003whilethewitnessandthedeceasedvictimwentto thehotelon31/12/2003atabout2:30or3:00andatwhichpointoftime theA4introducedtheA12ashisfastfriendas`Karanandthatthe witnessanddeceasedvictimreturnedatabout6:30to7:00p.m.Onthe saiddate,thewitnesshasdeposedthatsheknowsthehandwritingofthe deceased victim, the witness has testified the complaint EXH.283 to havebeengivenbythedeceasedvictim,shereadoverthecomplaintand furthertestifiedthatthesignatureonthebacksideofthefirstpageandat the end of the complaint andsignature for receipt of thecopy of the complaintareallthethreesignaturesdonebythedeceasedvictim,the witness hasspecifiedthatthecomplaintwastakendownashadbeen givenbythedeceasedvictimatwhichpointoftime,shewaspresent,one copyofthecomplaintwasgiventothedeceasedvictim(thecomplaint

259

during the deposition of this witness was given Mark B which was temporarily exhibited as EXH.283 in the deposition of PW43 before whomthecomplaintwastaken),thewitnessadmitsthattheapplication EXH.454 was given in her own handwriting, the muddamaal articles wereshowntothiswitness.

Ashasbeennarratedabove,thedeceasedvictimhastoldaboutthe occurrence, in her own words to the present witness and thatnot the wholeexaminationinchiefbut,thisCourthastakennoteoftheparticular factswhichcomesoutfromthepersonalknowledgeofthiswitness.

(e)

IntheopinionofthisCourtitisverymuchpossiblethataftersuch

aseriousoccurrencewhenayoungersisterissleepinginthelapofelder sisterandwhiletheyaremarchingtothepolicestationtheeldersister wouldbecuriousenoughtoknowastowhathadhappenedandinthe samewaytheyoungersistermustbeeagerenoughtotellastowhathad happenedandtherefore,theinquirybytheeldersisterandthereplyin formoftheinformationbytheyoungersisterdeceasedvictimseemsto beverynatural.Moreover,whatever,hasbeenstatedintheexamination inchiefbythiswitnessissupportedbyPW10,PW20andPW43.

(f)

Letusseeastofromtheweaponofcrossexaminationwhathas

emergedandwhetherthewitnesshasbeenimpeachedbytheexerciseof crossexaminationornot.

260

Before going into the depth of the reply elicited during cross examination it seems fitting to record here that the witness has been assailedonnumerousstatementsbeforetheinvestigatingagency,onher personal life and telling her own son to be her younger brother, her maritallife,aboutherwayoflivingherlifeetc.

In thehumble opinion ofthisCourt, itisabsolutelytheprivate affairs of the family whether to treat the son of the eldest divorcee daughtertobesonoftheparentsornotandnothingemergesfromthat.

Inthesameway,oneortwodivorceisone'spersonallifeandis absolutelyinternalaffairofone'slifeandthatcanneveraffectonthe credibility of the witness. Thirdly, giving so many statements to the investigatingagencycanneverbeinthehandofthewitness.Thisisa verypeculiarcasewhereseriesofoccurrencewentoninaveryquick successionandthatonlyonthe7thdaythedeceasedvictimdiedandthat onaccountofsomanythingshappenedtheinvestigatingagencymight haveaskedfromthestatementfromthiswitness,forwhichcredibilityof thiswitnesscannotbedoubted.ThisCourttherefore,donotdiscussabout minor omissions, minor contradictions, personal life of the deceased, numerousstatementsbeforetheinvestigatingagency,havingnottaken the statement of the son of this witness as, the case as such has no concernwhatsoeverwiththoseaspects.

(g)

In the cross examination, the fact about the employment of the

261

witness with the witness Sanjay Patel has been questioned who was panchoftheinquestpanchnama,thewitnesswasknowingtoA4from last1years,ashasbeenexplainedsheknewhimbecausehewasthe friendofthedeceasedvictim,on31/12/2003theywenttohotelAshok Palaceatabout4:00p.m.Andreturnedatabout6:30to7:00p.m.when theysatattherestaurant,thewitnesscametoknowaboutthefactofthe name of Karan as introduced, on 01/03/2005 she learnt that Karan is Dharmendra,andthatpriortothatdate,thepoliceagencyhasnotasked thewitnessabouttheA12,thetelephonecallofA4cameon31/12/2003 at about 9:30 or so which was on the deceased victim, the deceased victimwasexaminedbyA11atabout3:00or3:30p.m.whichwasnot inthewardbut,itwastheplacewhere23patientswerethere(inview ofthecasepapersthephysicalexaminationofdeceasedvictimbytheA 11 is at about 12:15 noon of 01/01/2004 but, the admission of the deceasedvictimatthegynaecwardseemstobeatabout2:15p.m.),on 31/12/2003wherethewitnesswaswhereshehasmovedetc.havealso beenaskedtothewitnessbythedefence,A4telephonedtothewitness forthefirsttimeatabout3:45a.m.(on01/01/2004),thewitnessdenies thatshehasstatedbeforethepolicethatfirstofalltelephonecameofA 1,thewitnesshasvolunteeredthatafterthephonecallofA4,thephone ofA1came,thewitnesshasacceptedittobetruethatfrom3:54a.m.to 4:11a.m.aboutfourphonecallscamefromA4,phonecallfromA1 cameat4:11a.m.,thewitnessdeniesthatshewenttoAshokPalacehotel afterthesetelephonecallsfromtheA4,thewitnessmaintainedthatshe hasreceivedthedeceasedvictimfromSolaPetrolPumponly,thewitness hasexplainedthatonaccountofthepositioninwhichheryoungersister

262

waslyinginthehospital,itwasnotpossibleforthewitnesstogiveall minute details in her statement, the statement of the witness dated 01/01/2004,isbeingputtoherwherein,thewitnessseemstohavestated beforethepolicethat,thedeceasedvictimwasinintoxicatedcondition andthatsheaskedthedeceasedvictimastowhathappenedthen,the deceasedvictimtoldherthatA1tookherfromunderbridgeincarand tookhertoAshokPalacewhere,A4fromDelhiandhisfriendMontu (A12)andA2andA3werepresent,A3toldthathisfriendwould bringthepasses,tillthen,letusgotoroomNo.106where,A4calledfor beer,when,thedeceasedvictimdeniedtotakebeershewaspersuadedto takesomebeerandthenthedeceasedvictimconsumedbeerwhileA4 second time persuaded and deceased victim when, denied A4 was extremelyangryandhasslapped34timestothedeceasedvictimand hadmadehertosleeponthecotandbyforceremovedherclothesand thenafter,allofthemhaverapedthedeceasedvictimonebyoneand haveinjuredheronthebreast,shoulder,backsideandbeatenher(this statement is totally supporting EXH.283 complaint) the witness has volunteeredthatthedeceasedvictimtoldherthesefactswhiletheywere going from Sola Police Station to Shahibaugh Police Station, for not givingminordetails,whileaskedthewitnessclarifiedthatshedidnot knowthatallthesmallthingsisalsotobetoldtothepoliceofficer,the witnesshasstatedthatatabout4:20a.m.shetelephonedtoA1because, afterreceiptofthephoneofA4,thetelephoneofA1camebut,thatwas immediatelydisconnected,hence,fromthereceivedlistshetelephoned andtalkedtoA1,thewitnesshastelephonedontelephoneNo.100and hassoughtforthecounselling,thepositionofthedeceasedvictimwas

263

like adead body and byonlybringing her headout water wasbeing poured on her head, the witness has stated that whatever information abouttheoccurrencewasreceivedbyherfromthedeceasedvictimwere allstatedbeforethepoliceinherstatementof1st and14th January,the witness has volunteered that had the names of five accused not been informedtoherbythedeceasedvictim,how,shewouldhavelearntit,the witnesshasconfirmedagainandagainthatshewasgivennamesofthe fiveaccusedbythedeceasedvictim,thewitnesshasspecificallystated that while the complaint was given by the deceased victim she was presentthere,thecomplaintwaswrittenbythepolice,policepersonnels were present around, while the car was opened by police constable MahendrabhaiattheShahibaughPoliceStation,therewerelyingsandals, nickerandpurseofthedeceasedvictimandtherewerealsothebracelet andasilverringofthedeceasedvictimintheMarutiZen,thewitnesshas statedthatthedeceasedvictimwasnotkeepinghairbrushinherpurse andshewasalsonotusedtokeepanytoiletryitemsinthepurse(thispart ofdepositionlikeotherpartsmentionedhereinaboveseemstobequite genuinebecausewhilethiscourthasseenthemuddamaalrecoveredby the investigating agency,itwaslearntthatthemuddamaalwhichwas shownasalady'spursewasinfactamuddamaalwherein,itwaswritten Niviaformenanditseemsthatitwasnotatallalady'spursebut,by somemisperceptionitwasmentionedbytheofficialsoftheinvestigating agency to be lady's purse onwhichitselfit was written as 'for men') (MuddamaalArticleNo.15hasbeenshownaslady'spursebut,having takenthesaidpurseinthehandofthisCourt,itisfoundthatitisblue colouredpouchwrittenonitas'NiviaforMen',thisisthepouchwhich

264

cancomfortablyusedfortravelling).

(h)

This witness has further testified that in the hospital where the

deceased victim was kept she knew only doctor Jadav A11. The witnessisunawareaboutDr.NidhiandDr.ParulBhargavandshealso does not know as to whether both these doctors have examined the deceasedvictim(asperthemedicalcasepaperthesetwoladydoctors wereverymuchinthepicturei.e.Dr.ParulBhargavinhercapacityasa gynaecologistandDr.Nidhiinhercapacityasapathologist),thewitness has stated that telephone No.8616661 was the number of her brother (PW25isthesaidbrotherwhoalsostatesso),thewitnesshasfurther stated that the register in which the deceasedvictim was writing was givenbythiswitnesstothepoliceandthatsheknowsthehandwritingof the deceased victim since right from childhood they have grown up together.

(i)

Thewitnesswascrossexaminedbyallthedefenselawyers,letus

seethefurthercrossexaminationbythedefense.

WhilereplyingtothecrossexaminationbyA11alsothewitness hasreiteratedthatwhilegoingfromSolaPoliceStationtoShahibaughthe deceasedvictimcameinpositiontotalkwiththiswitness,thetimefrom SolaPoliceChawkyandthenaftertoSolapoliceStationmighthavebeen about15to20minutesatwhichpointoftime,thedeceasedvictimwas notinpositionwhereshecanbeaskedanythingabouttheoccurrence,it

265

hasbeenvolunteeredbythewitnessagainthatonthewayfromSola Police Station to Shahibaugh Police Station, the deceased victim was slightlyingoodconditionandhadrecoveredaslightandhadtoldthefull occurrence to this witness, they reached Shahibaugh Police Station at about5:30a.m.of01/01/2004,thecomplaintmighthavebeentakenat about 7:30to 8:00a.m., therecordingofcomplaintmighthavetaken abouthalfanhour,thereisnospecificmentioninthecomplaintofthe deceasedvictimaboutwhetheritwasSolaunderbridgeorShahibaugh underbridge(intheopinionofthisCourtitisaverymeagreandminor thing),theendorsementofreceiptofthecomplaintonEXH.283hasbeen showntothewitnesswhoadmitsthatinherpresencethedeceasedvictim tookthecopyofthecomplaintbysigninguponit.TheA1hascrossed onaboutthehistorygivenbythedeceasedvictimandwhateverwastold bythedeceasedvictimwasnotedbytheA11,afterrecordingthehistory bythedeceasedvictim.A11didnotexaminethedeceasedvictimafter shewasadmittedasindoorpatient,thebloodsamplewastakenatabout 4:004:30p.m.,thewitnessdeniedthefactthatDr.ParulBhargavhas examinedthedeceasedvictimaftershewasadmittedasindoorpatient, the witness maintained that the deceased victim was not given any medicines,onlyonebaralgamwasadvisedbythedoctor,thedeceased victimhadtremendouspainbut,notreatmentwasgivenanditisforthat reasonthedeceasedvictimhadtobetakentothePW39thenextday. Thewitnessagreedtothesuggestionthatpriortotakingthedeceased victimtoPW39theyalsohadbeentoanotherdoctorwhoseclinicwas adjoiningtothePW39where,sinceitwasarapecasethosedoctorsdid not take the case of the deceased victim, they went to PW39 Dr.

266

Krupabenatabout5:00or5:30p.m.onthesamedatewhenthedeceased victimwasdischargedfromtheCivilHospital,PW39talkedtodeceased victimandthenafterprescriptionwaswritten,thedeceasedvictimtold about the occurrence to the PW39 in presence of this witness, the deceased victim told to PW39 about having tremendous pain in the privatepartofthedeceasedvictim,theexternalinjurieswereshownto PW39andthenPW39hasprescribedthemedicine,thatPW39was informedabouttremendouspaintothedeceasedvictimandthataboutthe factthatnotreatmentwasgiventothedeceasedvictimforthepaininthe privatepart,thewitnesshasadmittedthatshehasnotcomplainedtoany agency about insufficient treatment or improper treatment attheCivil Hospital, the witness has identified six persons in the identification paradewhichwasheldtoidentifytheerringpoliceofficialsinthewhole episode, and that they were suspended then after and that department inquiriestoo,wereheldagainstthem,theChairpersonoftheNational CommissionforWomenhadvisitedtheresidenceofthiswitnesswho inquiredaboutthecomplaintincaseofthedeceasedvictim,thewitness informedheraboutthepoorinvestigationandwhathadhappenedatthe CivilHospital,herstatementwastakenbytheNationalCommissionfor Women,thewitnesshassaidthatasonthedatealsothewitnesshasno grievance,noanimosityagainsttheA11thattheonlythingwhichthe witnesswishedtosaywasthattheA11hasnotdischargedhisobligation incaseofthedeceasedvictim.

(j)

Itwasemphaticallysubmittedthatthiswitnesshasbeengranted

numerousopportunitiestoexplainandthatduringthecrossexamination

267

by the learned advocate for A2, A3, A7 and A8 the witness has explainedforabout59times.

Almostalllearnedadvocateshavesubmittedthatthewitnessisnot creditworthyforthereasonthatsheisfrequentlyofferingherexplanation.

In the humble opinion of this Court merely by tendering explanation, the witness cannot be automatically termed to be untrustworthyandthattheprinciplesofseparatinggrainfromthechaff cannot be forgotten while appreciating the evidence. It cannot be forgottenthattheultimategoalistounearththetruthandthatinthat exercisecertainthingshavetobetakencareofandthattheattitudeand tendencyofthewitnesswhoisaclosepersonhavingbloodrelationwith deceased victim may be to keep on explaining to see to it that the deceasedvictimwhoisnomoremaynotbemisunderstoodbytheCourt andthatthesaidtendencyisanaturaltendencyofthesurvivingnearand dear of the deceased victim. This attitude suggests that the PW3 is naturalwitness. (k)

Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,thewitnesswasaskedas

tohermobilenumberatthetimeofoccurrencewas9898019689towhich thewitnesshasansweredinaffirmative,thedeceasedvictimwashaving mobilephonenumber31085810atthetimeofoccurrenceandthatthe saidmobilephonewasinoperationupto7thJanuary,2004.Atthetimeof occurrencealsothedeceasedvictimdidhavethismobilewhichbothhave beenansweredinaffirmative.

268

During the course of cross examination the mobile telephone number of the father of the witness, PW10, PW20, etc. have been confirmed. Whatismostinterestingisthewitnesswascrossedthattheaccused No.12KaranhadmobileNo.1453100210andthatitwasaskedtothe witness whether she has giventhistelephonenumbertothepoliceto which,thewitnesshascategoricallyrepliedinnegativestatingthatshe didnotgivebut,thedeceasedvictimgavethistelephonenumberinthe hospitaltothepolice.

Thequestionaboutthelocationoftheresidenceofthedeceased victim,residencelocationofPW10,PW20,thevenueoftheoccurrence, route of the same from residence of deceased victim, distance of the same, the topography of certain area surrounding the residence of deceasedvictim,towardsthewaytothehotel,theresidenceofPW20 fromSolaPetrolPump,thetopographyofGhatlodiaPoliceStation,Sola PetrolPump,waytoresidencefromSolaBridgeetc.

Whilerespondingaspecificquestionthewitnesshasspecifically statedthatsheknewtheA2after,sheknewtheA3andthatsheknew A2forlastoneandhalfyearandthatA2andA3arerealbrothers,in theyear,2003inthefestivalofMakarsankranti,thewitnessanddeceased victimwenttokiteflyingattheresidenceofA3atwhichpointoftime, thedeceasedvictimhadhotexchangewithafriendofA3whosename

269

wasJitureplyingthisquestion,thewitnesshasstatedthatshehadbeen toAdishwarFlatsforkiteflyingandthatshedidnotknowthatitisthe residenceofA3however,lateronshelearntitandthatitisthewitness who had hot exchange of words while the deceased victim came in betweentoreconcile,aspecificquestionhasbeenrepliedinaffirmative that after the said occurrence the witness did not like friendship of deceasedvictimwithA3andthatforsometime,deceasedvictimhad stopped her friendship with A3 (it has to be remembered that the complaintbywhichimplicationoftheA2andA3hasbeenshownin theoffenceofgangrapeisthecomplaintfiledbydeceasedvictimandnot bythiswitness),thewitnesstelephonedtoA1atabout4:20a.m.on 01/01/2004,thewitnesshasadmittedthattheA1hadtelephonedtoA3 andthen,gavethetelephonetothewitnesstotalktoA3andthatthe witnesstalkedtothepersonconsideringthepersonontheothersideof thetelephonetobeA3,thewitnesshasalsoadmittedthatitispossible thatshemightnotidentifythevoiceofA3,thewitnesshasagreedtothe questionthatshehadtoldtothepolicethatshewasnotknowingasto wheretheincidenttookplace,andthatitisA1whotoldherthatthe incidenttookplaceatAshokPalacehotel.Thewitnessclarifiesthatsince thedeceasedvictimwasrapedshefounditmoreappropriatetotakethe deceasedvictimtothepolicestationsoastoseetoitthattheaccusedare caught,thewitnesswasaskedaboutthealibioftheA2andA3towhich shehaspleadedherignorance,thewitnesswasalsoaskedthattheA3 wasincompanyofhisfriendslikeSandipJain,Alpesh,GurvinderSingh, Ankit,DJRusanandNisha(someofthemweresubsequentlythedefense witnesses),inadditiontoJituandhiswife,Pradipandhiswife,Vivek

270

andhiswife,Bharatandhiswife,GurvindersinghandhiswifeatB.R. Farmtowhichthewitnesshasalsopleadedherignorancetothisaspect. ThewitnesshasdeniedthesuggestionthatA3wenttodropDJRusanat Ambawadiat3.10a.m.fromB.R.Farmwherethepartywaskept,the witnesshasalsobeenaskedaboutdifferentplaceswhereA2waspresent attheinterveningnightwhichalsothewitnesshasdenied,thewitnesshas alsobeenaskedthatthedeceasedvictimhadnotgiventhenameofA2 andA3astheyhadnotrapedherwhichtoo,wasdenied,thewitnesshas repeatedlyclarifiedthatthetruefactoftheoccurrencewasdisclosedto herbydeceasedvictim,asfarastheaspectofalibiofA2andA3is concerned,thewitnesshasrepeatedthesamethingthatsheknewabout the presence of the A2 and A3 at the venue of offence since the deceasedvictimhassoinformedtothewitnessandthatsheknowsabout thepresenceandabsenceofA2andA3throughthedeceasedvictim, questioninminutedetailabouttheeatnaryofthewitnessonthesaid interveningnight,aboutherincomingandoutgoingcallswithdifferent friendsofthewitnessetc.havebeenaskedtothewitness(Thiscourt sincefounditveryirrelevant),thewitnesshasstatedthatshehastoldto thepoliceinthestatementof01/01/2004itselfaboutthefactofinjuryto thedeceasedvictim,thewitnesshasgivenanaccountofthedeceased victim to have constantly remained mood less, silent, who was not speakingandnoteatingduring01/01/2004to06/01/2004,thewitnesshas alsobeenaskedthatfromherfamilyonlysheremainedincontactwith thepolicestation,press,T.V.,Mediaetc.(Thisaspecthasbeenheavily emphasized,but,inthehumbleopinionofthecourtthereisnothingtobe surprisedaboutthewholethingasthewitnessseemstobelovingthe

271

deceased victim too much and it seems that she was sharing a very healthytermwithheryoungersisterthedeceasedvictim,hence,itis possiblethatoutofemotionsforyoungersisterwhowassubjectedto sexual violence the eldersistermight beconsideringherduty totake interestinthewholethingandthat,intheopinionofthisCourt,nothing canbe inferredfrom thisconduct,onthecontrarythisconductisthe naturalconductofthewitness).

Onpage88aspecificquestionhasbeenaskedthaton06/01/2004 at about 2:00 p.m. , a telephone call of Mr. Gadhvi came that some applicationwasgivenbythedeceasedvictimon03/01/2004addressing theCommissionerandforthesaidherreplywastobetaken.Thiswitness hasrepliedthatitistruethatthereplyofthedeceasedvictimwastobe takenwithreferencetoanapplicationtotheCommissionerbut,shedid notgotogiveanyreply,butthewitnesswenttopolicestationwhichwas on 06/01/2004, the witness states that she went to Shahibaugh Police Station, the witness further admitsthatwhen shewent toShahibaugh PoliceStation,shewasshownanapplicationofthedeceasedvictimdated 03/01/2004andthatinthisapplicationitwasmentionedthatintherape case,A2andA3werenotinvolved.

(l)

Learned advocate Mr. Dhruva has invited the attention of this

Courttothispartofdepositionofthewitnessandhasemphasizedthat this replyelicitedduringthecourseof crossexaminationveryclearly takesouttheA2andA3fromthefoldoftheirimplicationinthegang

272

rape.Fromthisreplyitbecomesamplyclearthatnoneelsebut,deceased victimherselfhasgivencleanchittoA2andA3.Itwassubmittedthat inviewofthispartofcrossexamination,thebenefitofdoubtshouldbe grantedtoA2andA3.

Thiscourthascarefullyperusedthepartofdepositionhighlighted by learned Advocate Mr. Dhruva. Firstly, the application dated 03/01/2004isnotonrecord,secondly,thesaidapplicationevenifbeen onrecord,itcannotbebelievedthatitcouldhavebeenwrittenbythe deceasedvictimas,hadthesaidbeenwrittenbythedeceasedvictim, nobodyhadstoppedthedeceasedvictimfromexcludingthenameofA2 andA3fromthesuicidenoteEXH.571butthatdidnothappen.Inthe suicidenoteEXH.571thedeceasedvictimveryspecificallyincludesall thefiveaccusedandthatshemaintainedherdyingdeclarationcomplaint atEXH.283duringherlifetime,as,thelastwrittencommunicationbythe deceasedvictimisthesuicidenoteEXH.571,herdyingdeclaration.In boththesedocumentsnamesofallthefiveaccusedisclearlyplacedon record whose author is the deceased victim. In view of this factual background, this question seems to be merely, to confuse firstly the witnessandsecondlythecourtaswell.Thiscourthumblybelievesthat this witness is quite truthful and fair and that she has not hesitated replyingeventhequestionwhichsheisknowingaregoingagainstthe deceasedvictim,forthereasonthatasperherunderstanding,shewas shownsuchanapplication. Itisamatterofcommonsenseandhadthedefensebeensurethat

273

the author of the application (03/01/2004) was none else but, the deceasedvictimherself,then,thedefensewouldnothaveleftasingle stoneunturnedtodigoutthesaidapplication,togetanopinionofthe handwritingexpert,forthesaidapplicationtoprovethatthedeceased victimherselfsignedonit.Inabsenceofallsuchexerciseitisextremely clearwhichcansafelyandsurelybestatedthatthesaidapplicationwasa createdandconcoctedapplicationbysomepersonwhowasinterestedin theexclusionofA2andA3oratleastwhowasinterestedincreating successfulconfusionthatthedeceasedvictimhadgrantedacleanchitof A2andA3whichisobviously,notfactascanbeseenfromthelast writtencommunicationofthedeceasedvictim,i.e.EXH.571thesuicide note.

Inviewofthisdiscussion,thisCourtisnotatallimpressedbythis partofdepositionasitisnotatallcapabletograntbenefitofdoubttoA 2andA3.

The witness has been crossed in great details about all her incomingandoutgoingtelephonesfromSanjayPatel,Naurin,Hemant, etc.Itseemsthatallthesequestionshavebeenformedfromtheprintouts whichweshalldealwithingreatdetailwhiledealingwiththeversionof thedefenseinthenextpartofthejudgement.Here,sufficeittosaythat most of the cross examination was based on the printout of different witnesses including the witness at the time, before and after the occurrence,eventhetelephonecallshavingbeenmadebythedeceased victimhavebeenputtothiswitness,onpage95aspecificquestionwas

274

askedthatthewitnesshadthemobilephoneofA12Karanwhichwas 01453100210,evenpriortoarrestofKaran(A12)thewitnesshas clarifiedthatintheReliancePhoneofthedeceasedvictimthisnumber wasfoundandthatthistelephonenumberwasnotgivenbythewitnessto thepolicebut,itwasgivenbythedeceasedvictim,thepolicehadthe number of A12 before 7th January, 2004, on page 97. It has been volunteeredbythewitnessthatthewholecomplaintwasgivenbythe deceasedvictimandthiswitnesswassittingaway,evenonpage98,99 and at many places the witness has again and again said that the complaintwasgivenbydeceasedvictimonly,thewitnesshasadmitted thatshewasincontactwithelectronic,printmediaetc.Andshehasgiven interviewswhichweretelecastedandintheprintmediatheinterviews werepublished.ThewitnesshasadmittedthatmanywomenN.G.O.Used tocometoexpresstheirsympathy,therallywasorganized,whichwas withinoneweekfromthedeathofthedeceasedvictim,thewitnesshas statedthatduringthelifetimeofthedeceasedvictimshehadorallytalked toLilabenDesaiandthatexceptthecomplaintgivenbythedeceased victim she has not givenanyother statement(thisreplyfalsifiesthe applicationhavingbeengivenbythedeceasedvictimon03/01/2004as hasbeenaskedintheearlierpartofcrossexamination),thewitnesshas alsoclarifiedthatshedidnotknowanythingabouttheapplicationby deceasedvictimdated03/01/2004,thisclarificationisonpageNo.106of herdeposition,andthatafterthewitnesswascalledatShahibaughPolice Stationshewasshowntheapplication,thewitnessdidnotknowabout theapplication,andthatthedeceasedvictimhasnotwrittenanysuch applicationbyaskingthewitness,onthesamepageithasbeenclarified

275

thaton06/01/2004whenShriGadhvitelephonedfromShahibaughPolice Station,whiledeceasedvictimwasnotcalledforandthatthewitness alongwithherfatherwentthere,whenthesaidapplicationwasshown, aboutwhichsincethewitnesswasnotknowingthewitnesshasadmitted to have told that next day she would come along with the deceased victim. OnpageNo.107 ithasbeenstatedthatinthisapplicationthe nameofA2andA3werenotshown(abouttheallegedapplicationdated 03/01/2004,thisCourthasalreadyopinedbut,then,itisneededtobe noted again that there cannot be such an application by the deceased victim andhad therebeenanysuchapplicationthen,thesuicidenote whichhasbeenopinedbythehandwritingexperttohavebeenwritten andsignedbythedeceasedvictimwouldnothavebeenthere,hence,this Courtdoesnotbelieveanysuchapplicationhavingbeenwrittenbythe deceasedvictimduringherlifetime.

Moreover,italsoneedstobenotedthatPW3hasdeposedthatthe deceasedvictimwasverygloomy,moodless,remainingsilent,wasnot eatingandwasabsolutelydepressedandwithdrawnandthereforealso,as hasbeenstatedbyPW25,PW39andthiswitnessthedeceasedvictim was passing through tremendous mental agony, hence, also it is not possiblethatthedeceasedvictimwouldhavegivenanysuchapplication andinthecasesuchapplicationwasevertenderedbythedeceasedvictim then, in that case in the suicide note also the deceased victim would excludethenamesofA2andA3,hence,thewholeepisodeofalleged applicationhavingbeengivenbydeceasedvictimissuchwhichcannot bebelievedandisnotbeingbelieved).

276

Onpage111,thewitnesshasadmittedthatpriortooneoroneand halfyearoftheoccurrence,thedeceasedvictimhadfriendshipwithA4 andbothofthemwereexchangingsmswitheachother,whilereplyingto aspecificquestionthatthewitnessanddeceasedvictimwereknowing aboutthemaritalstatusofA4andwerealsoknowingabouttheA4 having children the witnesshas replied thatwhiledying thedeceased victimhadonlyonefactinherheartthattheA4hasbetrayedherand thathehasneverinformedheraboutthemaritalstatusofhimselfandthat Karanwashisbrotherinlaw.ItistruethatdeceasedvictimandSajalhad feelingforeachother,whileattherestaurantinthenoonthedeceased victimandthewitnessremainedforabout2hoursattherestaurant.It isamatterofcommonsensethatwhenamarriedmandevelopsrelation withunmarriedwoman,hewouldhavenaturaltendencytoconcealhis maritalstatusfromthewomanwhichismostlyoutoftheapprehensionto loosethefriendshipandinsuchcase,manalwaysbetraysthewoman hence the part of deposition seems to be genuine, natural, and trust worthy.

Furtherthispartofthedepositionspellsabouttheagony,suffering, mental isolation of the deceased victim whichisrevealing themental injurysustainedbyheronaccountoftheoccurrence.

(m)

CrossexaminationofA4hadbegunwithcertainquestionswhich

weredisallowedbymylearnedpredecessor,ithasbeendeniedthatthe deceasedvictimwasfondofbighotelanddanceparties,wasaccustomed

277

to consume liquor and smoking,thepainon31/12/2003thedeceased victimcomplainedofinherprivatepartwasonaccountofmenstruation. Thequestionsofthelitigationsinthepersonallifeofthewitnesswere replied,intimacywithdifferentlawyerswerequestionedwhicharenotat allrelevant.Thedeceasedvictimwentwithtrustinherheart,thewitness toohadtrust,atSolaPoliceStationthecomplaintwasnottaken,theA1 wascaughtholdofbyPW10andPW20but,hewasrunningawayand thatsincetherapewascommittedonthedeceasedvictimshehadtogive thecomplaintattheSolaPoliceStation,thewitnessandotherswerenot advisedtogotohospitalandnoambulancewascalledfor,theonlything which was told was to go tothepolicestationoftheareawhere the occurrencehadtakenplaceandnothingbeyondthat.

ThisCourtdoesnotfindanythingtobedoubtedwhenthewitness didnottakethedeceasedvictimtothehospitalasthefacultyofhuman mindisnotexpectedtobehaveinstereotypemanner.Thepreferenceof each person is bound to be different which can not be termed to be unusualoruntrueforthat.EXH.94hasbeenshowntothewitnesswho has then replied that the Chairpersonof theNationalCommission for Womenwasinformedorally,but,then,shehastoldittobegivenin writing and that the witness has written in her writing and gave the statementwhichwasbroughtonrecord,thus,thestatementgivenbefore NationalcommissionforWomenisverymuchonrecord,thewitnesshas deniedtohavereliedupontheversiontoldbyA1andtheapplication Mark B was given basinguponthesaidreply,it wasdeniedthatthe deceasedvictimwasunconsciouswhilegivinghercomplaint,itisdenied

278

that the deceased victim was unconscious upto 9:00 / 10:00 a.m. of 01/01/2004andonlyhersignaturehasbeenobtainedinthecomplaint,the witnesshasadmittedthatinherstatement,itwasnotstatedbeforethe policethat,A1wascaughtbythepoliceandA1gavetelephoneofthe deceasedvictimtothiswitness.

Asamatteroffact,theExh.94statementistotallysupportingthe prosecutioncasewhichadstoitscredibility.

(n)

IthasbeendeniedthatwhileA12wasproducedforthefirsttime

beforethecourtthewitnesswaspresentbeforetheCourtandthatthe arrest of A12 was published in the print media along with his photograph,thewitnessdeniedtohaveseenanysuchphotographbefore the test identification parade of the A12, on page 131 it has been specifiedthaton02/01/2004,thethen,I.O.PW48hassoughtforthe telephonenumbersofalltheaccused,atthattimefromthemobilephone ofthedeceasedvictim,thetelephonenumberoftheA12waslearnt,the witnesshasclarifiedthatinthecomplaintofthedeceasedvictim,Montu aliasKaranhasbeenclarified,thewitnesshasadmittedthatindifferent statementsshehasreferredthenameasMontu,MontualiasKaran,Karan alias Dharmendra, it has been denied that the person who has been identified by the witness isneitherMontunorKaran,thewitnesshas clarified that A12 is resident of Ajmer and that the said has been clarifiedbythewitnessinherstatementdated14/01/2004.

279

OntheidentityofA12whicheversuggestionswereplacedtothe witnessweredeniedbythewitnessandnothingaboutthedefensethatA 12isnotthesamepersonwhoisknownasDharmendra,aliasMontu aliasKaranhasbeenestablishedduringthecourseofcrossexamination ofthiswitness.

Here,itseemsfittingtonotethatmediatrialshouldbedeprecated andhasbeendeprecatedbutapointneedstobenotedthatnoindividual, moreparticularly,inacaselikeonthehand,thevictimorherrelatives caneverbecapabletohavecontrolovermediaoreveninvestigation.The witnesscannotbemadeaccountableoranswerableforwhatpoliceor mediahasdoneasshehadnocontroloverthem.Nothingisonrecord thatrally,newsinprintandelectronicmediaandindulgenceshownby N.C.W.andN.G.O.wasattheinstanceofher.Lastlyashasalreadybeen notedthatthemediatrialbeganafterdeathofthedeceasedvictim(from deposition of P.W.25) was a movement which usually damaged the prosecutioncaseanditprovidesunintentionaldefences,hencethispoint isunabletoshakeandassailthereliabilityofthiswitness.

(o)

WhilereplyingthequestionsbytheCourt,thewitnesshasstated

following facts, the deceased victim had studied up to 10th, she did courseofbeautyparlourforsixmonths,thecourseofbeautyparlourwas onlydonebydeceasedvictim,thedeceasedvictimworkedonlyfor23 monthsinJobSolutionsCompanyduringherlifetimeandthatexcept thatshehasnotdoneanyjob,deceasedvictimhadonlytwofriends,that too,ofhertenureintheschooldays,oneamongwhomhadshiftedher

280

house,anothergotmarried,hence,atthetimeofoccurrence,thedeceased victim,wasnotmeetingandthatduringtheperiod(ofherstateofshock anddaze)wassharingeverythingwiththewitness,thedeceasedvictim wasnotwritinganyletterstoanyofthefriends,thewitnesssaidthatshe was unable to stay continuously with the deceased victim from 01/01/2004to07/01/2004asshehadtogooutonaccountofthephones fromthepolicedepartmentbut,themotherofthedeceasedvictimwas continuouslywiththedeceasedvictim,thedeceasedvictimdidnotcome outofherhousetillherdeath,shedidnotgotothepolicethoughcalled for,thewitness(notthevictim)hadatalkwithhermotheraboutthe applicationdated3rdthat,intheapplicationthereisnonameandthatthe deceasedvictimhastobetakenthereexceptthisnootherconversation wasdonewiththemother,withthatreference,theapplicationMarkC, (EXH.454)wasgivenafterhavingtalkedwiththedeceasedvictimandit isforthesaidreasons,Iwenttoorallyconveyabouttheobjectionsthe deceased victim had, but I was told by police to give an application, hence the application (EXH.454). The witness learnt about the application of 3rd. The witness does not know as to when, how the applicationdated3rdwasgivenwhichthewitnesshaslearnton6th.Inthe humbleopinionofthisCourt,evenalltheserepliesaretallyingwiththe factthatthedeceasedvictimnevergaveanapplicationdated3rd but,it wasattheinstanceoftheinterestedpersontheapplicationwasmanaged tobesentmaybebywritingthenameofthedeceasedvictimasthisfact hasnowtobeappreciatedreadingitwiththesuicidenoteEXH.571.

Onpage136ithasbeenclarifiedthatduringtheperiodfrom1st

281

January to 7th January, the deceased victim did not go to any police officerorpoliceofficialandthatshewasnotcalledatthePoliceStation, the deceased victim did not go to any officer with reference to the telephone.

Onpage138ithasbeensuggestedbyld.AdvocateforA12and admittedbythewitnessthatinherstatementdate1st March,2005the witnesshasstatedthaton28/02/2005,beforetheExecutiveMagistrate inthetestidentificationparadethepersonwhowasidentifiedbyherhas stated his name to be Dharmendra Mahendrakumar Jain residing at Ajmer,andthusIlearntthatthepersonwhomIknowasKaranalias Montu in the beginning is has also his name Dharmendra and this personisDharmendraaliasMontualiasKaranistheaccusedimplicated inthegangrapecaseofmysister.

ThispartofdepositionclarifiesthroughthiswitnessthattheA12 hashisidentitybyallthethreenames.

(p)

IntheopinionofthisCourt,thiswitnessseemstobeatruthful

witness.Thiswitnesshasnoreasontofalselyimplicatethefiveaccused in the case of gang rape of her sister, this witness has based all her statementsandthepresentdepositionfromherknowledge,thesourceof whichwasdirectcommunicationbythedeceasedvictimtothepresent witness, theoral evidenceofthiswitnessisfounddirectandreliable, whileappreciatingtheevidenceofthiswitness,ithastoberemembered

282

that the trauma, the mental state and the background of the witness wherein,thewitnesshaslostherverydearandnearyoungersisterwho wasabosomfriendtoherandthatlookingtotheverylessagedifference betweenthem,thisseemsquitenatural.Thewitnesswascrossexamined foralmost13fulldaysspreadingintofourmonthsandthatinthehumble opinionofthisCourt,thewitnessofsuchcasesarenottheaccustomed witnesseswhoarewellconversantwiththeintegritiesinvolvedingiving theoralevidence,inaway,thiswitnessisaeyewitnesswhohasseen withherowneyesthatthedeceasedvictimcherisheddreamsoutoflove wereshatteredintopiecesonaccountofthebetrayalofA4andthatthe committalofsuicidebydeceasedvictimisamatterofgreatshocktothis witness.Thecourtcannotbeoblivioustothehardfactthatsometimes, tendency to put the things in the best possible manner by the close relatives,thepicture,comesasexaggeratedversion,but,then,ultimately it has to be remembered thatwhilethecloserelativesaregivingoral evidenceafterthedeathoftheirnearones,itisamatterofgreatpain (obviouslyapplicabletothisgroupofallthewitnesses)forthemastoin everysuchoccasionwheneverthementionofthedeceasedvictimcomes itremindsthefamilymembersofallthesweetmemoriesofthedeceased victimandthatinthisbackgroundtheoralevidenceofthewitnessesof thisgrouphastobeappreciated.Therefore,thisCourthumblybelieves thatitwasnotasmallamountofboldnesstocometotheCourtandto givethewholeversionwithinthepersonalknowledgeofthiswitness.

(q)

PW25,PW10,PW20andthiswitnesshaveinfactputbeforethe

Courtthewholescenariofromtheaccountoftheirpersonalknowledge

283

which took place right from 4:20 a.m. (on 01/01/2004) onwards with referencetothepainfuloccurrenceofgangrapeonthedeceasedvictim, wherein,theCourtcanseethattheagoniesunderwhichthedeceased victim and these witnesses have passed through right from 4:20 a.m. whenforthefirsttimethiswitnesshasseenherownyoungersisterin seminakedconditionandthattoothedeceasedvictimwasnotinher senses whichmustbe amatterofgreat shock,thenafterA1triesto misguidethiswitness,theresponseattheSolaPoliceChawkyandSola Police Station was too poor, at Shahibaugh the experience of even womanconstablewasnotagoodone,aboutsixpoliceofficialshadtobe suspendedandthatitisboundtohaveaffectedtheinvestigationofthis caseas,theremainingthosewhowereinvolvedintheinvestigationafter suspensionoftheirsixcolleaguesmayactrememberingthepositionof theircolleagueswhichwouldbesuchwherein,therewouldnotbewhole heartedness in the investigation of the case of deceased victim. The deceasedvictimwasobviouslynottreatedproperlyattheCivilHospital, theunfortunatedeceasedvictimwastakenbythiswitnesstodoctorPW 39 where only counselling was offered, at some of the clinic, the deceasedvictimwasnotacceptableeventogivetreatmentforthereason thatitwasarapecase,theagonydoesnotstophere,itwentonandan attempt by some person interested in exclusion of A2 and A3 has writtenaletterexcludingthemwhichsituationalsohadtobefacedby PW3,thePW3isalreadyunhappyinherpersonallife,hasfacedlot manyinjusticeinherlife,andthatshemustbeverypainfullookingtothe situationofheryoungersister.Asitmaybebut,thefactremainsthat whileappreciatingtheoralevidenceofthePW3andotherwitnessesof

284

thisgroupallthishastobeconsidered,thisCourthasnohesitationto holdthatthiswitnesshasprovidedcompletesupporttotheprosecution case, even after excluding the versions apparently seems confusing, contradictoryandomittingminorthingwhichiseventhecaseaboutthe applicationdated03/01/2004ofthedeceasedvictim.Butthefactremains thatwhatevershehadstatedwassomethingwhichwouldratherreflect thatsheisverynaturalandtruthfulwitnesshencethesubmissionofld. AdvocatefortheA4thatthiswitnessbeingobligingherdepositionhas to be discarded. This witness cannot be disbelieved as the deposition whichcomesoutfromherpersonalknowledgeshouldbetakenlikesince shewasshowntheapplicationdated03/01/2004projectedaswasgiven bythedeceasedvictimwhichinfactwasnotgivenbutsincethiswitness hasseensuchapplicationwithoutlyingshesawsuchapplicationwhich leadustoholdthatthereisringoftruthinherversion.

(III) PW10:

AsdeposedPW10,HemantbhaiDharmvirsinhbhaiChaudharyisa familyfriendofdeceasedvictimandheisoriginallyafriendofPW25 brotherofdeceasedvictim.On31/12/2003,witnesswenttothedance partyatHotelTajwhoreceivedphonecallat12:00midnightfromthe deceasedvictimforgreetingofthenewyear,at1:00a.m.of01/01/2004 thereafterthewitnessreceivedabusedphonecall;at2:30a.m.witness alongwithPW3ontheirrespectivevehiclesreturnedandweretogether upto Naranpura cross road and thereafter the witness had reached his home,butonlyafter10minuteshereceivedaphonecallfromPW3

285

callingthewitnesstothelaneofSolapetrolpumpinforminghimthat some serious problem hadtaken place; thewitnessproceededto Sola petrolpumpandPW3wasseenbythiswitnessholdinghairofoneboy, besidewhichMarutiZenwasparked;PW3sawthewitnessandtoldthat lookatthepositionofhersisterdonebySugam(A1);witnesssawon therearsideofthecar;hesawthedeceasedvictimsemiunconsciousand seminecked;witnesssawA1attemptingtorunawaywhowasmadeto sit in the car by the witness; PW3 sat on the rear seat holding the deceased victim who was sleeping in her lap; the witness offered his jackettocoverupthedeceasedvictimandPW3alsodidthesamething; thewitnessthensatonthedrivingseatofthecarandPW3toldhimto takeatthehospitalandultimatelyPW3toldtotakethecartothepolice station; on the way the witness heard A1 telling about his non involvementintherapeandtheplaceoftherapewasHotelAshokPalace andtheinvolvementintherapewasofA2,A3,A4andA12;PW20 joinedtheteam.TheywenttoSolepolicechowkyandSolapolicestation andthentoShahibaugpolicestation.PW3telephonedtopolicecontrol room and asked for the counselling and then ultimately they went to Shahibaugpolicestation;whilereachingtoShahibaugpolicestation,the deceased victim was telling something to PW3 on the way, but this witnesscouldnothearthesame;thewitnesssawthedeceasedvictim givingherstatementatthepolicestationwhowassittingonthebenchat thepolicestationandwasinformingthepoliceabouttherapehaving beencommittedatHotelAshokPalacebySajal,Sugamandhisfriends; thewitnessbroughtanextrapairoftheclothesforthedeceasedvictimto facilitatehertochangeherclothes.Thewitnessthenwenttothehospital

286

alongwiththedeceasedvictimandPW3;healsowenttotheLifeCare Hospitalon07/01/2004andthereafteratV.S.Hospital,whenthedead body of the deceased victim was sent for postmortem. The witness identifiedtheA1beforetheCourt.

This witness has helped the prosecution establishing the whole process right from the Sola petrol pump upto Civil Hospital with his personalknowledge.

Thewitnesswasassailedonvariousgroundslikethoughhewas presentattheCivilHospital,hisstatementwasnotrecordedonthatvery dayandhasbeenrecordedatverylatestage;thewitnessthoughhasborn in Gujarat State, it is not probable that he does not know Gujarati language;atwhattimehewenttoTajResidencyandatwhattimehe came to Sola Petrol Pump; whether he was passing from Sola Petrol PumporhewascalledtelephonicallybyPW3.Inthestatementbefore thepolice,hehasnotmentionedthenameofA1andMarutiCarwas referredandnotMarutiZen.Thewordsthatthedeceasedvictimwashalf necked and semi conscious were not stated while the statement was recorded by the police. The question on the control room, the communicationA1didthefactofpresenceatInderResidencyHotel, wheretheytooktheirdinner,whatwasthemobilephoneandlandline numberofthewitness,telephonecallsusedtocomefromthedeceased victim at the night hours and noon hours, about the occurrence this witnessdidnotinformtoPW25,thetenureforwhichthedanceparty wasongoing,whyhedidnotchoosetogototheHospitalfirst,whydid

287

notgototheprivatedoctor,etc.,butthereisnomaterialelicitedtoshake theprosecutioncase.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thiswitnesshasthoroughly helpedtheprosecutioncase.Theomissionsandcontradictionssoughtto be proved are quite minor and negligible which rather gives an impressionofthewitnessbeingnatural.Thewitnesshasstatedonpage7 thatinhislifehehasneverseensuchkindofincidentandhebecame thoughtless and that he was not knowing that all the details of the occurrenceistobestatedbeforethepolice.Onpage20themisbehaviour by thepolice personnel atShahibaugpolicestationwiththedeceased victimandhersister(PW3)hasalsobeenstatedbythiswitnessandon page21hehasrestatedthatthedeceasedvictimattainednormalcybefore reachingtoShahibaugpolicestationwhichfactumestablishestheoral statements,thefirststatementbythedeceasedvictimtoPW3. IntheopinionofthisCourt,whathasnotbeendoneandwhathas notbeenstatedcanneverbematerialexceptthatitprovesfatalforthe prosecution case. What isalways importantiswhether whathas been doneandstatedprobabalizetheprosecutioncase.Thiswitness,inthe opinionofthisCourt,extendedquitenotablestrengthtotheprosecution case.Histelephonecontactswiththedeceasedvictimdoesnotgiveany reason to doubt his version, when the version coming out from his personalknowledgeistallyingwiththedepositionofotherwitnessesand isinherentlycapabletoprovidesupporttotheprosecutioncase.

288

Alastnoteisrelevantwhichemergesfromthefurtherstatementof A4 (Reference Page 23). That the A4 believes that the marriage betweenthiswitnessandthedeceasedvictimweretotakeplacewhich wouldgeneratejealouslyinA4asnaturalconsequenceswhichtherefore, nowneedstobeseenthatfromthemobileofdeceasedvictimabusive phone calls have been made to this witness which even build up a circumstance of violence and cruelty meted out against the deceased victim.

(IV) PW20:

PW20, Naren @ Naurin Harish Varma is also another family friend of family of deceased victim who had TATA telephone no. 8601957attherelevantpointoftime.Thewitnesshastestifiedthaton 01/01/2004atabout4:004:15a.m.hereceivedaphonecallfromPW 3,whilehewassleepingathishome.PW3toldhimthatshewasatSola petrolpumpandA4andhisfriendshadcommittedrapeonthedeceased victim.PW3informedthiswitnessthatA1andPW10arewithher. The deceased victim was sleeping in the car in the position of semi unconsciousness.Afterexchangeof23phonecalls,thewitnessreached tothepolicechowkyunderSolaBridgewherethewitnessfoundwhite MarutiZen;hesawA1,PW3andPW10with23policeconstables whoallwereintersetalking;hesawthedeceasedvictimlyingonthe rearseatofthecar;onepolicemanaccompaniedthemwhowasonhis ownmotorbikefollowedbyMarutiZenwhereinA1,PW3,PW10and deceasedweretravelling,behindwhichthiswitnesswasinhiscar;the

289

witnessandPW10wenttoSolapolicestationwhilethedeceasedvictim waslyinginthecarwhowokeup;PW3anddeceasedvictimwereonthe rear seat of car; the deceased victim was surrounded by the police personnelwherethewitnessandothershaveinformedthatthedeceased victimhasbeenrapedandaboywhocametodropthedeceasedvictim has beencaught by them;thepolicepersonnel advisedthemtogoto Shahibaugpolicestationandthereafter,controlroomwascontactedon thephoneandcounsellingwasobtainedwherefromitwaslearntthatthey wereneededtoreachtoShahibaugPoliceStation.ThecaroftheA1was drivenbyPW10;PW3washoldingthecollarofA1sothatA1cold not jump out of the car. This witness was following the said car. Ultimately,theyallreachedtoShahibaugpolicestationwheretheywere askedtosituntiltheinspectorcomes.Abedsheetwasspreadonthe benchatthepolicestationanddeceasedvictimwasofferedrestonthe saidbench.Allsatthereforaboutonetotwohours,andthereafter,the witnesshasaccompaniedthepolicetoHotelAshokPalaceandwentto roomno.106andotherproceduresweredoneandthecomplaintofthe deceasedvictimwaslodged.

Thiswitnesshasalsosupportedthecaseofpriorexercisehaving beenundertakenbythePW3,deceasedvictim,PW20etc.,andvitalfact thatthecomplaintwasgivenbythedeceasedvictimandthedeceased victimwasabletomoveandspeakpriortoreachingtoShahibaugpolice station.Thiswitnesshassupportedanothervitalfactbystatingthatafter gettingdischargedfromCivilHospital,thiswitness,PW10,motherof thedeceasedvictimtookhertoHospitalofPW39.Whileatthehospital

290

of PW39, only deceased victim, PW3 and their mother went to the doctor.

Thiswitnesshasgivenaverystrongsupporttotheoralversionof PW39fromhispersonalknowledgeandthereisnoreasontodoubtthis witness.ThiswitnesshasreceivedphonecallfromPW3after10:00to 10:30on07/01/2004.Onpage5thiswitnesshassupportedtheversion ofPW25thataftertheoccurrence,thedeceasedvictimwasfoundina verydifferentmoodandwasnottalkingtoanyone.

Thiswitnesstoohasbeenassailedonseveralgroundsoneamongst whichthatthestatementofthiswitnesshasbeentakenataverybelated stageinspiteofthefactthathewasverymuchinthecityofAhmedabad andthatthisfactdoubtsgenuinenessofthiswitness.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,takingthestatement,choosing thewitnesses,selectingthetimeanddateforrecordingthestatementis exclusivelywithinthepurviewofInvestigatingAgencyandnowitness haseveranychoice,butthatfactremainsthatsuchabelatedstatementis exhibitinglackofinvolvementoftheInvestigatingAgency,forwhichthe versionhavingapparentringoftruthlikethewitnesscannotbedoubted.

Aspects discussed above are supporting to the other witnesses, which need consideration. While replying to the question put by my learned predecessor, this witness has stated that on 04/01/2004 the

291

deceasedvictimhadattemptedtocommitsuicidebyhangingonthefan inthedrawingroom,butthe`dupattamightnothavebeentiedproperly, andtherefore,shefelldownandthetimewasabout1:00p.m.andthe deceasedvictimwascrying;shehadwrittenachitwhichwasnotreadby thiswitness(whichmeansthatthewitnessisunawareaboutthecontents ofthechit).

Afterthisquestion,ld.AdvocateforA7andA8suggestedthat thewitnesshasgivenafalseaccountabouttheincidentof04/01/2004 andnoinformationaboutthesaidincidentwasgiventoNaranpurapolice station.

The above referred question does not provide any link in the presentcasebasedonthedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictim,but this part of deposition ofthiswitnessthrowslight howdisturbedand perturbedthedeceasedvictimwasandhowshemadeuphermindto leave this world. The deposition is throwing focus on the mental condition,depression,frustration,helplessness,humiliationthedeceased victimwasundergoingandintheopinionofthiscourt,thisaspectisa veryvitalclue,directlylinkedwiththecaseonthehand,andthemental state of the deceased victim prior to the occurrence of 07/01/2004 of committalofsuicidebythedeceasedvictimbyhanging.

This witness too has helps holding the dying declaration to be truthfulanddependable.

292

36.

GROUPA(DOCTORS)ANDP.M.EXPERTBYTHE DEFENCEDW5: Beforeproceedingtoevaluatethesegroupofwitnessesalongwith

thedocumentsauthoredbythem,itneedaveryspecialmentionthatall thebelowreferreddoctorwitnesseshavebeenkeptinonegroupbythis Court to facilitate the discussion. All the doctor witnesses are professionals and government servants, were discharging their official duty while examining different accused, have no concern with the outcomeofsessionscase,andarenotinanywayconnectedwithanyof thepartiesandwhileperformingtheirdutyasgovernmentofficialsthe presumptionofabsenceofanyirregularityandtohaveperformedtheir official in a proper course runs in favour of the witnesses and these witnesses have no reason for them to speak anything which has not happened.Asdiscussedabove,thehistorygivenbydifferentaccusedis establishingdifferentkindofcircumstances,whichhavebeentakenas strongevidencingcircumstanceleadtofiveaccused. 36(A). (1) PW40:

PW40,Dr.JayantibhaiVirjibhaiSataparaisInchargeAssistant

Police Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad had custody of all the medical case papers and relevant documents related to the case of deceased victim. In examinationinchief, this witness has stated that muddamalarticlesno.73to79wereseizedbythepolicebydrawinga

293

panchnamaon18.03.2004andthatExh.80isthemuddamalarticleno.73, whereas,muddamalarticleno.74to79areexhibitedasExh.268.This witnesshasidentifiedthesignatureofA11ontheinjurycertificateofthe deceasedvictim.Thepoliceyadiandtheyadiforexaminationofalcohol consumption etc. have been formally proved by this witness. Certain correspondencewiththeInvestigatingOfficerandSuperintendent,Civil Hospital have also been brought on record at the request of defence. During the course of crossexamination, it has been suggested and admitted that the witness has no personal knowledge as he has not examined the deceased victim. The indoor case paper number of the deceased victim is 323326. The deceased victim was admitted in the hospital as indoor patient at 2:12 p.m. on 01.01.2004. As has been mentionedinExh.268,thereisanoteofthedeceasedvictimhavingno complaint;theobservationnotedbyGynaecDepartmentonthebackside ofthepageistotheeffectthattherewasanoldhymentearandonper vaginal examination two fingers were accessible, urethral swab and vaginalswabweretaken;onExh.268anoteofmedicinesprescribedfor thedeceasedvictimisnoted;pulseandbloodpressurewereobservedas normal;thedeceasedvictimwasexaminedat7:00A.M.and2:00p.m.on thenextdaywhenshehadnocomplaint;onthatdateDr.ParulBhargav wasAssistantProfessorinGynaecUnitandanotetotheeffectthatDr. Parul Bhargav has examined the deceased victim is on record; the deceased or her family members have not raised any objection while dischargingherfromtheCivilHospitalonthegroundthatshewasnot properlytreated;asnotedinpara12,whileexaminingthepatient,history isbeingtakenbytheCMOinthepreliminaryexaminationandifitseems

294

thattherapehasbeencommitted,thenthepatientisbeingreferredtothe Gynec Department, On page10 the witness has admitted that in comparison between a person who is not accustomed to consume alcoholicdrinkandthepersonwhoisaccustomedtoconsumealcoholic drink,thepersonwhoisnotaccustomedwillbemoreinfluencedbythe alcoholic substance. A book of Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy titled as 'Essentials of Forensic Medicine' was shown to the witness and the witness has shown an agreement to the table mentioned at page493 (whichweshalldiscusshereinafter.)Thewitnesshasopinedthatbefore fivehoursalcoholicpercentagemightbe0.11incaseofthedeceased victim,beerisalcoholicsubstancebutifwhiskyistakeninthequantity ofbeer,whiskywillputapersonunderstronginfluenceofalcohol.The bookofDr.Modiwasalsoreferredwithasuggestionthatindifferent countries,thesafetylevelsofalcoholfordrinkingaredifferent. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thereisabsolutelynothingon

recordtoestablishthatthedeceasedvictimwasgivenwhisky.Rather,if Exh.283 a dying declaration is seen, then the deceased victim has mentionedthatA4hasgivenorderforbeerandtheinsistencetothe deceasedvictimwastoconsumebeer. (2) Exh.80isthehistorygivenbythedeceasedvictimtoA11noted

onmedicalcasepapersanditseemstohavebeennotedat12:15p.m.of 01.01.2004.Inthehistoryalso,thedeceasedvictimwhowasnotedtobe consciousbytheCMOA11hasstatedofbeatingandslappingbyA4 who compelled her toconsumebeer.Thedeceasedvictimhasfurther

295

clarifiedthatshewascompelledtodrinkbeerwhichthosepeoplewere consuming. Exh.80 is suggesting the reddish injuries of teeth mark on the breast,nailscratchesonthebackoftheneck,reddishbruiseonthigh,bite marksatlowerlips,etc.Thecolourofinjuriesisclearlysuggestiveofthe injuries to be quite fresh on 01/01/2004 which too is tallying with Exh.283thedyingdeclaration. PW49 has stated in his oral evidence that according to the investigation,thedeceasedwascompelledtotakebeer.Inviewofthe above,thepracticalandprobableinferenceisthatshemusthavebeen compelled to consume beer and it must have been consumed by the deceasedsomewhereafter12:45a.m.of01.01.2004i.e.afterreturnfrom B.R.Farms.ThePW40hasopinedthatthealcohollevelinthebodyof thedeceasedvictimbeforefivehoursi.e.fivehoursbefore12:15p.m.i.e. beforeaboutoneandahalfhourofthetimeofgivingthecomplaint, couldbe0.11,butthisisroughestimateofthepersonfromthemedical fieldwhoinfacthadnoopportunitytoexaminethedeceasedvictim. AlongwiththedepositionofPW40xeroxcopyofChapter9from page310to315ofDr.Modi'sbook,whichhasbeenreferredinthecross examinationbyLd.AdvocateMr.Amin,hasbeenannexed.Ascanbe seenfrompage310itself,thepercentageofalcoholincaseofbeeris26 percentage. Now, when in thedying declarationitselfthedeceasedis stating that she was compelled to take beer, it should be true and therefore, should be believed that the deceased was compelled to

296

consumebeer.Thus,fromthebookofDR.Modi,itbecomesclearthatthe deceased was compelled to drink alcohol beverages having 26 percentage of alcohol. In the same book on page312, the author has noted that alcohol reaches, its maximum concentration in the blood within approximately half an hour to about two hours after it is consumed. On page312, it has been opined by the author that the loweringof thealcohol inbloodisbyabout1215mg.perhour.On page315,ithasbeenopinedthatbyconsumptionof45pintsofbeer, concentration of 0.15percentagealcoholinthebloodcomesandit is regardedasfittodriveamotorvehicleandthisconcentrationofalcohol inthebloodisregardedasapresumptivelimitofsafety.Inthesame book,differentbloodalcohollevelinthedifferentcountrieshavebeen mentionedtocalltheactofdrivingasalegaloffenceforapersonwitha bloodalcohollevelabove0.05levelintheblood. Alongwith this compilation of Dr. Modi's book, another compilation seems to be of Chapter30 from the book of Dr. K.S. NarayanReddy,21stEditionoftheyear2000namedas'TheEssentialof ForensicMedicine'hasbeenannexed,whereinalsoonthefirstpagethe approximatepercentageofalcoholincommonbeverageswhichcanfall inthecategoryofbeerisshowntobe8%.Justbelowthis,safelimitsfor drinkinghasalsobeenmentioned. The defence has assailed during thecrossexaminationof PW3 anddifferentwitnesseswithasuggestionthatthedeceasedvictimwasa person who was accustomed to alcoholic drink. There is nothing on recordtoestablishthisfact.But,evenifthesuggestionistakentobetrue, inthatcase,thedeceasedvictimifwashabitual,shewillnotbeunder

297

verystronginfluenceofalcoholandthatloweringprocesswouldalsobe fastenedincaseofdeceasedvictim,asitisquiteusualforthepersonwho ishabitualtodrinkasthemetabolismbecomesfastincaseofregular drinker.Theinfluenceandeffectofthealcoholicsubstancewilldecrease quitefastincaseofapersonwhoisaccustomedtosuchdrink,hence,if thesuggestionofthedefenceistakenasitisthenthechancesofthe deceasedvictimbeingunderstronginfluenceofthedrinkwhichshewas compelledtoconsumeislessening.Here,thisCourtwouldliketonote down the daytoday scenes on the road that those who are drinking alcoholeverydayintheeveningwouldreachtotheirhomeonlyandthey neednottoseekanyone'sguidancetoreachtheirhomeandthattheerror in judgment will not be routine for those persons. This illustration is jotted down to assert the fact that after consumption of alcohol, the drinkerisnotlikelytobecomeunconscious. Further,thefactabouttheeffectsofthealcoholicsubstanceisalso relatedtothekindofbeverageconsumed,theacceptanceandreactionof individual,weightofthebodyandhabitoftheindividual.Inshort,there areseriesoffactorstocometotheconclusionastohowmuchpercentage ofalcoholcouldbethereintheblood.Hence,nothingcanbesaidforsure astohowmanypercentageofalcoholinthebodyofthedeceasedvictim waspresentatwhattimeexceptat12.15P.M.of01/01/2004forwhich timetesthasbeenmade. Exh.561 is the FormA and the report FormC for Alcoholic Examination.IntheopinionofFSL,thebloodofdeceasedvictimhas been certified to have contained 0.0531 percentage W/V of Ethyl

298

Alcohol. If page498 of Dr. K.S.N. Reddy's book annexed with the depositionofPW40isseen,thentheamountofethylalcoholinamanif is100mg.,thensuchamanmusthaveconsumed1.6ltrs.ofbeerandthe timerequiredforcompleteremovalofalcoholfromthebodyis5hrs.It cansafelybeinferredthatconsumptionof1.6ltrs.(about32glasses)of beerwithinthetimespanof12:45to3:30isnotprobable,thoughassuch thereisnothingonrecord,butstillthefactremainsthatitislogicallynot possibleinthefactandcircumstancesofthecase.Itisclearthatwhathas beenconsumedbyallwasbeerandasshowninthepage498ofthebook minimum amount of the liquor consumed in case of beer is 3.28 percentage. If page493 is seen, then the effect in case of blood alcohol concentrationtobe50to100mg.percentagearedecreasedinhibitions, increased selfconfidence, decreased attention span, alteration of judgment,etc.asusualeffect. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,theconsumptionofbeeras complainedofbythedeceasedvictimseemstobeabsolutelytrueversion whereintheeffectsarenotsuchinwhichthedeceasedvictimwouldhave forgottentheincidentofgangrapeorthedeceasedvictimwouldspeak somethingfrombaddreamorimagination.Thus,itseemsthattheversion putforthbythedeceasedvictimisabsolutelytrue. Onaccountoftheeffectsmentionedinthisbookofalterationof judgment, it seems that the deceased victim though has complained againstthefiveaccusedinthebodyofthecomplaintintheconcluding

299

paragraphofExh.283fournumberhasbeenmentioned,whereasinthe bodyofthecomplaintthereiscompletedescriptionoffiveaccused.Asa matter of fact, this symptomissupporting veryclearlyto thecase of prosecutionofthedeceasedvictimwascompelledtoconsumebeer. Thedeceasedvictimcouldnothavebeeneitherunconsciousorina stageofcoma.Thereisnothingonrecordmoreparticularlyintheoral evidenceofPW43orevenPW3thatshewasnotrespondingtostimuli. Thereisnodescriptioncomingforthfromanyoneofwitnessesthatthe deceasedinthestageofcoma,inastageofstuporasthereisnoremark aboutstimulihavingbeengivenandnoreportofresponsewasfound.In the same way, the deceased is not reported to have been mentally confused by PW43. There is absolutely nothing like disorientation emergingfromtherecordorthereisabsolutelynothingtoshowthatthe deceased was reported to have impaired memory or loss of critical judgment.SinceinthebookofDr.K.S.N.Reddythesearetheeffects shownagainstthepercentageofbloodalcoholconcentrationfrom100 mg.percentageto400mg.percentageandabove,inthehumbleopinion ofthisCourt,thedeceasedneverwenttothestagewhereinherblood alcoholconcentrationwasbeyond100mg.percentageorbetween53to 100mg%astheeffectsshownagainst100mg.percentagetotallytally withthestageandbehaviourofdeceasedvictimatthatpointoftime, whichiseventallyingwiththeopinionothePW40. Averyforcefulsubmissionwasmadetosubmitandthedefence wasraisedintheF.S.bytheA2andA3thatinthepolicestationthe

300

deceasedwasunconsciousandthecomplaintwaslodgedbyherelder sister(PW3). While discussing the oral evidence of PW43, this Court has alreadyheldthatthecomplaintinnocasecouldhavebeenlodgedby PW3, hence, to avoid therepetition,thesameisnotbeingdiscussed here,butitneedstobediscussedthatthemetabolism,weightandhabitof thedeceasedvictimarenotrecord,butonaccountoforalevidenceof PW3,threesymptomshaveemergedonrecordthatthedeceasedvictim becameconsciousandcapabletolodgethecomplaintatabout7:30A.M. orso,butintheopinionofthisCourt,priorto7:30a.m.andatnopointof time, the deceased victim was unconscious, but She was lacking awarenessandthatonaccountofphysicalattackbyfiveofherfriends, shemustbeundertremendousmentaltraumaapartfromphysicallytired andexhausted.Theeffectofconsumptionofbeermusthaveresultedinto herdecreasedinhibitionsanddecreasedattentionspan,butthatcannot resultintolosingofmemory,tellingsomethingwhichhasnothappened and having impaired memory or no judgmental capacity at all. The exactnessmaybedisturbed,butthatisnotlackoftruthfulness.Thestage ofstuporisthestagewheretheconditionofthebodyissuchwhensenses and faculty are suspended or dulled by drug or intoxication, but the deceasedvictimhasbeenfirstlysubjectedtogangrapeandsecondlyshe wascompelledtoconsumebeerandwasbeatenbyA4tocompelherto drink,wasinjuredbynail,teethbite,etc.andthataspectistallyingwith theobservationandhistoryrecordedbyA11onthemedicalcasepapers vide Exh.80 wherein A11 has noted that the deceased victim has

301

complainedofpainoverherbreastandprivatepartandburninginprivate parthasalsobeennotedasthecomplaintofthedeceasedvictim,who thereforecouldnotbeunconscious. Exh.80themedicalcasepaperofvictimatabout12:15p.m.of 01.01.2004records,thedeceasedvictimtohavebeenfoundconscious and cooperative. The deceased victim to have even given her written consentforherphysicalexaminationbysigningtheconsentformand markingherrightthumbimpressiononthemedicalcasepapers.Inthis verycasepaperwhichismuddamalarticleno.78andpartofExh.268,it has been mentioned thatblood pressure, pulseandtemperature of the deceasedwerefoundtobenormal.Eventhisseemstoberecordedatthe gynaec department. Had thedeceasedvictimbeenunconsciousashas beenstatedbysomeofthewitnessesmoreparticularlyPW3andothers, then it is just impossible that the deceased victim would regain consciousnesssosoonwithoutanytreatmentasadmittedlynotreatment was given at 12.45 P.M. of 01/01/2004. Therefore, the stage of the deceasedvictimwasonlythatofdrowsinesswhichwascombinedimpact andeffectofbeer,herexertionthroughoutthenight,mentaltrauma,all thefivefriendshavingraped,tremendousphysicalpainwhichiscommon lookingtotheinjuriesandthehistoryrecordedbyA11ofhavingpain overbreastandprivatepartwithburninginprivatepart.Intheopinionof this Court, in such a situation, the deceased might require physical supportofsomeonetoriseupfromthebenchonwhichshewaslyingand whilewalking,butothersituation,symptomsandeffectsclearlysuggest that she was not in any other stage except drowsiness which was on

302

accountofnumerousreasonsandbloodalcoholconcentrationinherbody canbebetween53to100mg.percentage.Theeffectofsuchstagehas been shown as discussed hereinabove, on page493 of the book. On accountofdetaileddescriptionandtestreportofthephysicalstageofthe exactpercentage,butthenotedeffectsuggeststhatshedidnothavemore 100mg.percentagebloodalcohol,butatthesametimeitisboundtobe morethat0.531i.e.53mg.percentageasshowninExh.561thereportof thepercentageofalcoholatabout12:15p.m.inthebloodofthedeceased victim. On page495 model scheme of medical examination has been noted,butthesamedoesnotseemtohavebeencarriedout. Onpage496thereisanotethatthepulseusuallywouldberapid and full and there would be slight increase in blood pressure, the temperaturewouldbeusuallyraised,butasdiscussedabove,theseallare notfoundtohavebeenrecordedincaseofdeceasedvictim.Asobserved inExh.80casepapers,itseemsthatthedeceasedvictimhadnotreached beyondthestageof100mg.percentageatanypointoftime. Asdiscussedabove,theloweringofalcoholinbloodisabout12 15mg.perhour,butthenitvariesfromcasetocaseandthatthereisno othermaterialonrecord,butinanycaseifthereportatExh.561iseven takenasverymuchexactandstandardandwithoutanyscopeoferror, thenalsothedeceasedvictimsincehad0.531mg.percentageat12:15 p.m.,itshouldbe65mg.at11:05(taking10mg.riseperhour)a.m., 98.77mg.at10:15a.m.and89mg.at9:05a.m.Itisratherfallinginthe

303

rangeof100mgatabout1.45thetimeoffilingcomplaintasdiscussed above.Therefore,keepingtheoverallmaterialonrecord,notingdifferent effects emerging from the oral evidence of different witnesses, considering the observations and outcomes of clinical examination carriedoutbyA11andrecordedinExh.80,onlyonerationaloutcome canbejotteddownwhichisthedeceasedvictimhadnotcrossedthe level of 100 mg. percentage as far as blood alcohol concentration is concernedatthetimeofrecordingcomplaint. (3) AshasbeenstatedbyPW40,whenevertheCMOisoftheopinion

that therape has been committedthenthevictimisbeingsenttothe gynaecdepartment.Intheinstantcasealso,thedeceasedvictimhasbeen admittedinthehospitalasanindoorpatientandreferredtothegynaec departmentbyA11.Ontheinternalpageofcasepaperswhichseemsto bemuddamalarticleno.78takenasapartofExh.268,thehistorygiven bythedeceasedvictimofrapehavingbeencommittedhasbeenrecorded. Onthebacksideofthispaper,alltheinjurieshavebeenmentionedin additiontoonemorebitemarkoverlefthandaboveelbow.Thisseemsto be the note of Dr. Parul Bhargav, Assistant Professor in gynaec department. On another internal paper which seems to be muddamal articleno.79andpartofExh.268,thereseemsto beroutinecheckup having been made. Here,itneeds tobenotedthatPW40 inhisoral evidenceatpage3hasstatedthatthenoteat7:00p.m.issuggestiveof havingnocomplaintandthatthemedicinesprescribedweretabletBrufen for swelling and pain, Alludrucks for acidity and Folic BComplex, Calcium, Multi Vitamin are for general well being and injection if

304

required. This Court is inclined to record that the deceased victim was havingfreshinjuriesofteethbite,nailscratches,bruise,bitemarks,etc. and for these injuries, she has been given tablet Brufen. Neither any external medicine like skin ointment has been given nor any local dressingonthefreshwoundwasdonenoranyantibioticwasprescribed whichwasmuchnecessarylookingtothecomplaintofpainandburning intheprivatepart,painonthebreast.Itissadtonote,butitisahard realitythattheladygynaecdoctorhasabsolutelyturneddeafearstothe physicalcomplaintsofthedeceasedvictimandnothinghasbeendoneat theCivilHospitalwhichcanfacilitatehealingprocesstothedeceased victim.Heragonies,physicalpain,complaintsseemtobetotallyignored asifsomethingnegativehashappened.Itisunfortunatethatsuchconduct ofmedicalcruelty,nobodyhasbotheredtoexaminetheprivatepartofthe deceasedvictimandtoensureandassessonthenextdaythatinfectionin theprivatepartmaynottakeplace.Theword'injectionsos'seemstobea mockery.Thereisnospecialnotebythegynaecdepartmentsuggesting thehealingprocessfortheongoingseriousdamagecausedintheprivate partofthedeceasedvictim.Whathasbeentakencareofisusualmedical examinationwhichmusthavebeendonebymedicalstaffoftakingpulse, temperatureandbloodpressureandnotingitdown.ThisCourtfailsto understandthataladygynaechavingthestatusofAssistantProfessorin GynaecologyDepartmenthasnotattendedthedeceasedvictimwhohas undergonetheseriousphysicalandmentaltraumaofgangrape.Itismore surprisingthatthereisnoexaminationwhatsoeverdonebytheheadof

305

unit.Iftheantibioticswouldhavebeenstarted,itwouldhavelessenedthe chancesofinfectionoratleastthechancesofaggravatingtheinternal injuriessustainedbythedeceasedvictimduringgangrape.Theexternal localdressingonthewoundsortheskinointmentwouldhavehelpedthe injuriestoberecovered.Nothingworththenameforvaginalexamination hasbeenadvisedorprescribedtothedeceasedvictim,whichisindeed astonishing. Inthelightofthisdiscussion,weshallnowdiscussthepostmortem noteofthedeceasedvictimasisalreadyonrecordasthedeceasedvictim hadtravelledforheavenlyabodeonlyonthe7th dayofthehorrifying occurrenceofherlife. Priortoanalyzingthepostmortemreport,weneedtoseeastoafter havingbeendischargedfromtheCivilHospitalonthenextdayon 02.01.2004,thedeceasedvictimcontactedanotherdoctoronthe sameevening. Thiswitnesshasveryablyassistedandestablishedtheprosecution case,thoughcorroborationtothedyingdeclarationisnotatallrequired, butitistoascertaintruthfulnessoftheDyingDeclaration. 36(B). OralEvidenceofPW39:

PW39,Dr.KrupabenKalpeshbhaiTrivediisM.D.D.G.O.Having herprivatematernityhomeatNaranpura,whodeposedthattheprocedure adoptedathermaternityhomeisasandwhenthepatientcomesasan outdoor patient, then by only consulting, necessary medicines and

306

advisedwouldbegivenandnocasepaperofsuchconsultationwouldbe kept.Incaseofindoorpatient,allthecasepapersarebeingpreserved. Thiswitnesshasstatedthaton02.01.2004atabout6:00p.m.(23 hrs.afterdischargefromtheCivilHospital),thedeceasedvictimcame whichwasthefirstOPDcaseoftheeveningofthatday.Thereceptionist of this witness informed about the patient of medico legal case and having history of rape and was being treated at Civil Hospital, this witnessdeclinedtoexaminethepatientonthegroundthathertreatment wasgoingonattheCivilHospital,butthenthereceptionistinformedthat thepatientwasintoomuchpainandattherequestofthepatienti.e. victim and her relatives, on humanitarian ground the victim was permitted to come inside. This witness had conversation with the deceasedvictimandadvicewasgiven.Whenthedeceasedvictimcame for consulting, the witness asked the deceased victim as to what had happened,inresponsetowhichthedeceasedvictimhadinformedthis witnessthaton31.12.2003rapewascommittedonherandshewasin deeppain.Thewitnesshasnoticedthedeceasedvictimtohavephysical andmentalagonywhowascryingbeforethewitnesswhiletalkingtoher. ThewitnessadvisedthedeceasedvictimtotakethetreatmentatCivil Hospital,butthedeceasedvictimreportedthatthoughthetreatmentat CivilHospitalwastaken,thepainwasnotreducing.Shehadburningin herprivatepartandtheycametotakeadviceandtreatmenttolessenthe painandtoavoidtheinfectionintheprivatepart. Thewitnesshasadmittedlynotexaminedthedeceasedvictimfor theinternalinjuries,butintheconsultingroomwhicheverinjurieswere

307

shown by the victim wereobservedbythiswitness.This witnesshas noticed that when the victim met her, she was heavily frustrated and withdrawn.Theinjuriescouldbeseenassuchandcertaininjurieswere shownbythedeceasedvictimlikenailscratchesbeloweyes,swellingon lips,bruiseonboththehands,freshburncausedbycigarettebutt,etc.and themarksofbeltonthebackside.Otherinjuriesweredescribedbythe victimwhichwerebruises,teethmarksonbreast,beltmarksonhips,nail scratchesnearthigh,painandburningintheprivatepart.Witnesshas statedthatshehasseenfirstcaseofsuchpatientwhowasvictimofrape andthoughthiswitnessisgynaecologist,byseeingtheinjuriesofthe victim she was shocked; the victim was consoled and antibiotics, antisepticcream,vocadilwereprescribedtothevictim.Sincethevictim wasindeepdepression,thiswitnessadvisedhermotherandeldersister (PW3)totakeadviseofpsychiatrist.Shehadheadache,bodypainand fever. To make the victim stress free, tablet was prescribed by the witness.Thiswitnessstatedthatthetreatmentgiventothevictimwas purelyonhumanitariangroundandnochargewastakenforthesame. The victim was advised to comeafteraweekfor follow up.MarkN prescriptionaswasaxeroxcopy,wasshowntothewitnesswhichwas giventothedeceasedvictim. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,throughthiswitnessitcomes onrecordthattheinjuriesonthepersonofthedeceasedvictimwerenot healedup;thedeceasedvictimwassufferingfromtremendousburningin privatepartandotherinjuries,Thevictimwasalsodeeplyfrustratedand withdrawn.Thesesymptomsnarratedbythewitnessinherexamination

308

inchiefareindeedrestructuringthesituationinwhichthedeceasedhad passed through and it is further clarifying that no proper treatment whatsoeverwasgiventothedeceasedvictimintheCivilHospitalinspite ofthefactthatshewasindoorpatientadmittedinthehospitalfor1 days. Asalreadydiscussedabovewhileopiningontheoralevidenceof PW40,inCivilHospitalneitherantibioticnoranyointmentwasgiven nor any internal examination was done nor the deceased victim was referred to the psychiatric department and hence, the position of the deceasedvictimseemstohavebeendeterioratedduringherstayatCivil Hospitalasanindoorpatient. As emerging from the crossexamination of this witness, the Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of this witness; the witnessusedtokeepoutdoorpatientregister(thesaidregisterwasnot produced). The witness met the deceased victim for 15 minutes; no antiseptic solution was applied on the injuries as observed by this witness;byleaningthekurtatheinjuriesofcigarettebuttsontheshoulder were shown by the deceased victim to this witness; nail scratches, cigaretteburnsweremorethanone;internalexaminationwasnotdoneby thiswitnessonaccounthersufferanceofpain;burninjurieswereblack andred;theburninjuriesofcigarettebuttweretwoorthree;thedeceased victimtoldthatshewasadmittedattheCivilHospital,butnoproper treatmentwasgiventoher;onsuchinjuriesantisepticointmentorcream canbeapplied;thewitnesshasinformedtotheCourtwhatevershehad seen on that day; the witnesshas stated before thepolice about deep

309

depression and crying of the deceased victim; the deceased victim informedthiswitnessthatthebeltmarkswerebythebelt(ashasbeen notedbymylearnedpredecessor,thereisdescriptionofthesaidinjuryin thestatementbeforethepolice);thevictimdidnotcomeforfollowup treatmentorevennotconsultedthiswitnessonphone;thiswitnesshas volunteeredthatduringthatweekashadbeenlearntbythewitness,the victimhadcommittedsuicide.Theprescriptionwasgiventothedeceased victim.Inresponsetothesuggestionallegingagainstthiswitnessthatthe witnessisdeposingonaccountofrelationshipwiththedeceasedvictim, ithasbeenrepliedthatthedeceasedvictimcameforthefirsttimeasa patientandthiswitnessneitherknewdeceasednorherfamily;thewitness hasadmittedthatnorecordofdeceasedvictimforhavingbeenexamined herasanoutdoorpatienthasbeenkept;medicalcasepapersofCivil Hospitalwerenotshowntothiswitness.Itwasadmittedlyanopinionof thiswitnessthatthetreatmentgivenattheCivilHospitalcannotbesaid to be proper treatment. The witness has justified the said opinion by statingthatwhilegivingdischargefromtheCivilHospital,thedeceased victim was not prescribed any medicine. The deceased victim had informedthiswitnessthatshewasdischargedon02.01.2004;thewitness hasagreedthatusuallythevictimsofrapearebeingexaminedbythe gynaecologist and psychiatrist; the deceased victim was brought for guidanceforhertreatment;injuriesno.1,2and3aretheinjurieswhich canbeseenbyanyotherpersoni.e.otherthanthedoctor;thewitnessdid notfinditappropriatetotellthedeceasedvictimatthattimetoshow otherinjuriesmoreparticularlyinternalinjuriesasthedeceasedvictim wasfoundinagreatpain.Inthestatementbeforethepolice,thewitness

310

has admittedly stated about theinjuries basing uponher memory; the deceasedvictimdidnotgiveanyone'sreference.Thewitnessadmitsthat acaseunderthePNDTActwasfiledagainstherandherhusband.The suggestionhasbeenturneddownbythewitnessthatthestatementwas givenattheinstanceofpolice,I.O.Mr.Oza(PW49)cametorecordher statement.(ThistallieswiththeoralevidenceofPW49).Thewitnesshas testified that in her opinion, she has given proper guidance and informationaboutthetreatmenttothedeceasedvictimanditwasenough forthepurposeforwhichthedeceasedvictimcametoher.Thewitness has clarified that on account of the case being medico legal, she has deniedthe deceasedvictim,butitisonlyonaccountofhumanitarian ground that ultimately she gave necessary advise and guidance for treatment to the deceased victim; the witness has clarified that the deceasedvictimhasthoughcomplainedbeforeheraboutthepainand burning in the private part, the witness did not find it appropriate to perform internal examination of the deceased for which three reasons were given by the witness the deceased victim did not come for confirmationofrape,therewasnohighgradefeverorbleedingorany suchkindofemergencyandifinternalexaminationwouldbedone,then thepain,whichwascomplainedofbythedeceasedvictimwaslikelyto beincreased,furtherwheninternalexaminationwasalreadydonebythe CivilHospitalonaccountofmedicolegalcase,thiswitnessdidnotfindit appropriatetoaddintothepainofthedeceasedvictim.;thedeceased victimcameonlyforguidanceandasstatedbythewitness,bygiving medicalprescriptionandadvisingtotakeguidanceofpsychiatrist,the witnesshasgivenguidancetothedeceasedvictim;thewitnesshasgiven

311

broadspectrumantibioticafterhavingobservedtheexternalinjuriesand thatthesaidantibioticswereusefulforswellingandskininfection;the witness has disagreed to the suggestion that because of modern instrument,thepossibilityandlikelihoodofcausingpainwhileinternal examinationstandsruledout;thewitnesshasrepeatedlystatedthatshe hasexaminedthedeceasedvictimonlyonhumanitariangroundandon accountofseverepainandagonyofthedeceasedvictim,shedidnotfind itappropriatetochargeherandthewitnesshasnottakenanychargefrom her.Evenonpage19,thewitnesshasrepeatedlystatedthatthedeceased victimwasfounddull,depressed,withdrawn,wasoftencryingandshe was speaking very slowly. The suggested antibiotics, energetic tablets shouldhaveworkedwithin12hoursandantiinflammatorydrugwas alsoprescribed,toexaminetheeffectoftheprescribedmedicines,she wascalledbythewitnessafteroneweek.Lastly,inthecrossexamination itself,ithasbeenclarifiedthatthedeceasedvictimwasnotexaminedas anoutdoorpatient;onlyguidancewasgiventoher;herentrymightnot havebeenmadeintheoutdoorregister;thewitnesshasnotcheckedthat aspect. Ithasbeennotedbymylearnedpredecessorthatthewitnesswas askedtoproducethesaidregister,ifsuchentryhadbeenmade,butnot producedwhichwouldmeanthatsuchentrywasnotmade. ThiswitnessisGynaecologistandanexpertwitness.Nothinghas beenelicitedduringthecourseofcrossexaminationbywhichitcaneven bewhisperedthatthewitnessisaninterestedwitnessandisgivingher oralevidenceattheinstanceofsomeinterestedperson.Thedescription

312

fromthememoryofthewitnessisclearlyinthetuneofExh.283dying declaration and Exh.80 the medical case papers qua some of the injuries.Theredoesnotappeartobeanyinterestofthiswitnessinthe outcomeofthepresentSessionscase.Moreover,thewitnesscannotbe said to have not discharged her obligation honestly. The witness has repeatedly clarified about her opinions for having not done internal examinationofthevictimwhichisfirstlynottoaddintothepainand secondlysincemedicolegalcasehasalreadybegun. This witness has to be looked upon with the angle that she is specifyingandclarifyingthestatementmadebeforeherbythevictimof havingbeenrapedandhavingsustainedtheinjuriesbynailscratches,bite mark,bycigarettebutts,bybelt,etc.Inshort,hereisawitnesswhohas personalknowledgeaboutthestateofthedeceasedvictimi.e.physical andmentalstateevenaftershewasdischargedfromtheCivilHospital. Through this witness it clearlycomesuponrecordthatthetreatment givenattheCivilHospitalwasimproper.Thedeceasedwasinneedof psychiatric treatment and her deep depression, withdrawn attitudeand dullphaseareclearsignsofheragony,sufferings,traumaandhaving beenattackedbyphysicalandmentalailment. Thoughtheprescriptiongivenbythiswitnessnotbeingoriginal, onlyisgivenMarkN,butthesubstantialevidencegivenbythiswitness issosatisfactorythatthesubstantialpartofherevidencethatshehas prescribedthementionedmedicinesitselfissufficientasaverystrong circumstance and that too the whole oral evidence is clearly putting

313

beforetheCourtthephysicalandmentalpositionofthedeceasedvictim evenafterabout40hrs.oftheoccurrence.Inthehumbleopinionofthis Court,thiswitnessisextremelytrustworthyandinspiresconfidenceof theCourtandhashelpedtheprosecutioncasetoaverylargeextent. 36(C). EvidenceofPW2forPostmortem:

PW2, Dr.Saumil Premchand Merchant is one of the doctor of panel whichhadperformedthepostmortemofthedeceasedvictim.Thewitness isM.D.inForensicMedicine.Thewitnesshasstatedthatitwasabout 5:50p.m.whilethedeadbodyofthedeceasedvictimwasbroughttoV.S. Hospital; the postmortem was performed on 07.01.2004 which was startedat6:00p.m.andcompletedat7:00p.m.ontheverysameday; inquestpanchnamawasreceived;afternarratingtheclothesonthebody ofthedeceased,ithasbeenstatedthatthebodywasidentifiedwhichwas mediumbuiltbody;P.Mlividitywaspresentontheback;rigormortis waspresentinmusclesalloverthebodyexceptfingerandtoes;P.M. lividitywasfoundfixedinnature;dribblingmarksofsalivapresenton therightsideofthemouth;externalgenitalshowedswellingofboththe lebialfolds,theorificeofvaginaanduterusanteriumwereswollenand oedomatous; hymen showed tear of 8 Oclock and 11 Oclock with surrounding oedema, the vaginal canal in the anterior fornix showed contusionandwasswollen;theposteriorvaginalwallwascontused.The externalinjuriesmentionedincolumnno.17areasfollows. (i) Greencolouredcontusionpresentonthelateralaspectofleftbreast

intheupperquadrant.Size4cmsx3cms,4cmsaboveand2cmslateral

314

tothenipple. (ii) Greencolouredcontusionpresentonthelateralaspectofleftbreast

inthelowerquadrant,4cmslateraland2cmsbelowtotheleftnipple. Size2cmsx2cmshorizontal. (iii) Greencolouredcontusionpresentinthemedialaspectoftheleft

breastinthelowermedialquadrantofthebreast,3cmsbelowand1cm rightmedialtonipple.size2cmsx2cms. (iv) Greencolouredcontusionpresentonthelateralaspectoftheright

breastintheupperlateralquadrant,3cmsaboveand1cmlateraltothe nipple.Size2.5cmsx2.2cms. (v) Green coloured contusion present on the lateral aspect of right

breastintheupperlateralquadrant.Itis3cmsawayandaboveexternal injuryno.4.Size2cmsx1.5cms. (vi) Greencolouredcontusionpresentonthemedialaspectoftheright

breastinthelowermedialquadrant.Itis4cmsbelowand2cmsmedial tothenipple.Size1cmx1cm. (vii) Abradedgreenishcontusionpresentatthetipofleftdeltoidregion withcurvaturefigureshapewithconvexityfacingdownward.Size5cms x0.5cms.Theareashowedabradedmarginwithscab.Theintervening tissuesabovetheconvexitywerecontusedandswollen. (viii) Green coloured contusionpresentonthefront oftheleftthigh

315

whichis13cmsbelowtheanteriorsuperioriliacspinewhichisover turnedshapedconvexityfacingupwardwhichis7cmsx0.3cmssize,2 cmsbelowthistherewas"U"shapedabradedgreencolouredcontusion of6.5x0.2cmssize.Theareashowedabradedmarginwithscab,the interveningareawascontusedandswollen,size7cmsx2cms,convexity facingdownward. (ix) 3 cms below injury no.8, there is a similar injury with similar

characterspresentof6.8cmsx0.25cmsand5.5cmsx2.5cmswith interveninggreenishcontusionof6.5cmsx2cms. (x) Ligaturemark:Aligaturemarkpresentaroundtheneckwhichwas

just above the thyroid cartilage and on the left side it was going obliquely,upwardandlaterallywhichwas4cmsbelowtheleftangleof mandibleandwentupwardandbackward2cmsbelowtheleftmastoid processandthenfadedintothehairs.Onrightside,itcontinuedwith ligaturemarkdescribedontheleftside.Itwentobliquely,upwardand laterallywhichwas5cmsbelowtherightangleofmandibleand1cm below therightmastoidprocessandwentupwardandbackwardand fadedintothehair.Thetotalsizeofligaturemarkwas20cmsx1.5cms (width)withredabradedmargin.Thebaseofligaturemarkwasslightly depressedwithshinybrownishredincolour,hard,parchmentlike. Theinternalinjurieswereasfollows: (i) Dura was intact. Brain was congested and oedematous. Column

no.17, external injury subcolumn no.10 corresponded to the internal

316

injury.SkinSubcutaneoustissueandmusclesunderneaththeligature markwerefoundecchymosed. (ii) Inthorax,boththelungswerecongestedandoedematous,oncut

darkfrothyfluidlikebloodcameout. (iii) Thestomachwasalmostempty.Therewasnopeculiarsmelland mucosa was healthy. Rest of the organs of deceased body were congested.Thebladderwasempty. (iv) Uterusnonpregnant.Size7.5cmsx3.5cmsx2.5cms. (a) Smearwaspreparedfrominternalgenitalorgansoncleansterile glass slides and fixed with rectified spirit for spermatozoa examinations.Smearswerepreparedfromthefollowingsides. i. ii. iii. iv. v. fromanteriorfornixofvagina. fromrightlateralfornixofvagina. fromleftlateralfornixofvagina. fromposteriorfornixofvagina. fromcervicalcanal.

The slides were labeled and sealed and handed over to Police Officerondutyalongwithfacsimileoftheseal. (b) Sampleofbloodwaspreservedforchemicalanalysisandhanded overtothePoliceOfficerondutyinasealedandlabeledinglassbottle.

317

(c) Cloths and ornament recovered from the body during the P.M. examinationwerehandedovertothepoliceofficerondutyinsealedand labeledbox. (d) Swabfromvaginalcanalforspermatozoaexaminationwassentto thepathologydepartmentofV.S.Hospital. Thewitnesshasstatedthecauseofdeathaccordingtothepanel doctors,tobeAsphyxiaasaresultofhanging;Exh.62thepostmortem notewaspreparedinthehandwritingofthiswitness;thecontentsthereof havebeentestifiedtobetrue;theinjurieshavebeenstatedtobeante mortem;injuryno.10incolumnno.17aloneissufficienttocausethe deathofahumanbeinginordinarycourseofnature.Intheopinionofthis witness,theinjuryno.10foundonthebodyofthedeceasedwassuicidal in nature. Injuries mentioned in column no.15 of Exh.62 have been opinedtobenotfreshandpossiblewithvigoroussexualintercourse.The injuriesmentionedincolumnno.17fromserialno.1to9arethegreen coloured injuries and they are opined to be 5 to 7 days old. Certain injuries have beenopinedtobepossiblebysuckingwithlips,certain injurieswithteethandcertainareopinedtobebitinginjuries. During the course of crossexamination, the witness while disagreeingtothesuggestionhasvolunteeredthatfreshinjurieswouldbe theinjurieswhicharereddishincolourandtheyaretheonewhichare causedduringtheperiodof24hrs.to72hrs. IntheopinionofthisCourt,nodoctorcansaywithexactnessasto

318

whenaparticularinjurywascausedbut,theCourthastolooktothe probabilityfactor.Intheinstantcase,theinjuryfoundbythepanelofthe P.M.Doctors,areoldinjuries,havingchangeinitscolourandinacase whenthereisnothingonrecord,excepttheunaccepted,baselessandbare suggestionbythedefensethatPW25,PW3,PW10andPW20have killedthedeceased,itseemsthattheseinjuriescantotallybelinkedwith the occurrence. It is for the said reason, it clearly corroborates the prosecutionversionoftheinjurycausedonthedeceasedvictim,more particularly,theinternalandcertainexternalinjurieswerecausedinthe interveningnightwhilethedeceasedvictimwassexuallyassaultedbythe fiveaccusedashasbeennarratedinEXH.283complaintandtheinjury incolumn10suggestsittobesuicidal. The suggestion of the possibility of penile penetration and to correlatethesamewiththeinjuriesmentionedasuterusanterior,asthe possible injury in case of penile penetration only, in all human probabilities,itcansafelybelinkedwiththeoccurrenceofgangrapeby thefiveaccusedontheinterveningnightasnootherprobabilityemerged onrecordandthattheprosecutioncasedoesnotstandimprobabaliseby thispartofcrossexaminationandeveninEXH.283thedeceasedvictim hasstatedthatatonepointoftime,shelostconsciousness. Further,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatExh.80medicalcase papersandExh.268areshowingtheinjuriesonthebodyofthevictimto bereddish,whichinviewoftheopiniongivenbythiswitnesswerefresh injuriesatthattimei.e.on01.01.2004.Here,thiswitnessbeingexpertin ForensicMedicinehasgivenfirmopinionbygivingcolouroftheinjuries

319

whichsuitswiththefactthattheinjurieswere57daysold.Thisaspect of the oral evidence is supporting to the truthfulness of the dying declarationofthedeceasedvictim. Thewitnesshasbeensubjectedtoanextensivecrossexamination onvariousaspectsofForensicMedicineandonthesuggestionthatthe deathisnotasuicidaldeathandtheinjuriesfoundduringthepostmortem more particularly the internal injuries were the fresh injuries, but the witnesshasnotagreedtothosesuggestions.Thewitnesshasagreedtothe propositionthatincaseofdiscrepancybetweentheinjuriesnotedinthe inquest report and the findings of the Doctors during post mortem examination who has conducted the Postmortem, the Doctor should bringthisfacttothenoticeoftheofficerwhohasconductedinquestso thatnecessarycorrectionmaybedoneintheinquestreport. From the oral evidence of this witness, no doubt can be raised againstthegenuinenessofthepostmortemreportastheoralevidenceis totallytallyingwiththepostmortemreport(Exh.62). Itbecomesclear thatalltheinjurieswereantemortemandthefinalopinionaboutthe causeofdeathbeingasphyxiaasaresultofhangingwhenisreadwith otherfactsandcircumstancesofthecase,itbecomesamplyclearthatthe deceaseddiedduetosuicidaldeath,asitiscommonforwomen,itis morecommonwhenthedeadbodyhasbeenfoundfromtheresidence,no marksofviolenceandsignsofstrugglearenoted,injuryNo.10istotally fitting in suicidal death as opined by this witness who need not be doubted,theinjuriesareantemortem,salivadribblingwasfoundandthe

320

ligaturemarkwasaroundtheneckandtheF.S.L.opinionforboththe piecesofligaturematerialthedupattatobepartofsamedupatta. InviewExh.283thecomplaint,thesuicidalnoteExh.571and alsothepostmortemnoteExh.62seemtobequitegenuineasarefully tallying with one another. The oral evidence of PW2 has thoroughly provedthepostmortemnoteofdeceasedatExh.62andtheinjuriesfound duringthepostmortemtobefivetosevendaysold,whichcansafelybe linkedwiththeoccupancies.Theinjuriesintheprivateparttotallytally withthecomplaint(Exh.283)andthefactnotedinthesuicidenoteboth dyingdeclarationsofthedeceasedvictimwhereinithasbeendeclared thatitisfiveaccusedwhohavecommittedgangrapeonthedeceased victimon01/01/2004after12:30A.M. ExternalinjuriestallywiththeExh.80themedicalcasepapersof the deceased victimwhereintheinjurieswere mentionedtobeofred colour.Further,whenthewitnesshasspecificallyopinedthattheinjuries were57daysoldandwhentheoralevidenceofPW39,Dr.Krupaben Trivedi is taken into consideration, it seems that PW2 is absolutely reliablewitness.Itismoresowhenthereisnothingonrecordtoestablish that PW2 is interested in any manner in the outcome of the present sessionscase.Notonlythat,butPW2whohasperformedhisdutyat V.S.Hospital,hadanopportunitywithotherthreedoctorstoseethebody ofthedeceasedvictimafterdissectionandbeforedissection.Thisgives thebenefitofhavingthepersonalknowledgetothiswitness.Thiswitness wasnotalone,buttherewereotherthreedoctorswhohaveperformedthe postmortem as panel on the body of the deceased victim and the

321

postmortemnote(Exh.62)isthoroughlybackedupbyallthefourdoctors whohavepersonalknowledgeandwhohavesignedinitandrelevant recordandregistersattheV.S.Hospital,andhadanopportunitytosee forthemselvestheinternalandexternalinjuriesofthedeceasedanditis forthisreasonthatthepostmortemnote(Exh.62)provedbyPW2needs tobebelievedtobetruthfulasawhole. Atthisjuncture,theallegationofdefenceneedstobedealtwith thatintheinquestpanchnama,theinjuriesarenotmentioned,hencethe P.M.Reportcannotbebelieved. InopinionofthisCourt,theinquest panchnamais,assuch,notapanchnamabytheexpertofthebiology, anatomyorforensicscienceandthatthepossibilityofhumanerrorsin observation cannot be ruled out and that between the panel of four doctorsandtwopanchasmentionedintheinquestpanchnama,thattoo, when the opinion and observationsare to betakenthatof thehuman body, it goes without saying thatthe opinion and theobservations of panel of four doctors have only to be given weightage and lack of mentionofinjuriesintheinquestpanchnamacannotbecausetodoubt thegenuinenessofthepostmortemreport.

Itisestablishedmanyatimesthathumanobservationsandcapacity ofhumanbeingstoreproducethesamehasitsownlimitations.Further, observationofeachindividualcannotbeunanimouslysimilar.Itvaries fromcasetocaseandpersontoperson.Inthehumbleopinionofthis Court,asdiscussedabove,theoralevidenceofPW2andthepostmortem note (Exh.62) are most creditable evidence and the same need to be believed.Itisneedlesstonotethatthoughnocorroborationisrequiredto

322

the dying declaration of the deceased victim, these are the pieces of substantialevidenceanddocumentaryevidencewhichprovideitsfullest supporttothedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictim,itbeingtruthful andvoluntary. 36(D). DW5 Defence Witness for Postmortem in another SessionsCasevideEXH.484here: Exh.484 oral evidence of DW5 taken in another Sessions

CaseNo.239/2004hasbeenbroughtonrecordofthiscase. DW5,Dr.ChandrakantS/o.LatePanditGangaprasadjiworkingat SafdarjungHospitalhasbeenexaminedbythedefencetochallengethe veracity of the oral evidence of PW2 and for interpretation of postmortemnote.Thiswitnesshasgivenhisdetailedoralevidence.It appearsthatthiswitnesshasgivenhisopinioninfavouroftheaccused forhavingbeenapproachedbytheaccusedanditshowstheinterestof thiswitnessinthedefenceoftheaccused.Ashasbeenemergedinthe questionputforthbytheCourt,thiswitnesshasfiledsomelitigationin theHighCourtofDelhirelatedtohisservicematterandthewitnesshas ceasedtofunctionfrom01.08.2006.Thewitnesshasgivenhisopinion forprivatepersonforthefirsttime(obviouslyforfees).Thewitnesshas notintimatedhisemployerwithregardtothisassignmentofgivinghis opinioninthiscaseabouttheappreciationofpostmortemfindingsofthe deceasedvictimuponhavingbeenapproachedbytheprivateparty.This witnessadmitstohavebeenapproachedbyAdvocateoftheaccused. Consideringtheabovediscussion,whenitisclearthatthewitness

323

is an interested witness to the extent that upon his having been approachedbytheprivateparty,forthefeeshehasappearedbeforethe Court.Asagainstthat,PW2andotherthreedoctorsarethedoctorswho havenointerestintheoutcomeofthiscase.Secondly,theteamofthe postmortemdoctorsareoffourpersonsagainstthisdefencewitnessalone andthirdly,thiswitnesshadadmittedlynoopportunitytopersonallysee thebodyofthedeceasedvictim,Hehadnoopportunitytoobserveand assess the kind of injuries, colour of injuries, vision of injuries after dissectionandasagainstthat,PW2isoneofthepaneldoctorsofthe four doctors who have performed the postmortem on the body of deceased victim and PW2 speaks thoroughly from his personal knowledge. DW5 might be speaking from his experience and knowledge,butthenalsowhileweighingtheevidenceofPW2andDW 5,thisCourtfirmlybelievesthatbetweenthetwooralevidences,theoral evidenceofPW2ismorecreditworthy,morereliableandthatthesame is the dependable substantial evidence bringing on record the documentary evidence Exh.62 the P.M. Note to substantiate the oral evidence. Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that Exh.283 and Exh.571 respectivelythecomplaintandsuicidenoteofthedeceasedvictimarethe versionswhichneednocorroborationandapplyingthesaidprinciple,it is only the oral evidence of PW2 and the postmortem report Exh.62 whicharetotallysettinginthetuneofthesaiddyingdeclaration.Italso needstobenotedthatafterallthesubstantialevidenceofanydoctorisa corroborative evidence and that it has to be only tested for a limited purpose that can it be taken as a valid corroboration to the case of prosecutionornot.Here,asrepeatedlynoted,nocorroborationisrequired

324

tothedyingdeclarationofthedeceased.But,asdiscussedhereinabove, theoralevidenceofPW2readwiththepostmortemnoteExh.62seems tobeveryvalidreasonsbywhichitcanbeheldthatthedyingdeclaration ofthedeceasedvictimaretrustworthy. 36(E). PW38(A1):

PW38,Dr.RinabenChoksiisCMOintheCivilHospitalwhohas examinedA1at6:20p.m.on01.01.2004.Thiswitnesshasbroughton record Exh.262toExh.265medicalcasepaperandreportofAlcohol consumptionrelatedtoA1.Thiswitnesshasstatedofabsenceofmagma ontheglanspenisofA1andhasshownheragreementtotheopinionof Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy in his book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicologyonpage442whichhasbeenannexedwiththedepositionthat the absence of magma may indicate thatintercourse might have been performed, but presence of magma rules out possibility of complete penetrationbecausemagmagetsrubbedoffduringintercourse.Magma usuallyrequiresabout24hrs.tocollect.Thesymptomsofabsenceof magmacansafelyberelatedtotheversionofthedeceasedvictimthatA 1 had intercoursed her. During the course of crossexamination, the witnesshasadmittedtheabsenceofvaginalepithelial. UponseeingExh.262moreparticularlythehistorygivenbyA1,it is clearly a tallying circumference of involvement of A1 who has brought the deceased victimtoHotelAshokPalaceandwentto B.R. FarmwithhisfriendsSajal,Mandu,Karanandvictimandimmediately

325

returned to Hotel Ashok Palace. This history is also a tallying circumstanceaboutthepresenceofA1,A4,A2(Mandu),A12and deceasedvictimontheinterveningnightof31.12.2003and01.01.2004at HotelAshokPalace.ThehistorygivenbyA1issupportedbythisPW 38.Exh.263issuggestivethatevenafter6:00p.m.of01.01.2004A1had morethan0.050percentageW/VofEthylAlcoholinhisbloodwhich tallieswiththeversionofthedeceasedvictimofroundsofconsumption ofbeerbyallincludingA1. In the opinion of this Court, through the oral evidence of this witness,thepresence andprobabilityofA1haverapedthedeceased victimemergesonrecordwhichhelpstheprosecutioncaseofthedying declarationtobetruthful. 36(F). PW34(A2): PW34, Dr. Ghanshyam Patel, the then CMO at Civil Hospital, AhmedabadhasexaminedtheA2on05.01.2004at8:00a.m.Thehistory given by A2 has been recorded bythewitnessandthesame canbe perusedthroughExh.239medicalcertificateofA2.Uponperusalofthe saidmedicalcertificate,ashasalreadybeendiscussedearlier,A2has onlysaidthatatthetimeofoccurrencehewasatGandhinagar,CityPulse Discotheck.Ashasbeennotedmagmahasbeenreportedtobeabsent. TheA2hasbeenreportedtobeunmarried. Exh.242arethebunchofmedicalcasepaperswhichhavebeen brought on record by this witness. On page3 of these medical case papers,it ismentionedthatA2isaged21yearsandunmarried.The

326

history given by A2 has been noted that after watching film and provocativescene,A2canspontaneouslyejaculate.A2hasbeenopined tobepotent. ThesearethetellingcircumstancesbywhichthementalityofA2 canbenotedandhisspontaneousejaculationevenbywatchingfilmand byseeingprovocativescenesiswhenpossible,itisprobablethatA2 whileispresentinroomno.106ofHotelAshokPalaceandwhilehis otherfriendsareonebyoneintercoursingthedeceasedvictim,hewould notremainaloof.Well,thisisnotaconclusiveproofnorhasbeentaken asbasetoholdtheA2guiltybutitisnotedasoneofthecircumstances takingtheneedletowardsA2. A2hasonlystatedastoatthetimeofoccurrencehewasatCity Pulse,DiscoTheckatGandhinagar.Itemergesfromthecontentsofthe historythatA2considers22hrs.i.e.22:00p.m.of31.12.2003asthe timeofoccurrenceandhehasattemptedtogiveaccountofhispresence for the said time. Now as held earlier, the time of the occurrence is somewherebetween12:45a.m.to3:30a.m.Incasethatthemagmais notedtobeabsent,whathasbeendiscussedincaseofA1isapplicable tothecaseofA2aswell.Inviewofthediscussionmadehereinabove while discussing about A1 eventhiswitnesshelpsholdingthedying declarationtobetruthful. Vide Exh.240 FormA of A2 is brought on record and vide Exh.241 Alcohol Examination Certificate is on record. The alcohol examinationofA2hasbeendonebasingtestingthecollectionofblood

327

ofA2whichseemstohavebeentakenat4:30a.m.of05.01.2004.The resultashasbeenrecordedinExh.241isthatthebloodofA2contained 0.0672percentageW/VofEthylAlcohol.Here,whatisimportanttobe notedisthatExh.240isaForm,whereinagainstthequestionofwhether A2 was capable to takecareof himself,thereplyhasbeengiven in affirmative,incaseofsmellofalcoholinbreaththereplyisasabsent, againstthecolumnofconsciousnessthereplyisinaffirmative.Atthis juncture, though the alcohol level of A2 on 05.01.2004 is not an important factor for the case as the occurrence has taken place on 01.01.2004 and blood for the test of alcohol has been taken on 05.01.2004andonaccountoflapseoftime,theresultcannotconnectA2 withtheoffence,butwhatneedstobenotedisthatthealcoholpercentage isquitehigherthanthestatutorylevelof0.050.Thisaspectisthetelling circumstanceofthehabitofA2toconsumealcoholicsubstance.Further, another telling aspect is that even in case of alcohol percentage upto 0.0672,A2isabletotakecareofhimself.Inthelightofabove,the complaint Exh.283 of thedeceased victim isto theeffect thatallthe accused have consumed alcohol on that night is held to be truthful. Moreover,thedeceasedvictimwasfoundtohave0.053percentageof alcohol and therefore, deceased victim might not have attained the physicalstatewhereinshewouldbeunabletogivehercomplaintandthat againisonesupportingcircumstance. Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationofthewitness,oncontents of alcohol in blood and more particularly the period for which the contentswouldremaininbloodandthewitnesshasrepliedthatinacase

328

ofthepersonwithnormalmetabolism,suchcontentswouldremaininthe bloodforaboutthreedays.Inviewofthefactthatwhilethisquestion wasaskedtoPW36,thedoctorwitness,thereplywasof24hrs.Asit maybe,butthefactremainsthatevenifthisreportmaynotbetakenup toconnecttheA2withtheoffence,butthenthefactremainsthatevenif itistakenthat,thecontentsofalcoholremaininthebloodforabout24 hrs.,thenalsoitcomesuponrecordasatellingcircumstanceaboutthe habitofconsumptionofalcoholbyA2. Whatalsoneedsaspecialnotehereisthatthesuggestionsabout theabsencesandmoreparticularlythepresenceoffriends,thevisitsof A2atdifferentplacesduringtheinterveningnighthavenotbeenstated beforethiswitnessasapartofhistoryoftheoccurrenceandtheconduct ofA2ofnottellingthehistoryabouthismovementontheintervening nightitselfisacircumstanceagainstA2whichwouldleadthisCourtto pausequathedefenceofalibi. 36(G). PW36(A3):

PW36 is Dr. Jashbhai Vaghela who has examined A3 on 05.01.2004.ThiswitnesshasbroughtonrecordExh.254themedical certificateofA3andExh.255FormAofA3.Thiswitnesshasstated thatA3hadbeenexaminedbyhimwhohasgiventhehistorythaton 31.12.2003atabout10:00p.m.hehasnotintercoursedwiththedeceased victimatHotelAshokPalace,Shahibaug.Thiswitnesshasalsodeposed tohavenoticedwithabsenceofmagma,opinedtheA3tobepotentand recorded him to be unmarried. The alcohol content in case of A3 is

329

certified to be 0.0796 on 05.01.2004. During the course of cross examination,thiswitnesshasopinedthatthecontentsofalcoholinthe bloodwouldremainfor24hrs.Asagainstthis,PW34hasstatedtobe thetimeof3days,butevenifthisopiniongivenbythiswitnessistaken asisfavouringtheaccusedthatthealcoholcontentsinthebloodremains for24hrs.,thenalsothoughthereportof05.01.2004forwhichbloodwas takenat01.10a.m.,thecontentshavebeencertifiedtobe0.0796whichis obliviouslyquitehigherthanitsstatutorylevelwhichissuggestiveofthe habitofA3toconsumeliquorandthatthishabitofA3isatelling circumstancetobelievethatonthedateofoccurrenceashasbeenvoiced bythedeceasedvictimthroughhercomplaintExh.283,A3musthave consumedliquor. UponperusingthehistorygiventothiswitnessbyA3,itseems thatliketheA2,A3alsoseemstobetreating22o'clockof31.12.2003 orafter22:00p.m.tobethetimeofoffenceandhisrefusalisrestrictedto not have performed physical intercourse with deceased victim at that particular time, but as has already been held earlier, the time of commissionoftheoffenceisheldtobe12:45to3:30. In the case of A3 also, the presence of magma is noted to be absentandthisisalsoatellingcircumstanceashasbeendiscussedincase ofA1andA2.With0.0796percentageofalcoholinthebloodofA3as hasbeennotedinExh.255,A3wasfoundtobeconscious,notunderthe influenceofalcoholandabletotakecareofhimselfandthesmellof alcoholwasfoundabsent.AshasbeendiscussedaboveincaseofA2, thisisalsostrongevidencingcircumstancewhichhelpsthecaseofthe

330

deceased victim that she must have been able to speak about the occurrenceingreatdetailsasshehasspokenandhasbeenrecordedin Exh.283,asthealcohollevelincaseofdeceasedvictimwasnottothis extent. This witness too has provided a support to the case of the prosecutiontoholdthedyingdeclarationtobetruthful.Whatiscommon forA2andA3isthatthesuggestionandsubmissionmadebylearned advocateforA2andA3onthedefenceofalibiisnotreflectedhaveby the accused themselves while telling history before these witnesses, hence,thesaiddefenceseemstobeashamdefence.

36(H).

PW35(A4):

PW35isDr.B.D.Mankadwhowasoneofthe membersofthe teamofdoctorswhichwassenttoDelhiatMillenniumHospitalwhere A4wasadmitted.DocumentaryevidencerightfromExh.247toExh.249 concerningtomillenniumhospital,havebeenbroughtonrecord.During thecourseofcrossexamination,Exh.250toExh.252thecorrespondence to send team of doctors to Delhi, have been brought on record. The witnesshasbroughtonrecordtotheeffectthattheteamofthedoctors wenttoNewDelhiatMillenniumHospitalon15.01.2004onwhichdate A4wasfoundhavingbeenadmittedinthehospitalfrom09.01.2004.A 4 was advised for complete rest for three weeks and while the team reachedatDelhi,allformalitiestodischargeA4fromthehospitalwere over.

331

Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,itwasinquiredfromthe witnessastowhetherthewitnesshaslearntabouttheoccurrencethrough T.V.,newspaperorthroughhiscolleaguesornot.Itwasalsosuggested thatagitationbywomenwereongoingandnewsinnewspapersandT.V. were also frequently coming with reference to the occurrence. The witnesshasalsobroughtonrecordthatevenontheearlieroccasionsuch specialorderhasbeenissuedtoexaminethepatient. Mylearnedpredecessorhasputaquestiontothewitnessonthe aspectofExh.247,whereinthewitnesshasopinedthattobelieveitacase ofmetabolicalcosisthereportdoesnotseemtobecorrectandinthe alternative,thewitnesshasopinedthatthepatient(A4)mightnothave said the truth. Exh.248 is the report by the witness to the Medical Superintendent,CivilHospital,AhmedabadaboutthetreatmentofA4. Inthisreport,twoinferenceshavebeendrawnbythiswitnessandDr. Tandon,outofwhichoneisthatA4wasspeakingliesandthesecondis thatA4mighthaveconsumedsomeotherpoison,asA4hastoldtohave consumedbakingsoda,butaccordingtothedoctors,itshouldproduce metabolicalkalosisandthatthisinferenceisagainatellingcircumstance againstA4. Exh.250toExh.252areallthecorrespondencessuggestiveofthe effortshavingbeenundertakenbytheInvestigatingAgencytoinquire aboutA4whowasadmittedinthehospital.Exh.247thereportofthree doctors is on record wherein a circumstance has been narrated to the effect that on 13.01.2004 in the case papers of the hospital, it was

332

mentionedthatthepatienti.e.A4requires2to3weeks'restandwithin only two days A4 was opined to be alright and having satisfactory conditionofthehealth? Thedocumentsdiscussedhereinabovealongwiththeoralevidence ofPW35areclearlyindicativetosuggestthattheA4hasnotlefta singlestoneunturnedtodelaythewholeprocessofinvestigationforthe occurrence. Weshalldiscussatlaterpart,butatthisjuncture,itneedstobe mentionedthatA4wasknowingaboutthecomplainthavingbeenfiled againsthimandthattheprintoutsandtheadmittedpositiononrecord clearlyshowsthathehasattemptedtocontactPW3theeldersisterof deceasedvictimatabout4.00A.M.toreconcilewithandtoseetoitthat thecomplaintdoesnotgetrecorded.Thiswitnesshasalsostrengthenthe elementoftruthfulnessofthedyingdeclaration. 36(I). PW37(A4): PW37 is Dr. BhavinbhaiShahwhohasexaminedA4atCivil Hospital,Ahmedabadon16.01.2004.PW37hastestifiedthatA4has giventhehistoryoftheoccurrencewhereinashasalreadybeendiscussed whilediscussingaboutthevenueoftheoffencethatA4hasacceptedto havephysicalrelationwiththedeceasedvictimforlastoneyearandto havecometoAhmedabadatHotelAshokPalaceon31.12.2003;tohave leftAshokPalaceHotelat11:45upto4:00p.m.hewasinroomno.205 andafter4:00p.m.(seemstobeof31/12/2003)cametoroomno.106.

333

Afterhavingtelephonedtothedeceasedatabout10:00p.m.thedeceased victimcamealongwithA1inroomno.106.Thereafter,whileA4was getting ready, the brotherinlaw of A4 very specifically stated DharmendraJain(A12)andA1werepresentandthereafterallofthem wenttoFarmHouseParty.(HereA4doesnotsaythatitwasapartyof A3evenafterfifteendays).Afterhavingwaitedthere(atFarmhouse) forhalfanhouronaccountofcoldtheycamebackandthereafter,'MTV' was started in room no.106, they have danced, consumed beer and thereafter, A1 and A12 have gone, in room no.106 he had sexual intercoursewiththedeceasedvictim.Atabout2:00a.m.A1andA12 came, thereafter, there was another round of liquor as A1 brought a bottle of R.C., A1 consumed R.C.andoffered deceasedvictim R.C., whileA4wasconsumingbeer,A1leftat2:45a.m.todropthedeceased victim.Whilegoing,thedeceasedvictimhadvomited,wantedtogoto passurineandshewasfallingdown,A4madehertopassurineandthe deceasedvictimleftwithA1. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thehistoryseemstobemixed withtruthandfalsity,butifonlytheconductofA4isnoted,itisquite surprisingthatthoughA4claimstohavephysicalrelationandaffairwith thedeceasedvictimcontrarytothisonPage6attheWrittenStatement partoffurtherstatementatPage6,theA4saidthatthedeceased victimhadonesidedloveforA4,heinspiteofnoticingtheirregulargait ofthedeceasedvictim,herinability,herfallingdown,hervomitinghas stillhowever,sentherwithA1.ThisconductissuggestivethattheA4 wasknowingfullywellthatwhiledeceasedvictimwasinroomno.106

334

andwhiletheirroundsofliquorwhateverhasbeendonebyallthefive accused,wouldcomeout,ifthedeceasedvictimremainsintheroom. TheattitudeofA4ofhurriedlyreturningthedeceasedvictimwithA1, doesnotseemtobenatural.Suchattitudecannotbebythepersoninthe usualcircumstanceshavingsomesoftrelationshipforoneyearandfora womanwhocameallthewhiletrustingA4toremaininthecompanyof allthemaleastheonlyfemaleandthattoo,atnighthours. TheA4hasgivenfurtherhistorystatingthatatabout4o'clocka phonecallofPW3camewhothencomplainedofA1havingcommitted rapeonthedeceasedvictimandthedeceasedvictimwasfoundnecked.If theprintoutofA4andPW3areseenandifthefactonrecordcanbe takennotethatthetelephoneofA4wasofDelhiandPW3couldnot dialthatnumberoroughtnothaveinclinedtodialthatnumberfromher mobilebeingofGujaratandthatwhenitiscrystalclearthatA4rangup PW3,theCourttakesthefalsehistorygiventothedoctor,isrevealing guiltyconscience(thatPW3ranghim). This conduct of A4 needs to be taken note of as one of the circumstancetellingabouttheunusualconductofA4.A4wasknowing about the serious complaint having been filed against him and the remainingfouraccused,stillhowever,hemanagedtoleavetheCityof AhmedabadasearlyaspossibleifthehistoryofA12isbelieved,they hadleftthecityatabout3:30andiftherecordofHotelAshokPalaceis seen,notimeforcheckouthasbeenmarkedifpage52oftheFurther Statementistakenintoconsideration,heleftat5.00A.M.)onPage4 and7ofthewrittenStatement(PartofFurtherStatement)itismentioned

335

tobe4.00A.M.and4.00to4.30A.M.,whichissuggestivethatA4and A12hadtoruninthesituationwheretheywerenotabletoevenmark thetimeoftheirdeparture.Additionallyitwasinspiteofknowingthe complainthavingbeenfiledA4andA12havenotonlyleftthecityof Ahmedabad,butevenmanagednottobeavailableforasmuchastime theycanavail.ThefactthattheA4couldbecaughtwhilespecialteam wenttoDelhithattooafter15days,whichitselfisspeakingaboutthe conductofA4. ExaminationseemstohavebeencarriedoutofA4whowasalso examinedforhismentalhealthwhereinhewasfoundtohaveadjustment problemwithdepressedmood.Hissampleswerecollected,sentforDNA andotherexamination.Thiswitnesshasbroughtonrecorddocuments fromExh.257toExh.260. Exh.257isthemedicalcertificateofA4.A4wasexaminedon 16.01.2004at11:50a.m.andasdiscussedabove,A4wasalsosentto Psychiatristforhismentalhealthandexaminationwhereintheopinion givenwasasdiscussedaboveofA4havingadjustmentproblemwith depressedmood. Exh.260arethecasepapersofCivilHospitalwhereinasdiscussed above,thehistorygivenbyA4hasbeenwritten.Certaininjurieshave beenrecorded.Samplesweretaken(A4hasbeenexaminedmedically aboutafter15daysandthatasfarasinjuriesareconcerned,itisofnot muchusetoreferthoseinjuries).Anothercasepaperatpage3withred penencircledofExh.260moreparticularlybacksideofthesaidpaper,

336

sadnessofmood,disturbanceinsleepandrepeatedthoughtsofdeceased victimhavebeennotedasfeelingofA4.Onpage6redencircledofthis veryExh.260thefamilyhistoryofA4hasbeenwrittenwhereinashas beenwrittenA4hastwochildrenandtheyoungestwas2yearsoldon thesaiddate.A4hasbeencertifiedtobepotent.Onredencircledpage8 whichisidentificationformforDNAprofilingthenameofA4hasbeen mentionedshowingtohavecollectedbloodsampleforDNAtesting.In thesameway,othersampleslikesaliva,blood,semen,pubichair,etc.are showntohavebeencollected. Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,thewitnesshasadmitted that PW49, I.O. Mr. Oza has brought A4 to the hospital. He has, however,clarifiedthatwhilethehistorywasgivenbyA4,PW49was notpresent.Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,ithasbeentestified by the witness that Dr. Tandon and other doctors came to casualty departmentandtheytoohaveexaminedA4.Witness,however,clarified thathedidnotinformDr.Tandon;PW49hasgivenyadiforphysical examinationtothiswitness;thewitnesshasfirsttimeexaminedinMLC casealongwiththePanelofdoctors;thewitnessknewthefactofthecase throughT.V.andnewspaper;A4wasbroughtwithpoliceescort;the suggestionthathistoryhasnotbeenwrittenaswasgivenbyA4hasbeen denied;theknowledgeofthewitnessaboutwhichofthreedoctorshad been to Delhi has been negated; the doctors from departments of Urology,PsychiatryandSkinandotherashavebeenshownintheinjury certificatecametothecasualtywardtoexamineA4;thesemensample ofA4wascollectedbyDr.DineshPatel;thequantityofblood,saliva,

337

etc.havenotbeenmentionedinthecertificate. Whilereplyingtothequestionputbymylearnedpredecessor,the witness has replied that in presence of witness semen sample was collectedandsealed.Duringthecourseoffurthercrossexamination,the witness has admitted that in the certificate at Exh.257 Department of Skin,DepartmentofUrologyandDepartmentofPsychiatryhavebeen referredwhichhasbeennoted. Theoverallimpactofthedocumentsbroughtonrecordthrough thiswitnessistoanextentasdiscussedabovearesupportingtheversion putforthbythedeceasedvictim,whichconfirmsthetruthinthedying declaration. Ld. Advocate Mr. Panchal has vehemently argued that semen samplecollectedwasusedforplantationandthoughsemensamplewas collected,whyfortheexaminationofDNA,bloodsamplewassent. Uponperusingthedocumentaryevidence,itstandsamplyclearin the medical case papers itself that the blood is shown to have been collectedforthepurposeofDNAascanbeseenfrominternalpage8of Exh.260whereinithasbeensospecified.Thepage9makesitclearthat ithasbeenspecifiedthatthesampleofblood,saliva,semen,pubichair, scalp hair, beard hair, urine have been collected alongwith blood for DNAtest.Thisdocumentmakesthethingamplyclearandthatnothingis smellingfishyandthatthesubmissionofplantationdoesnotseemtobe penetrableoneasalltheclarificationsonrecordofthehospitalandeven inthereceiptgivenbyPW49makesitsoclearthatnothingremains

338

doubtful.Further,aftercollectingthesemenashasbeenmadeclearby thewitness,infrontoftwoCMOthesemensamplewascollectedandthe bottlewassealedandthus,itcannotbedoubtedthatthesemencollected wasmisusedbytheI.O.Thisseemstobebaselessallegationinthefacts andcircumstancesofthecasewhilereadingitwithmedicalcasepapers andotherdocumentsonrecord. 36(J).

PW44(A12): PW44, Dr. Jayantbhai Kaloria was CMO in the month of

February,2005intheCivilHospital.A12wasbroughton25.02.2005at about1:00p.m.forhismedicalexamination.Thewitnesshasstatedthat thehistorygivenbyA12ofhavingarrivedatHotelAshokPalaceat about9:30a.m.on31.12.2003.(ThishistorytallieswiththeversionofA 4whichisastrongcircumstanceonpresenceofbothofthenotes).Ashas beendiscussedearlier,A12hasalsostatedthatatelephonecallcame;A 1 went to bring the deceased victim and brought her to Hotel Ashok Palace;thereafter,allwenttoB.R.Farmalongwiththedeceasedvictim; afteranhourtheycamebacktoHotelAshokPalaceandagainwenttothe room;A12,A4,A13,A1anddeceasedvictimcameandthereafter,A 1andthedeceasedvictimwereintheroomandtheremainingthreewent onthefirstfloorandsleptthere.TheyleftHotelAshokPalaceatabout 3:00or3:30A.M. Thishistoryofarrivalat9:30a.m.of31.12.2003(obviouslyfrom therecordofthecasetobe31.12.2003)anddepartureat3:00or3:30a.m.

339

of the said night (obviously of 01.01.2004) is a telling circumstance. FurtherinthehistorypresenceofA1,A4,A13andtheaccusedhimself (A12)isclarified. ITisherebyclarifiedthatthisCourtisawarethattheconfessionof the accused while in the custody except before cannot be taken into considerationandistobeignoredunlessmadeinpresenceofMajistrate, butitcannotbeforgottenthatherewhatisbeingtakennoteofisatelling circumstance and some part of the admission which is not in a way incriminating and that too it is not as sole base, but it is merely a supporting feature for which the base has already been made by the deceasedvictimthroughherdyingdeclaration.Theseabovediscussed aspectsaremerelytellingcircumstancesandnothingbeyondthatanditis herebyclarifiedthatthesaidcircumstancesarenotmadebasetoconclude theculpabilityoftheaccused. Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,ithasbeenquestionedthat inthecertificateonlyon31st Decemberiswrittenandtheyearisnot written.(inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,itismorethanclear thatithasareferenceofnothing,but31.12.2003).Thewitnesswasalso assailedontheaspectthatthesourceofthenameswrittenonExh.288; Exh.287isthestickercamealongwithExh.288;onExh.288,A12has givenconsentforhisphysicalexaminationwhereinhisnameiswrittenas Dharmendra Jain; identification sign of A12 has been written on the yadi;thestainsreferredarethestainsofacnewhichwereonthebodyof A12;A12wasnotfoundwithanyeffectofparalysisonhislefthand;

340

whilethepatient/accusedisbeingexamined,onlydoctorandaccused mightbepresentandthepolicewouldsitinthecasualtymedicalward. ThephotographofA12wastakenoutwhichcamewithin1015minutes. ThesuggestionthatthehistorymentionedonExh.287andExh.288were notgivenbyA12,butbasinguponthepoliceyadiandbybeingunder influenceofthepolicethesaidhistorywaswrittenbythiswitnesshas beendenied. Alongwiththedepositionaletterseemstohavebeenwrittenby InvestigatingOfficerMr.Sharmaon02.11.2004isonrecordwhereinthe nameofA12ismentionedasDharmendra@Karan@Montu;another letteron02.11.2004totheSuperintendentofPolice,Ajmeralsoshows thenameofA12inthesamemanner.Theletterdt.04.11.2004seemsto havebeenreceivedfromtheOfficeofSuperintendentofPolice,Ajmer hasalsorevealedthenameofA12inthesamemannerbymentioningall thethreenames.Anotherletterdt.02.11.2004attachedwithoralevidence is having the reference of A12 in the same manner alongwith the physicaldescriptionandageofA12.Anarrestwarrantu/s.70ofCr.P.C. isalsoonrecordwhichisdated03.02.2004anditseemstohavebeen issuedbyMMCCourtNo.2isalsoreferringA12withallthethreealias names. The letter 04.11.2004 from the Police Station Block Tower, AjmerisalsoreferringA12withthesaidthreenames. In the opinion of this Court, all the above referred papers are suggestive that the A12 was known and was on record even as an abscondingaccusedwiththethreenames.

341

Exh.287 is the medical certificate wherein A12 is referred as Dharmendra@Karan.IfthehistorynotedbyPW44isseen,itbecomes clearthatthehistorywritteninGujaratiletterisaswasspokenbyA12 andthatisintheHindilanguage.ForwhichGujaratilettersarethough used,whilereadingit,itisclearthatitiswrittenasspokenbyA12. Exh.288toorefersA12asDharmendra@Karanwhichisshown inthestickeronthecasepaper. In the humble opinionofthisCourt, there isnothingonrecord suggestingthatevenwhileputtingthethumbimpressionorwhilegiving thehistory,A12haseverobjectedorrequestedtomentionhisnameas onlyDharmendra.Page3revealsthatA12isunmarriedperson,having Keloidonthechestandacneonbackandhand. Nowheretheeffectofparalysisonthelefthandismentionedby anyone.Page6istheyadiissuedbyPW49whereinalsoA12hasbeen mentionedwithallthethreenames.ThereisalsodescriptionofA12.On page7thesamplesseemtohavebeencollectedandhandedovertothe InvestigatingOfficer;onpage8identificationformforDNAprofiling hasbeenplacedonrecordwhereinthenameofA12hasbeenshownas Dharmendra @ Karan. Here, in the declaration of donor i.e. A12 a columnisfilledinanditseemsthatthenamethereinasDharmendra@ Karanhasbeenwrittenanditisnotsignedbelowit,butthereisnothing onrecordbywhichitcanbesaidthatA12hastakenanyobjectionorhas placedonrecordhisnameonlytobeDharmendraandnotDharmendra@ Karan@Montu.

342

TheA12hasnotofferedanyexplanationforhishavingranaway for14monthsanditiseventhoughA12whowasknowingfullywell thatacomplainthasbeenrecordedagainsthimandthatwhileheleft Ahmedabad,heleftabruptlyandatveryawkwardtimeasshowninthe historyandthatbeingnottakenashesoleincriminatingmaterialand merelyistobetakenasacircumstancetheA12himselfhassaidtohave leftCityofAhmedabadsomewhereat3:00or3:30. ThisconductofA12afterlearningthefactthatacomplainthas beenlodgedagainsthimandthattooaseriouscomplaintofgangrapethe actofA12ofrunningawayandnotbeingavailablefor14monthsand thatuntilalltheprocedureslikewarrantu/s.70ofCr.P.C.wasalsoissued, A12wasnotavailableandthisitselfisaverystrongtellingcircumstance againstA12. ThereisabsolutelynothingonrecordtoestablishthatA12has raisedanyobjectionofhishavingbeenreferredasDharmendra@Karan @Montu.ItisfurtherclearthathehasstayedatHotelAshokPalaceand wastogetheralongwithdeceasedvictim,A4,etc.Itisnowhereclarified thatwhatwasthepurposeofvisitofA12andthatitstandsclearthaton accountoftheguiltymindofallthefiveaccusedandwhileactingin furtheranceofcommonintentiontotakethedeceasedvictimintrapfor the intervening night, to intercourse her, the A12 was introduced to deceasedvictimwithhispetnameandnotofficialname. TheconductofA4tointroducehisownbrotherinlawasfriend

343

andrelationshipshownbyA12ofthoughbeingintroducedasfriendin spiteofthefactthatheisbrotherinlawofA4,itbecomesclearthatthe silenceofA12andconductofnotclarifyingthesituationwithdeceased victimandPW3issuggestivethatA12hadguiltyconscience,whichis alsooneofthecircumstancespointingtowardstheculpabilityofA12 andA4. ITisherebyclarifiedthatthisCourtisawarethattheconfessionof the accused while in the custody except before cannot be taken into considerationandistobeignoredunlessmadeinpresenceofMajistrate, butitcannotbeforgottenthatherewhatisbeingtakennoteofisatelling circumstance and some part of the admission which is not in a way incriminating and that too it is not as sole base, but it is merely a supporting feature for which the base has already been made by the deceasedvictimthroughherdyingdeclaration.Theseabovediscussed aspectsaremerelytellingcircumstancesandnothingbeyondthatanditis herebyclarifiedthatthesaidcircumstancesarenotmadebasetoconclude theculpabilityoftheaccused. Whatismoresurprisingelementwhichisrequiredtobenotedis thatthoughtheA4isthepersonagainstwhomallegationshavebeen levelledhasbeenreferredtopsychiatricdepartment.Asagainstthat,the deceasedvictimwhoreallyrequireditverybadlyhasnotbeenreferredto thepsychiatricdepartment.InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,itshould havebeendonewhichhasnotbeendonelikethegynaecdepartmentof Civil Hospital has not taken necessary care to properly examine the deceasedvictimandtoappropriatelyadviseandconsoleherandofferher

344

appropriatemedicaltreatment.Inviewoftheforegoingsituation,these doctorwitnesseshaveofferedaverysatisfactorydegreeofcorroboration totheprosecutioncasewhichhasbeenfirmlyestablishedbythedeceased victimthroughherdyingdeclaration.

37.

GROUP'G': ExceptPW27allthe8witnesseshaveturnedhostile:

Thesehostilewitnessesarethewitnesseswhoareemployeesand/ orcloserelativesoftheaccused.Thesubmissiononboththesideshave beendealtwithatparagraph31(g)to31(j)ofthisjudgmenthence,isnot repeated here. Here let us see glimpses of the deposition of some witnesses.

(a)

PW28hasstatedwhilereplyingthequestiontotheCourtthatas

onthedateofdepositionthewitnessisemployedasadriveroftheA7 andthathewasworkingasaliftmanintheyear1998andsincethen,is continuouslyintheemploymentofA7whosefatherhadpassedaway andisthesolebreadwinnerforthefamily.

(b)

PW31,hasstatedinhisexaminationinchiefthaton31/12/2003,

hehasreceivedaphonecallfromA3(activeinvolvementofA3aspart of the transaction in furtherance of common intention) while he was directedtobookaroomonthenameofM.D.GuestandtheM.D.Guest cameinthepresenceofthiswitnessatabout8:30a.m.whowasgiven

345

roomNo.205.IthasalsobeenspecifiedthatA4wasthenshiftedtoroom No.106.

(c)

PW27wasworkingasreceptionistinthehotelwhohadhisduty

from7:00a.m.to3:00p.m.but,on31/12/2003,hisdutywasfrom9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This witness has stated about all the remaining employee witnesses including PW29 to be in employment with him. ThiswitnesshasalsostatedthatA2withhissisterwasmanagingthe hotel.ThiswitnesshasstatedtohavelearntfromPW31thattheM.D. GuesthascomeandthenameoftheguestisSajalbhaiJainwhohasbeen allottedroomNo.205androomNo.106.Thiswitnesshasmadeentriesin the occupancy chart of the hotel. While responding to the questions pausedbymylearnedpredecessor,thiswitnesshasstatedthatpriorto thiswitnesscameonduty,i.e.at9:00a.m.SajalJain(A4)hadarrived whowasatthattimeinroomNo.205andthenafterwasshiftedtoroom No.106.Onthemorningof01/01/2004whenthewitnesscameonhis duty,whichaccordingtothewitnessusuallybeginsat7:00a.m.,theA1 hascheckedout.

Thiswitnessisnotahostilewitnessandhashelpedtheprosecution versiontotheextentthatA4wasinthehotelattheinterveningnight, arrivedbefore9:00a.m.of31/12/2003andcheckedoutbefore7:00a.m. of01/01/2004andhadstayedatroomNo.106thevenueoftheoffence.

38.

ORALEVIDENCEOFWITNESSESOFGROUPH:

346

PanchWitnesses:

(i)

PW9 is the panch witness of panchnama EXH.162 about the

physicalstateofA2andA3,thiswitnessidentifiedtheA2andA3. Thepanchnamaseemstohavebeendrawnon04/01/04at9:30p.m.The panch is supporting the prosecution case, no reason to doubt the panchnama.

(ii)

PW12isthepanchwitnessofpanchnamaEXH.298andEXH.299.

EXH.298isthepanchnamawherein,thedeceasedvictimherself had shown the venue of the offence, though, the PW12 has turned hostile, the deceased victim's oral version in the nature of dying declarationhasbeenstatedbythePW48,inviewofwhichpanchnama EXH.298isestablishingthatthevenueoftheoffenceisroomNo.106of theAshokPalaceHotel,thedeceasedvictimhasalsoshownthedouble bedwherein,theoffencehasbeenstatedtohavebeencommitted.

Thispanchnamahasbeendrawninbetween11:00a.m.to11:30of 01/01/04anditbeingimmediatelyandfirstinpointoftime,needstobe givenprimeimportance.Theoverallimpactisthatthepanchnamais believableandisprovidingonemoresupporttotheprosecutioncase.

(iii)

EXH.299:

347

PW9isagainapanchofthispanchnamaalso.Thispanchnamhas beendrawnatabout12:55of01/01/2004andthatthispanchnamaalso inspiresconfidenceasitisinresponsetothecomplaintontheverysame day.Inthispanchnamathereisamentionofthedeceasedvictimtohave visitedthevenue(referenceEXH.298).Ithasbeenmentionedthatearlier the venue has been shown by the complainant. With reference to the previouspanchnamaEXH.298whateverwastakenfromroomNo.106 shouldonlybetakenintoconsideration.Asmentionedinthepanchnama certainarticleshavebeenseizedwhiledrawingthispanchnamawhich shallbediscussedlateron.HereitneedstobenotedthatroomNo.205is admittedly not the venue of the offence, hence, whatever is collected fromroomNo.205cannotbetermedtobematerialtobejoinedwiththe offenceasrightlysubmittedbylearnedadvocateMr.Panchal,noneelse but,thedeceasedvictimhasherselfclarifiedthatthevenueoftheoffence isroomNo.106.

InthispanchnamaEXH.299,MarutiZenoftheA1hasalsobeen inspectedbut,hereagainthedeceasedvictimdidnotspecifythatrape was committed on her in the Maruti Zen car. Hence, this is also not material.InnutshellwhateverisseizedfromroomNo.106istheonly materialthingwhichcanrightlyhelpinjudicialscrutiny.

(vi)

EXH.307isthesiteinspectionreportgivenbyScientificOfficer,

F.S.L.andseemstohavebeenpreparedwhilethevisitofthescientific officeratthesitefrom12:00noonto1:30p.m.Thesiteinspectionreport seemstobeforthreeplaces:roomNo.205,MarutiZenandroomNo.106

348

but, as discussed above, we are only concerned with room No.106 wherefrom,twowhitebedsheets,twopillowcovers,twointernalcovers ofthedunloppillows,twobigwhitetowels,threecigarettebudsinthe ashtray,onecandychip,onepurse,onehairbrush,bighair,smallhair fromthewashbasin,twoshavingrazors,onesoapdish,asoapwherein hairwasfoundstuck,themetalghughri,etc.wereseized.

(v)

VideEXH.316F.S.L.despatchnotehasbeensentwherein,about

51 different articles seems to have been sent to the F.S.L. for examination.VideEXH.326,theF.S.L.reportforthe51itemshasbeen sent. (vi) PW33isahostilepanchwitnessofthepanchnamaEXH.237by which the medical case papers of the deceased victim have been recoveredfromtheCivilHospital.Thisrecoveryhasbeenestablishedby PW40.Notonlythatbut,theseizedarticlesi.e.themedicalcasepapers ofthedeceasedvictimhavealsobeenprovedandbroughtonrecordand thesameareexhibitedvideEXH.80,268etc.(muddamaalarticleNos.73 to79).

(vii) PW5 is the panch witness of EXH.106 panchnama. This panchnamaseemstohavebeendrawnon16/01/2004byPW49atwhich pointoftimefromtheMarutiZenCarayellowkerchiefhasbeentaken out,fromthecarwhichwasnotrecoveredon01/01/2004.

349

In the humble opinion of this Court, the first and foremost panchnama was drawn on 01/01/2004 by the PW48 which being spontaneousiscreditworthy.Thenafter,PW49cameastheinvestigating officer who has explained in his deposition that since the previous panchnama was done by the P.S.I. He thought it necessary to do the minuteinvestigation.InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthispanchnama should not be considered in the larger interest of justice and as the panchnama drawn on 01/01/2004 which was first in point of time is alreadyonrecordandthat,thereisnosatisfactoryreasoncomingforthto justify the second panchnama, this Court opines it is too unsafe to considersecondpanchnamaafteraboutsixteendaysoftheoffence.

PW8isthepanchwitnessofEXH.120panhcnamabywhichthe clothes and mobile of the A1 have been seized. This witness has admittedduringthecourseofcrossexaminationthatnostainswereseen bythiswitness.Thispanchnamaiscrediblepieceofdocumentandthat by the substantial evidence of PW8, the contents of the panchnama exceptabsenceofstainsontheclotheshasbeenproved.

Itisimportanttonotethatvidethispanchnama,freshinjurieson A1 have been noted. The injuries below his eye, nail mark above eyebrowandinjurybelowthelefteararesuchinjurieswhichabsolutely gowiththecomplaintEXH.283.

ThepanchnamasrelatedtoA5andA11havebeendiscussedat Part IV of the judgment but, it is by applying a yardstick that

350

spontaneityattachescredencetopanchnamaasbetweenthepanchnama dated01/01/2004and16/01/2004theformerbeconsideredintheinterest ofjustice.

39.
(a)

VERSIONS OFTHEDECEASEDVICTIM DURING 01/01/2004TO07/01/2004: The deceased victim has given oral account of the whole

occurrencetothePW3whichbeginsfromSolaPoliceStationandended whilenearShahibaughPoliceStation,thus,onthewayoralaccountof thewholeoccurrencewasgivenbythedeceasedvictimherself,what,the PW3 had learnt about the occurrence was directly heard from the deceasedvictimherselfandthatshehasreproducedthesameonoath beforethisCourt.

(b)

Before, PW43, EXH.283thecomplaintdiscussedatlengthand

reflectedatEXH.284waslodgedbythedeceasedvictim.Theversionby thedeceasedvictimrecordedbythewriterofPW43hasbeenprovedby thePW43tobetheversiongivenbythedeceasedvictimsomewhereat about7:45a.mof01/01/2004.

(c)

ThedeceasedvictimthenwastakenatAshokPalacehotelwherea

panchnamawasdrawnbeforethePW48Mr.Sharma,thiswaspriorto going to Civil Hospital somewhere between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. of 01/01/2004whenthedeceasedvictimhadidentifiedthevenueofoffence

351

to be room No.106 where the oral version was again given by the deceasedvictiminpresenceofthePW48Mr.Sharmaandpanchasnoted inthepanchnamaaswell.Thisofficialactneednotbedoubted.

(d)

Atabout12:15p.m.of01/01/2004thedeceasedvictimwastaken

toA11,whereshehasgivenoralaccountofthewholeoccurrencein formofhistorywhichwasreducedintowritingbyA11andisonrecord asformallyprovedbyPW40.Themedicalcasepaperscontainingsuch historyatExh.80,Exh.268areonrecord.

(e)

OralversionbeforeDr.ParulBhargavatCivilHospitalreferredin

thecasepaperitselfwhichissimilartowhathasbeenstatedtoA11.(On 01/01/2004and02/01/2004).

(f)

On02/01/2004,atabout17:00to17:30p.m.,oralversionbefore

PW39Dr.Krupabenwasalsogivenbythedeceasedvictim.Onthesame daythedeceasedvictimwasdischargedfromCivilHospitalonlybefore1 1hrs.of02/01/004.HerimmediatevisittoGynaecPW39isa strongcircumstanceprovinghersayofhavingtremendousburningand paininherprivatepart.

AshasbeenstatedbythePW3priortogoingtoPW39theyalso wenttoanotherdoctorwhoseclinicisadjoiningtotheclinicofPW39 but,thesaiddoctordidnotacceptthecaseofdeceasedvictimasitbeing arapecase.ThesubstantialoralevidenceofthePW39abouthaving

352

personally seen injuries onthepersonof thedeceasedvictim andthe mental trauma of the deceased victim are found to be most reliable pictureofthepositionofthedeceasedvictim.

(g)

ThePW25andPW3havestatedthatthedeceasedvictimwasnot

speaking, not eating, remaining mood less, frustrated, depressed, withdrawnwhichallsymptomshavebeenstatedbythePW39inheroral evidencewhichistallyingwiththesewitnesseswhogaveaccountoftheir observationaboutthedeceasedvictimonoathbeforethisCourt.

(h)

Thoughnotformallycameonrecordbut,ashasbeenstatedby

PW3andPW25respectivelysisterandbrotherofdeceasedvictimwho had personal knowledge that the deceased victim had also shared her agonywithsomeofthesocialworkersofwomenN.G.O.(welltheyhave notbeenexaminednortheirstatementshavebeenrecordedbut,thisis emergingfromtheoralevidenceofPW3andPW25whichhasbeen noted).Thedeceasedvictimwasmoodless,withdrawn,depressedand frustratedwhichcanlinkwiththegangrapebythefiveaccusedapplying theprincipleofnaturalconsequences.

(i)

On06/01/2004,thePW3gaveanapplicationExh.454onrecord

whichinviewofdepositionofPW3(page133)wasgivenwhichalso was on the version of the deceased victim wherein also all the five accusedhavebeenimplicated.

353

(j)

Lastly, the deceased victim spoke through her suicide note on

recordvideEXH.571.BeingauthordirectlyandnotlikecomplaintExh. 283 being recorded by the police official, the deceased victim has categorically heldeachofthefiveaccusedguiltyofrapingher.(Itis differentthatfromthissuicidenotemensreaofthefiveaccusedtoabet her to comit suicide does not emerge from the conduct of the five accused.)

All the above versions, reflection of the deceased victim and observationofherstatus,areexclusivelydirectlyheardandseenfromthe deceased victim by different prosecution witnesses. Each version is consistent with each other and that throughout from 5:00 a.m. of 01/01/2004beforePW2tothelastsuicidenoteEXH.571thedeceased victimhasgivenconsistentversionabouttheplace,date,involvementof the five accused in occurrence, mode of committing rape by the five accused,mannerinwhichdeceasedvictimwascompelledtoconsume liquor,beatingandbitingbythefiveaccusedandthatallthesaidvery stronglyaresupportingeachotherandiscreatingacompletechainwhich is an unbreakable chain around the five accused who are being tried beforethisCourtwhichshowsthefulltruthfulnessintheversionofthe deceasedvictim.

(k)

VideExh.94thestatementofP.W.3beforeNationalCommission

forWomandated17/01/2004thementalandphysicalpositionandthe injuries sustained by her on mental, bodily and social front came on recordwhichisalsooneofthereflectionofdeceasedvictim.

354

(l)

The unshaken and unassailable P.W. mainly official witnesses,

doctors, and relative have proved with convincing and credible substantial evidence that the dying declarations of the deceased is truthful,dependable,voluntary,nottutoredorpromptedandconsistent upon which implicit and sole reliance can be put and it is absolutely incompatibletotheinnocenceofthefiveaccused.

40.

STRONGCIRCUMSTANCEANDEVIDENCE: Followingaretheinstanceswhichbeingstrongcircumstancego

againsttherespectiveaccused.

(I)

AccusedNo.1:

(a)

EXH.120isthepanchnamaofthestateofthepersonoftheA1.

TheA1hasbeenarrestedonthesamedatewhenthecomplainthasbeen filed.IthasbeennoticedthattheA1hadfreshinjuriesbelowhisleft eye,nailbitenearthenose,freshbleeding,belowthelefteyebrown, freshinjuryandtheinjurybehindtheleftear.

(b)

ThereisnosubstanceinthesuggestionthatthenameoftheA1

hasnotbeenmentionedintheEXH.283inviewofEXH.284.

(c)

TheoralevidenceofPW3,PW10andPW20isonthesameline

355

thattheA1wastryingtorunawaybut,couldnotrunawaysincehewas holdbythePW10andPW20.

(d)

ThereportoftheF.S.L.suggestthoroughinvolvementoftheA1

ashissemenhasbeenfoundontheskirtofthedeceasedvictimandon thebedsheetofroomNo.106.

(e)

In view of thehistorygivenbyA4beforethedoctor,A1has

broughtRoyalChallengeandhasconsumeditwiththeDeceasedVictim.

(f)

TheA1cametopickupthedeceasedvictimfromtheunderbridge

atabout10.30p.m.

(g)

TheA1cametodropthedeceasedvictiminspiteofthefactthat

thephysicalpositionofthedeceasedvictimknowntotheA1.

(h)

Suicide note EXH.571 is clear to the effect that A1 has been

involved in the commission of the offence of gang rape and other offencesasalleged. (i) EXH.262 the medicalcertificateandEXH.264themedicalcase

paperandthehistorygivenbythedeceasedvictimclearlysuggestthe presenceandparticipationofA1. (j)

In the yadi attached at page 8 of EXH.264 the description and

356

requirementofexaminationoftheA1issuggestiveabouttheperception ofpoliceonthatverydayabouttheinvolvementofA1 (k)

The A1 was arrested, his remand was taken, sent for medical

examination. (l)

ThefactofhavinggonetoB.R.Farmandhavingreturnedtoroom

No.106comesoutfromtheA1beforethedoctorapartfromitbeing revealedfromothersources. (m)

At4:30a.m.whentheA1metthePW3hehastriedtomisguide

thePW3,PW10etc.Whichshowshisguiltyconsciousasstatedbythe threeprosecutionwitnessesbut,theA1speakslieintheCourtwhenhe says in the further statement that he went to the Shahibaugh Police Stationat5:00a.m.fromhishome.Even,PW43andPW48sawhimat thepolicestation. (n) In EXH.264 in page 2 form C is attached wherein, alcohol examination in the blood of the A1 has been certified. It seems that .0510% weight in volume of ethyl alcohol has been certified. This presenceissuggestiveoftheA1havingparticipatedasalleged.

II.

A2andA3:

(a)

A2andA3areapartfrombeingcoaccusedintheoffencearethe

357

realbrotherswithquitelessagedifferenceandarerespectivelysonand brotherinlawoftheA7andA8.

(b)

EXH.406isthedocumentwhichontherequestofthedefensewas

broughtonrecordfromtherecordofthelearnedMetropolitanMagistrate.

Onpage2ithasbeenspecificallycontendedwhileopposingthe remand application by the A7 and A8 that the A2 and A3 at the alleged time of incidentin questionwere incompanyof theirseveral friendsatB.R.FarmwhereonaccountofNewYearadancepartywas arrangedpausinghereforamoment,theseobjectionstoopposethe remandsofA7andA8havebeengivenintheCourton24/01/2004i.e. After about 23 days of the occurrence, the application has been duly signed by the lawyer for the A7 and A8 and from the body of the applicationitself,itseemstohavebeendraftedbyalawyermentioning all thefacts in great details. Here,thefatherof theA2andA3has simply contended that his both sons were at B.R. Farms. After the defencehasbeendeveloped,thecaseoftheA3camethathewasatB.R. Farm,throughoutthetime,butA2saidhecameforfewminutes,the casethatA3hasgivenpartyatB.R.Farm,ismissing.

Here to be specific now the case of A2 is that he was at Gandhinagardiscotheckwhereas,A3hasputupaspecificcasethatthe dance party to celebrate New Year for the friends of A3 had been arrangedbytheA3himselfatB.R.Farm.Now,thisvitalversionis

358

totallylackinginthisapplicationtoopposetheremand.Hadtheparty beenreallyarrangedbyA3,thefatherofA3,after20daysofthearrest ofhissonmustbeknowingitverywellthatitwasarrangedbytheA3 and that the A2 was not present but, he was at the disco theck at Gandhinagarwithsomeofhisotherfriends.Now,ifthecontentioninthis applicationisseen,itisnotinthetuneofthedefenceraisedbeforethis Courtandthereisnotaniotaofthefactthatanypartywasarrangedby A3.Whysuchseriousdiscrepancies?

(c)

EXH.408 is the copyofspecial criminal ApplicationNo.182/04

alongwiththeannexures.Intheinternalpageaftertheindexattachedto theapplicationatpage43therecomesarepresentationhavingbeenmade byA2.Letusseeastowhatiswrittenintherepresentation.Thesaid representationisdated09/02/2004whichisafterabout38to39daysof theoccurrence,andthatthisrepresentationhasbeenmadetoHon'blethe Chief Justice and Hon'ble the President of National Human Rights Commission.InthisrepresentationtheA2hasstatedthatheknewthe deceased victim from July, 2003 and that on the Valentine day i.e. 14/02/2003, the deceased victim called him on the telephone, had a telephoneconversation,inAugust,2003,theA2hasseenthedeceased victimforthefirsttimeinAugust2003[Page46]whenA4wasin Ahmedabad,hewascalledatmidnightbytheA4inresponsetowhich hewenttoSubhashBridge,hesawthedeceasedvictimandthePW3 smokingandindrunkposition,on11/09/2003,hereceivedatelephonic birthdaywishfromthedeceasedvictim,S.M.S.frommobilehadbythen

359

started, on 26/11/2003 it was Nav Ratri, A2 had been out with the deceasedvictim,A2sawhersmokingandalongwith23boysthey hadbeentoKarnavatiClubtogether,returnedtogether,on27/09/2003 againA2receivedaphonecall,then,hehaspickedupthedeceased victim fromFortuneLandmarkHotelandwenttoKarnavatiClub,on whichdaytheA2anddeceasedvictimwereincompanyof12to15 friendsoftheA2,on28/09/2003also,theA2receivedherphonecall andthereafterduringtheDipawalidaysalsohereceivedaphonecall fromthedeceasedvictimtowishhimhappyDiwali,whileallthetime the sms were regularly being sent, on 05/12/2003 also they had a telephonictalk,theA2hasgivendetailedtimetableabouthisactivityon theinterveningnighttosubmitthathewasnotpresentattheplaceofthe offence,rightfrom10:30p.m.Of31/12/2003A2ontherequestofhis friendAnkit,wenttopickupgirlfriendnamedKim,asthetimetable suggests,theywerecontinuouslytogetherupto3:10a.m.

Havingperusedtherepresentationtwopointsstruckinanyone's mindandithasalsostruckinthemindofthisCourt.Firstlythatatthe timeof11:15p.m.Of31/12/2003thereisamentionofB.R.Farms.It hasbeenwrittenbytheA2thattheA2alongwithallhisfriendswentto hotel Taj where he saw his brotherinlaw and sister at Taj and till midnighteffortsweremadetogetthepasses,but,ashasbeenmentioned by the A2 they were not successful in procuring the passes and accordingly,itwasdecidedtoreachtheB.R.Farms herethereisno mentionthatwhereisB.R.FarmandwhohaskeptthepartyattheB.R. Farm,hadthepartybeenarrangedbytheA3himselfthen,thequestion

360

ofsearchingpassesattheTajbytheA2,hisbrotherinlaw,sisteretc. wouldbeoutofplaceandthatitwouldhavebeenmentionedthatthey wenttoB.R.FarmssinceA3hasarrangedthepartyforcelebrationof NewYear.Itneedstobenotedthatthisistherepresentationdraftedby thelearnedadvocatefortheA2andthatithasbeendraftedashasbeen endorsed in the last portion as per the instruction given by A2. One wouldfailtounderstandthatthoughaccordingtothedefensetheNew Year celebration was kept by A3, but there is no mention in this representationmadeafter38to39days.Why?

Thiscourtisoftheopinionthatuptoatleast39daysthedefenceof havingarrangedthepartycelebrationforNewYearbyA3must not havebeensetup,hencethereisnomentionasitisnottruth.

(d)

Throughouttherepresentation,thereismentionofonegirlKim

whohasremainedinthecompanyofA2alongwithotherfriends,but thedefencehadnotexaminedthisgirlKimastheirwitness.Thereis nothingonrecordtoshowthatunderwhatcircumstances,thegirlKim wasnotexaminedbythedefence.

(e)

Accordingtodefence,Atabout12:30A.M.,theA2wenttoB.R.

Farmashasbeenstatedintherepresentationandwithinonly10minutes A2haslefttheB.R.Farmasismentionedintherepresentationitself.

TheconductoftheA2toleavetheplaceonlywithin10minutes

361

isclearlysuggestivethattherewasnothinglikepartyintheB.R.Farms andherealso,againstthetimeof12:30a.m.thereisnomentionaboutthe partyatB.R.Farm,organizedbyA3.Thesemissingwordsarerevealing thetruthveryclearlywhichtallieswiththeversionofthedeceasedvictim thatunderthefalsepretextofthedanceparty,thedeceasedvictimwas temptedtocome.

(f)

Against the time of 12:40 A.M., A2 has mentioned that he

reachedatCityPulseandheinquiredaboutthepasses,triedtousehis goodofficeswiththemanagerofCityPulseandultimately,startedthe returnjourneyashasbeenstatedintherepresentation.

(g)

Onseeingthecontentswrittenagainsttime12:40a.m.itseemsthat

the passes at the other places were searched by the A2 which is suggestivethattherewasabsolutelynorayofhopeofstartofanyparty attheB.R.Farm,hadthepartybeenattheB.R.Farmandthattoohadit beenarrangedbytheA3thentheA2wouldnotgooutinthesearchof passesinthewayhehasgone.Thisconductisatellingcircumstance.Itis clearly suggesting that there was no party at the B.R. Farm at the interveningnightandinanycase,nothingwasorganizedbytheA3at all.

(h)

Thiswrittenrepresentationdoesnottallywiththedefenceputup

bytheA2duringthecrossexaminationandduringthefurtherstatement. FromthisrepresentationwhatclearlyemergedisthatA3andA2have

362

takenafalsedefenceandthattooafalsedefenceofA3havingarranged apartyandA3wasbusyinthatandA2wasmovingwithsomeofhis otherfriends.

Moreover,eveniftherepresentationisbelievedasitisthen,A2 has started from 8:30 p.m. of 31/12/2003 and moved upto 3:10 a.m.[01/01/2004] but, the area is within Ahmedabad and within the peripheryofAhmedabadcityfromwhereAshokPalacehotelwasnotso far. LookingtothedistanceoftheAshokPalaceHotelwithdifferent places(ascomesupinthedepositionofMR.GADHAVI)theA2has submittedtohavevisiteditseemsthatA2cananytimecome tothe Ashok Palace hotel and that these all proves that A2 was present at Ashok Palace hotel as has been alleged by the deceased victim in EXH.283.

(i)

InthememoofpetitionofSpecialCriminalApplicationno.182/04,

internal page 4, it becomes clear that both the petitioners before the Hon'bleHighCourtofGujarat,A2andA3herein,havespecifically statedthatontheinterveningnightof31/12/2003and01/01/2004both thepetitionerswereincompanyoftheirfriendsduringthesaidperiodat differentplacesandtherefore,thisisafalseimplication.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtatthisjunctureinthepetition beforetheHon'bleHighCourtofGujaratithasnotbeencontendedthat attheinterveningnightA3hasorganizedapartyandthatA2waswith

363

whichfriendandA3waswithwhichfriendasitmaybebut,thefact herealsoremainsthatitisnotthecaseoftheA2andA3aspetitioners beforeHonourabletheHighCourtthattheyweresomuchfarawayfrom theCityofAhmedabadthatitwaspracticallyimpossibleorapplyingthe principle of human probability it was impossible for them to remain presentatthevenueoftheoffence.Hence,thedefencefailsontheaspect ofprobability.

(j)

Oneisalsofailedtounderstandthatwhenthispetitionispreferred

on 17/02/2004, why, the time table which was written in the representationon09/02/2004hasnotatallbeenwrittenasitisamatter ofcommonsensethatonewhohasreadymadetimetableon09/02/2004 itselfwouldcertainlybeinclinedtocontendthesamefactsnarratedinthe timetable before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat wherein, legal proceedingshavebeenfiledbythepetitioners.

(k)

Further, the representation have not been proved to have been

receivedbytheofficeoftheinvestigatingagency.Thereisalsonothing onrecordbywhichitcanbeprovedthatthisrepresentationwassentto Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Dr. A.S. Anand Hon'ble the President NationalHumanRightsCommission,andthatbeingsoitclearlyseems thattherepresentationissuchadocumentwhichcreatesdoubtasfaras sendingthesaiddocument.

Inthepetition,theaccusedcouldhavewrittenallthistimetable

364

whichhasbeenwrittenon09/02/2004whenthepetitionwaspreferredon 17/02/2004.Whyitisnotwritten.

(l)

Alongwiththepetition,AnnexureBhasbeenattachedwhichis

therepresentationofA3whereinithasbeenstatedthatA3hasstarted knowing the deceased victim from December, 2001 and that he was introduced to the deceased victim by his friend named Omprakash (whosereferencecomesas'OP'duringthedepositionofthePW3),on 16/01/2003,nextdayaftertheUttarayan,A3receivedthephonecallof thedeceasedvictimandthereafterbetween21st Januaryto31st January, 2002phonecallshavebeenreceivedafter31stJanuary,2002theA3was inregularcontactwiththedeceasedvictimatleastonceinaday,they were meeting outside in the city of Ahmedabad, the said relation continueduptoAprilMay,2002,theA3hasdisconnectedrelationship, onaccountoflearningbadthingsaboutthedeceasedvictimfromsome friend,thePW3ranghimupandthen,therelationswererestarted,the relationcontinuedthenuptoSeptember,2002ontelephone,afriendofA 3ShriMukeshBokadiaknewthedeceasedvictimandPW3andcalled himupinthelastweekofDecember,2002forgoinginadancepartyof newyearorganizedatCosmosCastle,A3wenttherewherehesawthe deceasedvictiminatotallydrunkconditionandsmoking,A3remained thereupto1:00a.m.,thenafterintheUttarayanoftheyear,2003,the deceased victim went at the residence of A3, all friends of A3 and deceasedvictimwentontheterraceoftheflats,whenafriendoftheA3 Jituhadaverbalexchangewiththedeceasedvictim,andthenafteralso, therelationcontinued,againinthemonthofOctoberNovember,2003

365

S.M.S.fromthedeceasedvictimwerereceived.

DetailsregardingpresenceelsewhereoftheA3ontheintervening nighthasbeendescribedinthepresentation.Lookingatthetimetableit seemsthatashascomeuponrecordtheB.R.FarmisnearBhatvillage andissituatedquiteclosetothevenueoftheoffence(about6Kms.)the A3hasgivenhistimetablefromabout8:15tohavegonetopickupthe DJRuzan(hasnotbeenexaminednoranyaffidavitofhimisonrecord), theA3hastoldtohavekeptapartyatB.R.Farm(Thereisnothingon recordthatthepartywaskeptatB.R.Farm,therecouldhavebeenthe affidavitoftheowneroftheB.R.Farm,orhecouldhavebeenexamined aswitness,therewouldhavebeenreceiptforanypaymentbeingmadeto B.R.Farmtowardstherentetc.,therecouldhavebeenbillsforanyitems ofsnacks,etc.keptintheparty,therecouldhavebeenthebillofthe Caterers,ortherecouldhavebeenmanymorethingsfromwhichonecan easilyconcludethatthepartywasarrangedbyA3but,thereisnothing onrecord(becauseitiscamouflage),thepossibilityandprobabilityofA 3havingvisitedthevenueoftheoffencecannotberuledout,A3having arrangedthepartycanreallynotbebelieved,but,evenifitbetakenasit is,thenalso,thereisnothingonrecordtobelievethattherewasaparty, eveninthepartytheA3mighthavekeptsomearrangementforthecold drinkorwaterforwhichhemighthavereceivedbillorforwhichitcould have been purchased from somewhere and for those things and those receipts could have been placed on record, but nothing is placed on record. IntheopinionofthisCourt,onlyonemeaningtoattachtothis inactionthattherewasnopartyatall.Inthetimetable,03:10a.m.isthe

366

timeshownwhenthemusicpartywasoverthismeansthataccordingto thedefence,thepartywasamusicparty,inthatcase,theOrchestramust havecome,anymemberoftheorchestracouldhavebeenexaminedifas hasbeensaidthatDJRuzenwasnotavailablebut,someoftheartistfrom the orchestra could have been present there who might have been examined,but,nothinghasbeendone,onlyfriendshavebeenexamined whoareboundtospellanddoasdirectedbyA2andA3,hadtherebeen reallyapartyarrangedbytheA3,theA2couldhaveenjoyedtherewho accordingtohimcametoB.R.Farmatabout12:30,thereasonforA2 notstayingbackatB.R.Farmitselfcannotbeanythingelseexceptthat therewasnothinglikeaparty,thenamesofthesoundmenhavebeen written in the timetable but, then, those soundmen have never been examinedatall,againstthetimeof03:10a.m.ithasbeenexplainedby theA3thatafterabout35minutesfrom3:10a.m.i.e.Afterabout3:45 a.m.hereachedatthehotel(thismeansthatmaximumwithin35minutes anytimetheA2wasabletocometothehotelwhichhemusthavecome from12.40A.M.to3.30A.M.of01/01/2004)andmetA4overthere,it issaidthatatthatpointoftime,theA3learntfromA4thatA1had gonetodropthedeceasedvictimbut,hasnotyetreachedandPW3is keepingoncallingtolocatethewhereaboutsofthedeceasedvictim.

(m)

NowiftheprintoutofA4andPW3areseen,itbecomesclearthat

firstsuchtelephonehasstartedafterabout3:50a.m.andthisitselfmakes itclearthattheA1hasnotleftthehotelattheearlyhours,thecallingto thePW3 andinformation givenbytheA4hasallstartedafter 3:57 A.M.orso,consideringthisitseemsthattheA3wasverymuchinknow

367

ofthefactthatthedeceasedvictimhasnotreachedtothePW3andthe PW3ismakinginquiry(Stillhowever,uptomidnightof04/01/2004the A3wasnotavailable,thisconductoftheA3makesthethingsclearthat theversionputforthbytheA3isnotgenuine).

(n)

Thiswrittenrepresentationdoesnotseemtobegenuineasawhole.

OnthemiddlepageNo.3,4,5and6,thestamp,muchemphasizedbythe learnedadvocatefortheaccusedNos.2and3,ofPW49isnotseen,itis onlyonthelastpage,inthesameway,thesignatureoftheU.T.Jailoras beforemeisalsoonlyonthelastpage,andthattherepresentationeven if might have been sent the same might not have been sent with the contents which have been produced along with the Spl. Criminal Application.ThisCourthumblybelievesthatthestandtakenbyA3on 09/02/2004seemstobequiteindetailgivingaccountofminutetominute andifthesamepersonisgivinganapplicationbeforetheHighCourtjust after8days,hewouldhavethetendencytowriteitinfurtherdetailand nottoputashortcutcontentionthatintheinterveningnightheandhis brotherwereoutwiththeirfriend.

(o)

TheA3hasnotwrittenanythingabouttheactivityofA2,ifon

09/02/2004hegenuinelyknewabouttheactivityofA2onthenight,he couldhavewrittenso.

(p)

In the timetable of the A3, there is no mention of A2 having

visitedtheplacealongwithhisfriends,thisismakingeverythingclear

368

thatthisisaconcoctedrepresentationandnotworthytobebelievedand itismerelyanafterthought.

(q)

Atthisjuncture,itisalsonotablethatevendeceasedvictimandA

4lefttheB.R.Farmandthatithascomeuponrecordthatthedeceased victimhastoldtoPW3thattherewasnothinglikeaparty,thisstatement tallies with the conduct of A2 to have left the place only within 10 minutes.Itthesetwoareseentogether,itbecomesamplyclearthatthere was nothing like a party on the intervening night at B.R. Farm. OtherwisetheA4,A2,hisfriends,DeceasedVictim,allwouldnothave lefttheB.R.Farmasonewholikespartycannotleavesosoon.

(r)

Intherepresentation,ithasbeenmentionedthat(internalpage40

andinternaltypedpage9oftherepresentation)ithasbeencontendedthat awritofhabeascorpuswasfiledon02/02/2004fortheillegaldetention ofA7,A8,A9,etc.Thementionofthetelegramdated02/02/2004has alsobeenmadewhichisplacedatEXH.408.

In the compilation, EXH.351 on internal page 58 the memo of habeascorpuspetitionNo.66/04isplacedonrecordwhichseemstohave beenfiledbythedaughterofA7Ushaben(realsisterofA2andA3) the wife of Shri Vinay Jaiswal. On the internal page 3 it has been mentionedbysaidUshabenJaiswalthatontheinterveningnightA2and A3wereatB.R.Farmsincompanyoftheirseveralfriends.Now,this particular contention is absolutely not tallying with the written

369

representationofA2andA3,thisisthestandon02/02/2004andthe representation is dated 09/02/2004. The discrepancy between the contention in writ petition dated 23/02/2004 and the written representationdated09/02/2004canonlybepossibleiftherepresentation isanafterthoughtandeventhespecialcriminalapplicationNo.182/04 whenthecontentionraisedintherepresentationdated09/02/2004have not been taken on 17/02/2004 it again shows that in the written representation on 09/02/2004 these factswhichare shown onthetwo internalpageswerenotatallsenttoanyone,werenotwrittenonthe respective date and even those pages are also afterthought. Even on 23/02/2004eventhesisterofA2andA3onlystatethattheywereinthe company of their friends at B.R. Farm (but the A2 says he was at Gandhinagardiscotheque)andevenon23/02/2004,intheSpl.Criminal Application No.66/04, the sister of A2 and A3 does not take the contentionwhichistakenbythematlengthintheirrepresentationbefore theauthorities.ThiswouldonlyreflectthatA3hasnotkeptanyparty andA2wasnotatGandhinagarorCityPulsewithhisfriendsbecause hisownsisterUshaJaiswalistellingthattheA2wasatB.R.Farmwith hisfriends,andthefactthatthepartywasarrangedbyA3isalsonot mentionedinEXH.351.

In nutshell the written representation if read with the memo of petitionofNo.182/04andifreadwiththememoofpetitionofhabeas corpusfiledon02/02/2004andevenonlookingatpage67wherein,the certified copy of the telegram sent to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been placed, it seems that there is nothing on record

370

except the word alibi as the defence of the A2 and A3 there is absolutelynomentionwhatsoeveraboutthedetailsofthepresenceofA 2andA3atsomespecificplaceconsideringallthethreecollectively,it becomes amply clear that, the documents are created to prove the possibilityofabsenceoftheA2andA3atthevenueoftheoffence, whichisnothingbutanafterthought.

The fact by both the brothers mentioned in the representation conveys that their perception was thedeceased victim is interested in themwhichtoomusthaveleadthemtocommitrapeonher.

(s)

InEXH.262,themedicalcasepaperofA1,theA1hasstatedthe

nameofA2asManduinhishistorybeforethedoctor.Thisfactalso standssupportedbyPW38thedoctorinhisdeposition.

(t)

EXH.242isthemedicalcasepaperofA2.Uponperusalofpage3

it becomes clear that A2 has stated before the doctor that he gets ejaculationduringdayandnightspontaneouslyandafterwatchingfilms andprovokingscenes.Ifthesesymptomsareseenwiththefactthatthe A2isanunmarriedyoungboyandwiththefactthatashehasmentioned intherepresentation,hetoohadpersonalrelationshipandfriendshipwith thedeceasedvictimandaccordingtohimitisthedeceasedvictimwho initiatedthetelephonerelationandhastemptedtheA2totakeherto differentplacesandthatthiswitnesshasalsoseen,(accordingtohimthe deceasedvictimtobeafreepersonwhoisdrinkingandsmokingand

371

having boy friends) than it can safely be inferred that the complaint Exh.283oftheDeceasedVictimisfulloftruth.

(u)

Ifallthesethingsareputtogetherititselfcreatesaverystrong

circumstance to hold that the A2 must have committed rape on the deceased victim who according to the deceased victim was in room No.106ontheinterveningnightwheretheA2came,andthattooA2 cameafterA4,hascompelledthedeceasedvictimtoconsumeliquorand itisaftertheA4hasmadehernaked.Consideringtheusualconductof anunmarriedboyplacedinthecircumstancesinwhichtheA2hasbeen placed,the probability ofhehavingrapedthedeceasedvictimonthe interveningnightsustainedringoftruth..

(v)

The A2 and A3 werearrestedonmidnight of 04/01/2004and

untilthen,theinvestigatingagencyashascomeuponrecordwasnot abletocatchholdofA2andA3.ThisactofA2andA3ofremaining abscondingformorethan72hours,itselfisacircumstancewhichitselfis linkingtheA2andA3withthecrime.

(w)

InthesuicidenoteEXH.571,thedeceasedvictimhasspecifically

andclearlyimplicatedallthefiveaccusedincludingtheA2andA3in the offence of gang rape against her desire and without her consent, whichistotallyconsistentwithEXH.283complaint.

(x)

MuchemphasizewaslaidonthefactthatthePW3hasadmitted

372

during her cross examination that the deceased victim has given an applicationon03/01/2004excludingtheA2andA3fromthecrime.As discussedthelogicalpossibilityofthedeceasedvictimhavinggivensuch application is absolutely nil as it does not tally with the subsequent reaction of the deceased victim. Further the answers without proper perceptionofortheanswersbasingonone'simpressionandopinionand theanswerswhicharenothingbutasuccessofthetraparrangedforthe witnesscannothaveanyroleinthecriminaltrial.Unearthingthetruthis averypiousobligationoftheCourtandwhileappreciatingtheevidence of a witness, the mental background of the witness, the surrounding circumstances,thestressandnervousnesswhichcouldbenaturaltoany witnessshallhavetobeconsidered,andoralevidenceasawholehasto beseenanditcannotbeseeninapiecemealmannerashasbeendesired.

(y)

Ascanbeseenfromtherecord,moreparticularly,therecordand

registerofAshokPalacehotelandtheoralevidenceoftheemployeesof AshokPalacehotelitbecomesclearthattheroomsforA4andA12 were booked as M.D. Guests. As can be seen from the written representation of A2 and A3, it appears that they are quite closely associatedwiththeA4.Thatbeingthesituationandwhilenotingthefact thattheA4andA12havecomeallthewayforthecelebrationofnew yearitisjustnotpossiblethatA2andA3wouldgowithsomeother friendsleavingtheimportantpersonalandbusinessguestlikeA4andA 12allalone,asitdoesnotsoundprobable..

(z)

ThehotelwasownedandmanagedbyA2andA3whoareboth

373

brothers. Both of them have friendship with A4 and even with the deceasedvictim,theactofthegangrapeseemstobepreplannedand each step by each of the five accused was towards the direction of fulfillingandrealizingthejointcommonintentioninthemindsofallthe fivewhichwasdesignedbyallthefiveandthatthehotelwasthesafest placeforallofthem,sincethehotelisownedbyA2andA3andallthe personsinthehotelareemployeesinawayservantsoftheA2andA3 andthatwasthebiggestsafetyfortheremainingaccusedaswell.

(aa) Ashasbeenheldallthefiveaccusedhavethemselvesconsumed intoxicatingsubstance,thebeerandtheA4hadtheroletocompelthe deceasedvictimtoconsumebeersoastofacilitatetheoffence,which wasperformedbytheA4ascanbeseenfromExh.283. Ashasbeen opinedbynumerousauthorsindifferentbooksonforensicscience,inthe intoxicated position the desirefor sex kindlesbut, theperformance is alwaysimpaired,thatbeingso,eachoftheaccusedmusthaveravished thebody,thepersonofthedeceasedvictimforquitealongtime,asthe desireforsexmusthavekindledandthedeceasedvictimwasnaked.It becomesclearthatshewasrapedbyallthefiveaccusedincludingA2 andA3.EvenafterthreedayswhentheA2andA3werearrestedthey were found with alcohol in their body. This shows that consuming alcoholwasquitearoutinehabitforthemandtheymustbehabitualor elsewhiletheywerearrestedthealcoholintheirbloodmightnothave been found and this is making it most probable that even on that interveningnight,ashasbeendeclaredbythedeceasedvictim,boththe accused must have consumed the liquor and must have raped the

374

deceasedvictimbycausingsexualviolenceonher.

(bb) Muchemphasizehasbeenlaidontheaspectofprintoutwhichwe shallseeingreatdetailinthenexttopicsoastogivecompletejusticeto thesaidpointofdefence.But,itcannotgooutofmindthattheprintout ismerelyareflectionofthemovementofSIMcard,printoutcanneverbe proofofthemovementofindividualunless,itisprovedthatthesaidwas beingusedbythepersonconcernedwhowantstoclaimbenefitofthe printout.

(cc) The report of F.S.L.does nothelpproving absenceofboth the accusedatthecrucialtimeintheroomofthehotel.

Learned advocate for theA2andA3hasalsoargued ingreat detailcanvassingthepointthatthedeceasedvictimhasnotcommittedthe suicide,thedeathofthedeceasedvictimisahomicidaldeath.Thiscourt believesthatlookingatEXH.70toEXH.74whichareallofficialrecord oftheV.S.Hospital,itseemsthatthereportofthepostmortemisquite genuine,signatureofalltheP.M.Doctorsarethere,thepostmortemhas been done as routine official act, hence, the presumption of it being properlydoneremainswiththecredibilityofthepostmortemandthereis nothingonrecordtorebutthispresumption.Consideringtherecordand consideringthedepositionofPW2thiscourthasnodoubtthatthedeath ofdeceasedvictimwasasuicidaldeath,whichtoohasbeendiscussed.

375

(dd) Moreover, in EXH.408 the special Criminal Appln. No.182/04 filedbyA2andA3spellsontheinternalpageno.34andinternalpage No.32to35whichiswrittenrepresentationofA3,thatdeceasedvictim hascommittedsuicide.Thus,itisclearthatallconcerned,rightfromthe beginning have perceived the death to be suicidal death whichstands satisfactorilyprovedbythedepositionofthePW2andthelengthycross ofthatPW2doesnotshakethecredibilityonrecordwhichcanrebutthe presumptionoftheproprietaryofthereportofP.M..

(ee) Itishardlyneededtoberecordedthatafalsepleaofthedefenseis alsoanadditionalcircumstancewheninthecaseonhandtheprosecution hasunfailinglyprovedtheguiltofallthefiveaccused.

(ff)

PW48 the first investigatingofficer hasveryspecificallystated

thatfrom01/01/2004to04/01/004hesearchedattheresidenceofA2 andA3but,theywerenotavailable,PW47hasstatedthatA2andA3 werearrestedon04/01/2004atabout23:30p.m.,PW47hasalsostated on page 9 that he wrote Yadi for the numbers 9824066729 and for 9824313333respectivelyforthemobilenumbersofA2andA3,from nodocumentaryevidence,theinvestigatingagencywaseverabletocome totheconclusionthatA2andA3werenotpresentwhentheoffence wascommitted.ThequestionNo.27repliedbyPW47onpage9also clarifies the situation. After the reply, on page 159 of PW49 it was obligatoryforthedefencetoprovetheirdefencewithpositiveevidence; PW49 and PW51 (Gadhvi) has been forcefully assailed to have committedallkindsofconcoctionintheprintouts,buttheCourtfailsto

376

understand that what comes in the way of the defence to establish formerlyandlegallyprovedthisconfusionbyleadingpositiveevidence. ThedefencehasfailedtoestablishanycaseeventowhisperthatthePW 3orthedeceasedvictimhavefalselyimplicatedA2andA3though, theywerenotpresentatthesiteoftheoffence.

(gg) The representation of A2 & A3 is clear that they know the deceasedvictimrespectivelyfromJuly2003andDecember2001quite closelythattheA3evenmetherintheNewYearpartyof2002.

(hh) InviewofSec.11oftheIndianEvidenceAct,alibiseemstobe defencewhichhasrelationwithdistancebetweenthesiteoftheoffence andthesitewherepresenceisclaimed.Fromtheillustrationgivenunder Section11,itseemsthatwhileoneispresentatKolkattaandthecrime hasbeencommittedatLahore,then,insuchsituation,thisdefenceseems tobeusefultoimprobabilizetheprosecutionstoryquathepresenceofthe accusedatthevenueofoffence.Thesaiddefencecanbeconsideredto challengetheprobabilityaspectoftheprosecutioncase,but,intheinstant case,boththeaccusedwereadmittedlyinthecityofAhmedabad,andin thesurroundingareawherefromtheycaneasilyreachtothevenueofthe offencemaximumwithin30minuteswhereas,thedeceasedvictimwas inside the room, at least, if only taken the second time entry into considerationthenalso,from1:00a.m.toatleast4.00a.m.andduring thistimeA2andA3musthavevisitedthevenueoftheoffencewhichis mostprobable.Lookingtothewrittenrepresentationitself,theirprevious contact with the deceased victim, their friendship with the deceased

377

victim,theirindividualtiewiththedeceasedvictimallthesearevery notablefeaturesandthatunlesshighdegreeofimprobabilityisshown andthatwhenitlookslikeimpossibleandwhenthetestofinconsistency issatisfiedthen,sec.11canaidtheaccusedtohelpprovingtheirdefence ofalibi.

In the case on hand, looking to the facts and circumstances, whatever has been complained of by the deceased victim is highly probable and that her versions before different persons are quite consistentwhichelementisabsentinthedefenceraisedbyA2andA3, therefore,theconscienceofthisCourtisnotreadytobelievethedefence ofalibitobeagenuineandcorrectdefence.

(ii)

Learned Advocate Mr. Dhruva has invited the attention of this

CourtthatwhilethereportofD.N.A.ClearlyexoneratetheA2andA3 andwhenthisparticularaspectgivesacleanchittoA2andA3,they shouldbegivenbenefitofdoubt.

IntheopinionofthisCourt,itseemsthatthesemenofOgroup,A groupandBgrouphavebeenfoundfromthecuttingoftheskirtofthe deceased victim and from the bedsheets of room No.106, which is suggestingthatdifferentpersonshavingbloodgroupO,AandBhave committedtherapeonthedeceasedvictim.Now,bloodgroupAisthatof A4andbloodgroupBisthatofA1andasfarasA1andA4are concernedtheD.N.A.Reportalsoisclearlyestablishingtheirimplication

378

inthecrime.ThesemenofOgroupcannotbeconclusivelyheldtobe ofA2andA3.ThebloodgroupofA12isnotonrecordandhisblood groupisunknown. ThereportoftheD.N.A.doesnotbecomelinking elementforA2,A3andA12asthepatterndoesnotmatchwiththe D.N.A.onarticles.ThereisevenreportofunidentifiedD.N.A.onthe seizedarticles,butthisisincapabletoexoneratetheA2,A3andA12in thewakeofverystrong,clinchingandcreditworthyevidenceprovingthe guiltofthesaidthreeaccusedonrecord. Atthisjunctureitcannotbe forgottenthatthereisonemoreaccusedA13whosebloodgroupisnot on record since is absconding. Secondly, it is very important that in EXH.283itselfthedeceasedvictimhasclearlystatedthatshebecame unconsciousaftergangrapebythefiveaccusedandafterthatwhathad happened she did not know. The practical, logical and in all human probability,itcannotberuledoutthatapersonhavingbloodgroupO mighthavecomeintheroomNo.106andwhilethedeceasedvictimwas unconsciousthatpersonwhosenamehasnotcomeinthecomplainton accountoftheunconsciousstageofthedeceasedvictimmighthavealso committedtherape. Moreover,inallhumanprobabilitythepossibility cannotberuledoutthattheA2,A3andA12mighthavedonesafesex byuseofcontraceptivesinwhicheventualitytheirbodyfluidmightnot havebeendroppedontheskirtoronthebedsheetandoncethebody fluiddoesnotfallfromthebodyonthearticlewhichweresenttoF.S.L. itisbut,obviousthattheD.N.A.Patternofthesaidaccusedcannotbe found. The possibility of safe sex cannot be ruled out altogether and rather,thekindofbackgroundtheaccusedhave,itisverymuchpossible thattheymighthavecommittedtheoffencebut,becauseofthesafety

379

observedbythem,theD.N.A.reportdidnotcomewhichwouldhave establishedonemorecircumstanceimplicatingthem.Thus,innutshell, thisbecomesacasewhereinallthefiveaccusedhavecommittedgang rapeandotheroffencesasallegedintheDyingDeclaration,A1,A4, onemoremanhavinghisbloodgroupOtoohascommittedrapewiththe deceased victim on that night and that A2, A3 and A12 have also committedrapebut,byadoptingthecaretoseetoitthattheirbodyfluid doesnotcomeoutandthisisverymuchpossibleinallhumanprobability lookingtotheprinciplesofnaturalcourseofeventInthehumbleopinion ofthiscourtandinviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,theD.N.A.Report cannotbetermedtobeconclusive,sufficientandsatisfactorytoexonerate theA2,A3andA12onthisgroundasitisabsolutelyincapableto improbabilisetheprosecutioncasewhentheDyingDeclarationisheldto betruthful. A4andA12:

III.

(a)

A4andA12areunabletoexplaintheirpurposetocomeatthe

cityofAhmedabadon31/12/2003.

(b)

A4hascontinuouslyremainedincontactofdeceasedvictimafter

arriving at Ahmedabad somewhere at 8:45 a.m. of 31/12/2003, his contactcouldonlybewithaviewtoseetoitthatthedeceasedvictim does not go to any other party and by remaining continuously in her contacttosecurethatinanycaseshewouldcomeintheeveningtoseeto itthatthewholeplandoesnotgetfail.

380

(c) A4,undertheguiseofallegedsicknesshasavoidedhisarrest andwasnotavailableforabout15dayswhichconductoftheA4needs tobenoted.

(d)

A4andA12haveleftabruptlythecityofAhmedabadatabout

4:00a.m.andthattheirsuddenleavingthecityisquitedoubtfulanda pointertotheirimplicationinthecrime. (e)

HadtheA4beeninthenormalstateofmindafterhavinglearnt

fromthePW3thathisbelovedpersonhasyetnotreachedhewouldhave rushedtotheplacewherethedeceasedvictimwastobedroppedbut, insteadofthatheleavesthecityaftermaking23telephonetothePW 3.ThisattitudeoftheA4guidestoholdthatA4hadguiltyconscience inthesamewaytheguiltyconscienceofA12isalsoonrecord.

(f)

QuathechargeunderBombayProhibitionAct,theA2toA4and

A12hadtobegrantedbenefitofdoubtonsheertechnicalityasinthe legislature, the accused need to be put in advantageous position and consideringtheproofortestofconsumptionofalcoholprovidedinthe BombayProhibitionActitselfandconsideringthephilosophywhenthe proofisalreadylaidintheStatuteitself,thepresumptionfortheguiltlike prohibitionoffencescannotbedrawnfromtheIndianEvidenceActbut, then,thehardfactremainsthattheA2,A3,A4andA12havebeen factuallyheldtohaveconsumedtheliquoronthatinterveningnightasis complainedofbythedeceasedvictim..

381

(g)

The forceful submission based on the allegation of concocted,

bogusandcreatedprintoutscreatedbytheInvestigatingOfficer,cannot besaidtobeworthytobeconsideredforthereasonthatiftheaccusedare havingbetterevidencesthanwhathasbeencollectedbytheinvestigating agencythen,theaccusedhaveobligationtoleadthatevidencebut,here theaccusedhavenotledevidenceandthatittherefore,cansafelybehold thatthisomissiononthepartoftheaccusedissuggestiveofhavingno evidencetoprovetheirabsenceatthevenueoftheoffenceandhaving nobonafidesonthepartoftheaccused.

(h)

TheA4hasprojectedhisaffairwiththedeceasedvictimaboutone

andhalfyearoldtosubmitthatasfarasA4isconcernedtherewassoft relationship with the deceased victim. As stated in the history before doctortheA4hasstatedthathehadphysicalrelationforlastoneyear andthatduringthecourseofsubmissionitwassosuggestedthatasfaras A4isconcerned,thedeceasedvictimherselfwaspassionatetomeetthe A4andthattherewereongoingexchangeofSMS,mobiletelephonefor verylongtimeandtheA4neednottorapethedeceasedvictimandhe hasnotintercoursedherontheinterveningnightwhichimprobalisethe prosecutioncase.

(i)

Itcannotbeforgottenthatinrapecaseoncethevictimstatesthat

she has not consented then the consent can not be inferred. Adding gravityinthecaseofgangrapethepresumptionisotherwayroundand thatA4isalsofacingthesamepresumptionundertheIndianEvidence

382

Actthisbeingacaseofgangrape.

Secondly,evenifnotprovidedintheStatute,itisverycommon thatnowomanwouldgiveconsenttoamanwhobeatsher,whoslaps her,whocompelshertoconsumeliquorandwhothenfurtherfacilitates his friends to rape her one by one in front of one another and that therefore,byfarfetchingthefactstoanyleveltheredoesnotemergeany validdefenceoftheA4.

(j)

ThepanchnamaEXH.109showsthattheA4hasshownthevenue

oftheoffencebeingroomNo.106ofAshokPalacehotelthisisalsoone ofthecircumstanceagainsttheaccused.

(k)

As far as boththeaccused(A4andA12)are concernedthere

operatesdyingdeclarationvideEXH.283inthiscaseandvidethesuicide noteonrecordvideEXH.571.Inboththedocumentsthedeceasedvictim has very clearly included and implicated all the five accused and therefore, A4 and A12 have no defence at all and that they have absolutely failed to improbabilise the prosecution case and or to challengethetruthfulnessofthedyingdeclaration.

(l)

As has been referred earlier, different authors in the Forensic

ScienceBookshaveopinedthatwineleadstounrestrainedbehaviours, andthatattimesafterconsumptionofintoxicatingsubstanceamanused

383

tobehaveveryunusuallyandthattheA4too,cansafelybepresumedto havecomeinthestageofunrestrainedbehaviour,exhibitinghismuscular power,showinghismanlyattitudeagainstthedeceasedvictimandmust haveinjuredthedeceasedvictimascomplainedbyherwhichmusthave followedbytheremainingfouraccused.

(m)

UponlookingtotheprintoutitselfitisclearthatthePW3has

informedtheA4throughwhomA12hasalsolearntthatthedeceased victimhasnot reachedtoP.W.3.IftheA4andA12wouldnothave beeninvolvedintheoffencetheirusualconducthastobetogotothe PW3anduntilthedeceasedvictimisavailable,nottopartfromthecity.

(n)

TheA4istheoffenderwhowasplacedbythedeceasedvictimin

thepositionoftrustandthathewasexpectedtogiveprotectiontothe deceasedvictimincaseofdifficultybut,itisunfortunatethattheA4 himselfwastheprincipaloffendertorapeherandfurthertofacilitateall hisfriendstocommitgangrapeonthedeceasedvictimbycompellingher toconsumeliquor.

IV. A12specially:

(a)

A12wasarrestedon23/02/2005.Ashasemergedfromtherecord,

to search out this witness the investigating agency went to Ajmer on 24/02/2004,issuedthenotificationu/s.82oftheCr.P.C.On16/04/2004, on 27/04/2004 went to Ajmer, on 19/05/2004 arranged to get the

384

notification published in the Rajasthan police gazette, on 25/05/2004 reportedtodeclaretheaccusedabscondinginGujaratPoliceGazette,on 28/05/2004,itwasdecidedtotrythecaseinabsenceoftheaccused,and ultimatelytheaccusedwasarrestedon23/02/2005.Itisonrecordthatthe whereaboutsoftheA12werenotknownforabout14months.During these 14 months the investigating agency has made numerous efforts includinggoinginsearchofA12bykeepingA4together,theA12was inAhmedabadon31/12/2003andthatheisabsolutelyunabletoexplain thereasonofhisvisittoAhmedabad,hispresencecannotbedisputed,it camewithintheknowledgeofA12atabout3:30a.m.of01/01/2004that somethinghasgonewrongwiththedeceasedvictim,PW3isinsearchof thedeceasedvictimhadtheguiltyconsciousnessnotbeenthere,theA4 andA12wouldhavegonetotheplacewherethedeceasedvictimwasto reachbutnotreached..Thisconductisalsoastrongcircumstanceagainst theA4andA12.

(b)

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthisdoesnotnecessarilymean

thattheA12isnotknownasKaranaliasMontu.Further,ifthereal name of A12 is Dharmendra and Karan alias Montu was only a camouflagethen,itwasobviouslytobefoolthedeceasedvictimandthat itisthen,connectingtheA12inactinginfurtheranceofthecommon intention. It is very muchpossible thatthepetnameisknowntothe family members whereas, the official name is different. In all human probability,itispossiblethattheA12mighthaveofficialnameforthe purposeofschoolingandforthetotallyoutsideworld,tohavehisname asDharmendrabut,atthesametimeitispossiblethathewascalledin

385

thehouseasKaranaliasMontuandthatsinceA4ishisrealbrotherin law,itispossiblethattheA4ishabitualtosalutetheA12withthatpet nameonlyanditisforthatreasonhewasintroducedasKaran.Asitmay bebutinviewofthedyingdeclarationthiscourtfirmlybelievesthatthe A12wasprojectedasKaranbeforedeceasedvictim.

(c)

UponperusalofthedepositionofPW49,onpage136theidentity

oftheA12doesnotremainunderthecloudofdoubt.Thishasalready beendiscussedwhilediscussingthedepositionofPW49hence,thesaid hasbeenavoidedheretoavoidrepetition.

(d)

PW3 has made it clear that on 31/12/2003 she went at Ashok

PalacehotelatwhichpointoftimeshewasintroducedbyA4toA12 saluting and introducing him as Karan and that she and the deceased victimweretherealongwithA4,A12andothersfor23hoursinthe noonandthatthisisthetimewhenPW3hadfullopportunitytoobserve, know and to remember the A12, quite nicely and that the test identificationparadebeinganofficialactitcansafelybepresumedto havebeendoneproperlyandthatthispresumptiondoesnotfoundtohave beenrebuttedbytheA12.

(e)

TheidentificationdonebythePW3ismerelyacorroborationand

itisonlytoguidetheinvestigatingagencythattheinvestigatingagencyis onthecorrectlineofinvestigation.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthe case, it cannot be believed that because photograph came in the

386

newspaper,thetestidentificationparadewasmerelyapharas.Since,the A12wasabscondingforverylongtimeandthatPW48hasadmittedin hisoralevidencethatundertheinstructionofPW49thephotographof A12was published sinceA12 belongstoRajasthanandthatinthe newspapersofRajasthanhisphotographswerepublishedwhichwasa processtomakethepublicawarethatA12isanabscondingaccused. ThisseemstohavebeendoneafterApril,2004whenwarrantu/s.70was issuedagainsttheA12priortotheexerciseat24/02/2004.ThePW49 as has stated in paragraph 21 page 15 of his oral evidence that on 08/01/2004amanhadtobesentatAjmer,on21/01/2004bykeepingthe A4togethertheinvestigationtofindouttheA12wascarriedout,on 21/01/2004,thepolicepersonnelwenttoJaipur,on28/01/2004theywent toAjmeron3rdand6thFebruary,necessaryprocedureforexecutionofthe warrantu/s.70wasundertaken,on23/02/2004,manwenttoAjmerand then after on 24/02/2004 onwards the exercise undertaken by the investigating agency has already been mentioned. All these, if put together, it gives an impression that the identity of A12 is not at al doubtfulandthePW3wasknowingtheA12evenmuchpriortothe photographcameinthenewspapersince,shehadanopportunitytobe withandtoobservetheA12forabout23hoursthattooinasmall group and therefore, the identification at the hands of PW3 of A12 cannot be doubted or cannot be said to have been influenced by the publishingofthephotographinthenewspapers.

(f)

Moreover,itcannotbeforgottenthatthereisenoughmaterialto

establishthattheA12himselfisDharmendraaliasMontualiasKaran.

387

Allthethreenamesbelongtooneandthesamepersonandthisaspectis notatallunderanykindofdoubt.

(g)

Upon perusal of EXH.287 wherein, the A12 has given history

beforethedoctoron25/02/2004,thatatabout9:30p.m.On31/12/2003, A1wenttobringthedeceasedvictimandthenafter,hebroughtherat theAshokPalacehotel,thenallwenttoB.R.Farm,camebackfromB.R. FarmattheAshokPalacehotel,thenafter,intheroomA12,A4,A13 andA1anddeceasedvictimweretogether.

ThiswitnessisrevealingthepresenceofA13intheassembly,it hasbeenfurthersaidthatthenafterA4anddeceasedvictimwereinthe roomandhewentonthefirstflooroftheroomandatabout3:30a.m.of 01/01/2004 hotelAshokPalacewasleftbythem.Anothersubmission alsoneedstobedealtwithisthatithasbeensubmittedthattheA12had effect of paralysis and his left hand is shivering but, except the panchnamathisfactisnotnotedanywhere.TrueitisthattheA12had keloid but keloid is tendency of skin and nothing beyond that and it cannotbetermedasadiseaseatall.Further,asfarasvibrationofhands areconcerned,itisverynaturalandcommonasitisaftertheA12was caughtbythepolice.

(h)

PW49 at his oral evidence on page 157 has specified that the

telephonenumberofA12is3100210andEXH.395istheprintoutofthe said number. This printout links the intimacy of A12 with deceased

388

victim.

(i)

PW3hasalsostatedinheroralevidencethatthedeceasedvictim

gavethisnumbertothepoliceasthenumberofA12andthat,thesaid numberwastakenoutfromthemobiletelephoneofthedeceasedvictim. This all putting together is very clearly, undoubtedly, unerringly, implicatingtheA12inthecrimeofgangrape.

(j)

LikeinthecaseofA2andA3thoughthereportofD.N.A.Has

notcomeagainsttheaccusedorisnotsuchwhichisdirectlyimplicating theaccused,thisCourtashasdiscussedincaseofA2andA3andhas heldthemguiltyfortheoffence,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthe caseanduponthepossibilitythatifthebodyfluidoftheaccusedwould nothavefallenoutinthatcase,itispossiblethatD.N.A.Maynotmatch. ThesamereasoningareapplicabletoA12alsoandthatinviewofthis evenA12isnotentitledtoanykindofbenefitofdoubt.

(k)

This Court has been taken through the entire evidence at a

marathon length. Extensive submissions have been placed before this Court, this court has analyzed and evaluated the evidence brought on record by the respective parties andthattheprinciples propounded in differentcitations.Itseemsthat:

(l)

The systematic campaign by all the five accused sharing the

389

criminalityandthecommonintentionexistedinthecase,priormeeting ofmind,attributionofovertacttoeachoftheaccused,thepreconcert apparentlyseemstohavebeenarrivedamongstallthefiveaccused,upon beingguidedfromthecircumstancesandincriminatingfactsonrecord, notingtheconductoftheaccused,pickingthethreadfromtheconceptof probability, it clearly seems that all the five accused had common intentiontocommitgangrapeonthedeceasedvictimrightfromthevery beginning,thesaidmighthavestrengthenedonthespurofmomentwhen the deceased victim under the compulsion imposed by A4 had to consumetheliquorandthesaidconsumptionhadgiventheimpactonthe bodyofthedeceasedvictim.

(m)

TheA4andA12comeallthewayfromDelhiviaJaipurand

reach at Ahmedabad right in themorning of 31/12/2003, remained in constantcontactwith thedeceasedvictim,A1,A2andA3are also assemblinginthesameroom,theA1isbringingtheRoyalChallenge andotheractsanddiscussedundertheheadofjointliabilityveryclearly andbeyondreasonabledoubtprovepresenceofallthefiveaccusedon theinterveningnightattheAshokPalacehotel,theyallweretogether withthedeceasedvictim,theyhavecommittedgangrapeonthedeceased victim,andthatthewholethinghasbeendoneinasystematicmannerby thefiveaccused.

The abovediscussionaddscredibilityandcertifiesprobabilitythe prosecutioncasewhichisexhibitedthroughtruthfuldyingdeclarationof deceasedvictim.

390

(n) ThisCourtdoesnotfeelanyhandcapnessandhurdlesinholding thatthisisafitcasewherein,therearetwowrittendyingdeclaration,it absolutely does not require corroboration both of them are true, voluntary, without any prompting and tutoring and that the said are reflectingthewholetruth.

(o)

Adjudicationistheprocessbywhichajudgegivesmeaningtoour

public value, set the norms of human conduct as per Constitutional mandatesreadwiththeRespectiveStatutes,thefocushastobeonthe Constitutional rights of theparty. Intheinstantcase theFundamental rightandHumanRightofthedeceasedvictimhavebeenviolated.Taking the meaning attempted to be given by the learned advocate for the defence to the dying declaration and other material on record would amount to have a tunnelvisioninsteadof abroadervisionwhichthe systemweddedtosocialjusticeandtheConstitutionalnormswillnot permit.

(p)

While applying the concept of justice it is felt in the fact and

circumstancesof thecase thatgender equalitydemandsthatouting at night,goingatthepartiesshouldnotbeviewedwiththetraditionallenses asjusticedeliverysystemcannotadoptsuchanarrowvisionwhenright ofdignity,freedom,equality,righttolifeandfreedomtomovementhave beengiftedbytheConstitutionofIndiatoeachcitizenofthiscountry.

391

(q)

Thesubmissionthatthemisbehaviourbythepolicepersonnelhas

neverbeenimmediatelycomplainedandthatthePW43andPW48have notnoticedthesameandhence,thesaidcannotbebelievedaresuch whichcannotbeaccepted.

(r)

Not complaining about, the misbehaviour of police official and

insufficienttreatmentimmediately,seemstobeverynaturalandobvious, as firstly people are not that sensitize and that awaken that they will immediately think for giving complaint as far as public services are concerned,thefactthatthesamewomanconstableAshabenwaspresent atthehospitalashasbeenadmittedbyPW48onpage3andascanbe seenfromtheYadiitselfasrecordedonpage51and57ofdepositionof PW48itseemsthatthesetwohaveagonizedthedeceasedvictimtoits utmostextent.

Theseallareverysmallpointsbut,afterallitisthesmalldrops which make an ocean and it is the small misbehaviour, small dis satisfaction,smallnegligencewhichultimatelygiveafeelingtoaperson thattheexistenceofthatpersonisunwanted.Thishastobeconsideredin theabovereferredperspective.

(t)

Ithasbeensubmittedthattheextrajudicialconfessionbeforethe

doctorcannotbetakenintoconsiderationbytheCourtasthesamearehit underIndianEvidenceAct.

392

(u)

Thiscourtisconsciousthattheconfessionbytheaccusedwhilein

custodyofpolicecannotbeprovedagainsthimexceptasprovidedinthe IndianEvidenceAct.But,itistoberememberedthatthereisadifference inconfessionandadmissionandinanycaseatleastfromthehistory before the doctor, the Court is able to jot down it as one of the circumstanceasthehistorytothedoctorapparentlyseemstohavebeen givenbytheaccusedvoluntaryandformerlyprovedbythePWdoctor. Inthefactandcircumstancesofthiscase,thisCourtdoesnotrequireany corroboration. The dying declaration is only sufficient. All the above discussion is mainly to clarify and magnify that dying declaration is truthful,voluntary,reliable,creditworthyanditissafetoactuponthe said version of the deceased victim and that it is a statement on the circumstancesofthetransactionwhichhasultimately,resultedintothe deathofthedeclaranti.e.thedeceasedvictiminthepresentcase.Inview of the propounded principles, when, dying declaration is found to be truthful,voluntary,unpromptedandwhenitcanbesaidwithallcertainty, without hesitation and without any reasonable doubt that the dying declarationcanfullybeacteduponthenthesaidissufficienttobring homeguiltoftheaccused..IntheinstantcasethecomplaintEXH.283 and the suicide note EXH.571 are such documents which are dying declarations,thisCourtisofthefirmopinionthatitissafetoactupon thesedyingdeclaration.Theoverallmaterialonrecordclinginglyfasten theguiltofallthefiveaccusedasdiscussedabove.

393

41.
(A)

THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONFORWOMEN: EXH.94 isthestatementwritteninthehandwritingofthePW3

andwashandedovertotheChairperson,NCWon17/01/2004.Inthis statement,thePW3hasrevealedthefactofthetelephoneofA4atabout 3:45a.m.on01/01/2004,theconversationthereinbetweenA4andPW 3, the meeting between PW3 and A1, the then deposition of the deceased victim, the place where A1 was waiting, the exercise undertakenbythePW3,theexplanationgiventoPW3bytheA1,the implicationofallthefiveaccused,theexperienceofthePW3attheSola Police Station, Control Room's telephone, the experience at Civil Hospital,etc.ThesearetallyingwiththedepositionofthePW3before thisCourt. (B)

Thesestatementshavebeenbroughtonrecordduringthecourseof

thecrossexaminationbythelearnedadvocateforA4.Atpage120ofthe oralevidenceofPW3,thenarrationcomes.Inthisstatementonthe3rd pagethePW3hasclarifiedthatafteratabout4:30p.m.Of02/01/2004 whenthedeceasedvictimwasbroughthome,thedeceasedvictimwas nottalkingtoanyoneandwascryingallthetime,shewashidingherface withthedupatta,thoughshewasconsoledbyeveryoneandassuredby parentsandbrotherthatthedeceasedvictimshouldnotbotherandthat thefiveaccusedthosewhohavecommittedtheoffencewouldbetaughta lesson,but,however,thedeceasedvictimwasunabletobenormal,she wascryingallthetimebyembarrassingthePW3andwasfeelingmuch

394

guiltyforgivingtroubletothePW3.Iftheseallthingswouldbeseen then, it is totally tallying with the prosecution case and thatafter the occurrence,thementalstateoftheDeceasedVictimstandsveryclearly revealedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasewhichtooisableto guide this Court to access the agony, sufferings, pain, shock of the deceased victim which needs a very special note as one more circumstancetocalltheDyingDeclarationtruthful.. PARTIII

42.
(i)

EXAMININGTHEDEFENCEVERSION:

TheA1andA12havenotexaminedthedefencewitnesses.Vide

EXH.460,A2hasgivenapurshistotheeffectthathedesirestoexamine ShriAnkitKanodia(DW8)ashiswitness,videEXH.459A3hasgiven apurshistodeclarethathedesirestoexamineShriSandipJain(DW5), ShriAlpeshMalivat(DW4)ShriGurvindersingh,(DW6)ShriRuhan Yazdi(Notexamined)andSmt.NitaAmit(DW7)ashiswitnesses,vide EXH.458theA4hasgivenhispursistodeclarethatheistoexamineDr. S.C. Mittal, (DW9) Shri Mukesh Bakodiya, (DW3) Shri Tarun Jain (DW2)andDr.KiranP.Gohel,(DW1)astheirwitnesses.

(ii)

DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW9 are the defense witnesses

examinedbytheA4.

395

(iii) A3.

DW4,DW5,DW6andDW7arethedefensewitnessesofthe

(iv)

DW8isthedefensewitnessofA2.

42(a)

DW9 DR. MITTAL and DW5 DR. CHANDRAKANTPANDIT: OutoftheabovewitnessestheoralevidenceofDW9andDW5

havealreadybeendiscussedatlengthwhilediscussingtheoralevidence under the title of handwriting expert and P.M. Doctor wherein, the HandwritingExpertandP.M.Doctorwereexaminedbytheprosecution respectivelyatparagraph32andparagraph36ofthejudgment.

SufficeittonotethattheDW9andDW5havenotprovedthe defenceinanymannernorhaveimprobabilisedtheprosecutioncaseor createddoubtagainstit.

42(b)

DW1:

Dr. Kiran Gohel was a C.M.O. at the life care hospital on 07/01/2004.Shehastestifiedthatatabout10:30or10:45A.M.,astaff membercametoherandsaidthatapatientinacriticalconditionhad

396

come, the witness went down and saw the deceased victim who was being taken out from the car where the witness has examined the deceased victim, she foundnolife in her,but,however,thedeceased victim was carried up to the I.C.U., on cardiac monitor the deceased victimwasexaminedbut,noactivitywasfound,theelectrocardiogram wasastraightline,thedeceasedvictimcontinuedtolieintheI.C.U.in onecorner,thewitnessinformedthepolice,thepolicearrivedatabout 1:00to1:30p.m.,thewitnessdidnotfindanyobjectinherbody,there wasnothingtobecollectedfromthebodyofthedeceasedvictim,there was nothing in either of her pockets, no marks on the body of the deceasedvictimwerefoundexceptthebruises,thepolicetookthebody atabout17:00to18:00hours,thepolicedidnotrecordthestatementof thewitness.

Thewitnesshasadmittedthatshehasnorecordwhatsoeverabout themedicalcasepapersofthedeceasedvictim,norecordinthehospital waskeptaswell,itwasfoundthatshewasnomore,thewitnesswent homeat2:00p.m.,thetimethatthepolicetookthedeadbodybetween 5:00to6:00p.m.issaidnotfromthepersonalknowledgeofthewitness, thecolouroftheclothisnotrememberedbythewitness,thewitnesswas helpingthepolice,hershirtwasopenedbythewitnessandchangedthe sideattheinstanceofpolice,thewitnessdonotrememberastohow manypocketswerethereintheshirt,onaquestionthatthewitnesshas notthoroughlycheckedtheshirtbut,wasjusthelpingthepolicethereply cameinaffirmative,thewitnesshowever,maintainedthatshedidnot find anything from the pocket; upon the question by the Court, the

397

witnessrepliedthattheLifeCareisaprivatehospital,for10yearsthe witnesswasahousewifeandthenafterjoinedthepresentjob,nocase paperwaspreparedattheLifeCarehospital,thehospitaldoesnothave any record from which the details like arrival of the body, having declared the body dead, examination performed, whether doctor has attendedthedeceased,clotheswornbyher,otheraccessorieswornbyher andanyobjectwhetherfoundfromthebodyornotcanbeconfirmed (fromtherecord)thedeceasedvictimwasbroughtbyherbrotherand thenafterhersistercame,theI.C.U.isintheglasscabinwithwooden frame.Thewitnessdoesnotrememberasinwhichnumberofbedat I.C.U.Thedeceasedvictimwaskept,thenameofthepoliceofficersare notrememberedbythewitness,thenameoftheladynursewhowaswith thedeceasedvictimisnotremembered,thenumberofpolicepersonnelis alsonotrememberedbythedeceasedvictim,whoweretherewiththe witnessfromthestaffmembersisalsonotknowntoher,theC.M.O.At thehospitaldonothaveanydutyofmaintenanceofanyrecord.

In thehumble opinion ofthisCourt, thewitnessseemstohave comeonlytostatethatnothingwasfoundoutfromthepocketasthatis theonlycontentionwhichwasrememberedbythewitness,thewitness hasnotrememberedanythingelse,thewitnessdoesnotrememberthe colouroftheclothesofthevictim,norecordhasbeenkept,howmany pocketsarethereintheshirtisnotrememberedbythewitness,nocase paperinthehospitalhasbeenkeptever,thereisnothingonrecordfrom whichitcanbeseenatwhattimethedeceasedvictimwasbroughtand whetherwasbroughtdeadoraliveandwhatexaminationwasperformed

398

onthepersonofthedeceasedvictim,whichdoctorhasattended,which clothes were worn by the deceased victim, which were the other accessorieswerewornbyherandanyobjectwhetherwasfoundfromher body,hence,thiswitnessdoesnotassistthedefenceanditcannotbe heldthatthesuicidenotewasnotfoundfromthepocketofdeceased victim. The witness has fairly conceded that in which number of the I.C.U.Thedeceasedvictimwaskeptisnotknowntoher,whichpolice officerscame,howmanypoliceofficerscame,whichladynurseorwhich staffmemberwasassistingthewitnessonthatparticulardayisalsonot remembered..

Fromtheabovereferredreplyitisclearthatthewitnesshasbeen brought by the defence only to say that nothing was found from the pocketofthedeceasedvictimbecausethatisonlythefactremembered bythewitness.Asamatteroffact,ifthepostmortemreportEXH.62is seen,thenthereareseveralarticleswhichhavebeenremovedfromthe bodyofthedeceasedvictimandthosewerehandedovertothepolice,it isanadmittedpositionthatthedeadbodywastakenfromthelifecare hospital straight to the P.M. Hospital, it is also clear that all the ornamentsandotherthingsthedeceasedvictimhadwornwasnotnoticed by this witness, so many things have not been remembered by this witnesshence,itdoesnotsoundverysafetorelyupononthiswitness andtobelievethatthesuicidenotewasnotrecoveredfromthedeceased victimandtherefore,thefactthatnothingwasrecoveredfromherpocket cannot be believed because, the witness does not remember any surroundingthingsandforsomanyrepliesthewitnesshasstatedthat

399

sinceitismatterbeforefouryearssheisunabletorecollect.Thiswitness hasstatedthatthedeceasedvictimwasbroughtbythecar,thewitness wentdownstairandfoundnolife.Itis,therefore,clearthatthewitness beingdoctormustnothavefurthernoticed,observedorexaminedthe deceasedvictimwasdeadmusthavelostinterestandthenafterbringing the deceased victim in I.C.U. was merely mechanical. This Court believesthatthewitnessisnotlyingbuthadinfactnotnoticedanything furtherafterdeceasedvictim,butthatvitalfactisavoidedbeingstatedby theDW.Consideringthatitdoesnotsoundsafetobelievethiswitness talkingquiteunnaturalbut,thedefencewantedtheCourttobelievethat the suicide note was not recovered from the deceased victim which cannotbebelieved.

42(c)

DW2:

DW2isthewitnessofA4,thiswitnesshasstatedthatthewitness wasapersonwhohasbookedtheroomintheAshokPalacehotel,three ofhisfriendshavedecidedtohavepartyandbyoccupyingroominthe hotelarrangementofsomeeatingstaffandviewingT.V.wasmade.The witnessandotherswenta9.30p.m.inthehotelandonemorefriend cameat10,00or10.00p.m.Theentryintheregisterofthehotelwas madebythiswitnesswhichwasentryNo.397onpage30,atabout1:00 a.m.theT.V.Programmewasoverandtosendofthethirdfriend,they camedownstairsattheparkingoftheAshokPalacewherethebikewas lying,whiletheywerereturningtotheirroom,theysawoneboyanda

400

girltalkingwitheachotherwhowentawaysittinginthecarwhichwas perhapsMarutiZen,thenafter,thewitnesscametohisroomandsleptat theroom,inthemorninghecheckedout,thehotelregisterisexhibitedas EXH.221,thegirlwhichthewitnesssawat1:00a.m.isthesameabout whomthenewscameinthenewspaperofrape.

Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationthewitnesshasadmitted thatheknowsEnglish,heresidesbehindCivilHospital,inEXH.221the entryinthehotelregisterthepermanentaddressofthewitnesshasbeen showntobeblackpocket,theblackpocketisaplacewhichisatthe groundfloorofhisapartment,thewitnesshashowever,admittedthat blackpocketAhmedabadisnothispermanentaddress,thewitnesshas alsoadmittedthathehasneverinformedthepolicethathesawonegirl andoneboyat1:00a.m.of01/01/2004andthatheistellingthisthingfor thefirsttimeintheCourt. WhilerespondingtothereplytotheCourt'squestion,thewitness hasadmittedthatwhilehesawboththepersons,hewasstandingatthe parking,theboyandgirlhavepassedthroughthecabinofthewatchman andhehasseentheboyandgirlforafewsecondsandnotevenone minute.(HereitisveryimportanttonotethatthePW30,thewatchman of the hotel (though hostile) has testified that the hotel did not have compoundorparking.Thisshowstheuntruthadvancedbythiswitnessto helpthedefence.)

The witness has seen a girl but, then, who was the boy

401

accompanying the deceased victim has remained unanswered, In the printoutofPW3theincomingtelephonecallfromA4'smobilehasbeen recordedwhichisabout12:42p.m.andthatthePW3toldinheroral evidencethatthedeceasedvictimtalkedtoherwhilereturningfromthe partyandthatsincewhowasthesaidboyisunknowntothiswitnesshe hasinnowayhelpedthecaseofdefence,onthecontrarythiswitnesshas provedthatatabout1:00a.m.hehasseenthedeceasedvictimwhichin anycaseistallyingwiththecaseoftheprosecutionbecauseasperthe prosecutioncasethegangrapehastakenplaceafter12:50A.M.to1:00 A.M.andthatitiswhenthesecondtimethedeceasedvictimenteredin roomNo.106.

Thewitnesshasadmittedthatheistellingthisfactforthefirsttime intheCourt.Thissentenceitselfapointerthatthewitnessisnottelling truthandheisouttohelpthedefence.

Itisnotpenetrableinone'smindthatapersonwhoresidesvery nearbyiscomingtohoteltoviewT.V.andisbookingtheroominthe hotel and then, sleeping in the hotel after 1:00 a.m. this witness is admittedlygivinghisfalseaddressatthehotel,henceitisunsafetorely uponhim,thewitnesshasalsoadmittedthathehashardlyseenthegirl andtheboyforafewsecondsandwhichwasnotevenforaminute.On therecordithascomethattheAshokPalacehoteldidnothaveanything likeparkingoracabinofthewatchmanitisquitesurprisingthatasto howthiswitnesshasseenagirlandaboyneartheparkingandnearthe

402

cabinofthewatchman.InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthiswitnessis aclearcreation.Hadthewitnessbeengenuinethanwhathasstoppedthe witnessfromreportingtothepolicethatthegirlwhosecasehasappeared asnewsitemwasseenbythiswitnessat1:00p.m.Sincehedidnotdoso andisadmittingtohavebeentellingthisfactforthefirsttimeinthe Court.Theprudencedemandsnottobelievesuchwitness.Inanycase, thiswitnessisunabletogiveanyaccountafterthesecondtimeentryof thedeceasedvictiminRoomNo.106after12.50A.M.on01/01/2004 whichisthecrucialperiod.

42(d)

DW3:

DW3isawitnessofA4,intherepresentationofA3,wherein,A 3hastoldthatMukeshBokadiyaisafriendofA3.Therefore,while appreciating this witness the representation made by A3 is to be remembered and that if this witness is also a friend of the A3, it is suggestivethatallthefiveaccusedandthewitnessbelongtooneandthe samegroupandthatthiswitnessisabsolutelyaninterestedwitness.This witnesshasmainlysaidthatheknewthedeceasedvictimandherelder sisterwhowerefondofmovinguntillatenight,theywerenotinany employment, were fond of dance parties and restaurants and were choosingwesternwayoflife,on31/12/2003,thewitnesshadatalkwith PW3,whenthewitnesstoldtothePW3thatheistogoatB.R.Farmfor thepartyandthenafterthewitnesswasunabletocomeatAhmedabad, ZeeT.V.hasreleasedinterviewofthewitness,themobilenumbershown

403

intheinterviewbelongstothiswitness.

Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationthewitnesshasclarified thataccordingtohimwesternwayoflifemeansmovingatlatenight, going to dance parties, smoking cigarettes and consuming liquor, the witnessknowsA4,whilereplyingthequestionbytheCourt,thewitness hasrepliedthatabout23partiesinonemontharebeingarranged,the deceasedvictimandPW3usedtoremainpresentinsuchparties,the witness was meeting them regularly, O.P. Singh was a friend of the witnesswhointroducedhimtothePW3andthedeceasedvictimwas known since she was the sister of PW3, introduction with A4 was throughA3.

ThiswitnesshasadmittedthatheisafriendofA3andA4,the witnesshascomewithaspecificpurposetoportraitthedeceasedvictim andPW3aspersonschoosingnightpartiesandotherthings.ThisCourt has absolutely failed to understand that this witness has not stated anythingbeforetheinvestigatingagencyortoanyotherpersonandthat suddenlythiswitnesshasdeposedattheinstanceoftheaccusedwhichis clearly to screen the accused.This Court is not andno Court can be negativelyinfluencedbywayoflifeofthedeceasedvictim,thewayof lifeofthedeceasedvictimmaybesociallyuprightorbadbut,thatdoes notnecessarilygrantlicensetoanypersontorapethevictimagainsther desireandthat,thisbeingaseriousoccurrence,itistobekeptinmind thatafterallthejoboftheCourtistosetnormsofhumanconductinthe society.Whilesettingthenormsofhumanconductthroughthedecision

404

makingprocess,itisnotexpectedthattheCourtmayhaveanarrowlook tothefactsemergedandtheCourtwouldbeprejudicedbyhearingthat oneislivingawesternwayoflifeasitisnotcrime.Itshouldbeclearto oneandallneitherthewesternlifenortheeasternwayoflifeissuperior or inferior, it is all one's perception and ones attitude to look at a particularthing.Asitmaybebut,thefactremainsthatthiswitnesshas nothelpedthedefenceorhasnottakenthedefenceonestepforwardalso. Fromtheversionofthiswitness,itisclearthathevisitsandenjoysthe partiesandlifewhichiflivedbythedeceasedvictimisbeingportrait perversely,hencenoreliancecanbeplacedontheversionofthewitness whichisonlyopinionoftheindividual.

42(e)

DW4:

ThiswitnessisthewitnessforA3.Thiswitnesshasstatedthathis friendsareA3,A2andothers,thewitnessknowsA2andA3forabout last7years,thewitnessalongwithhisfriendreachedtheB.R.Farmat about10:30p.m.,theywentinsidetheB.R.Farmatwhichpointoftime A3wasintheFarmHouse,thewitnesshadatalkwithA3,theparty had notstarted,the witnesswenttoGreenwoods,tookthepass,went inside,diddance,atabout11:45receivedaphonecallfromA3onthe telephonenumberofanotherfriendviz.Vivek,thenafterthewitnesshad talkedwithA3onthemobileofVivek,thegreetingwereexchanged,the A3toldthemthatthefactthatpartyhasstarted,thenafter,allthefour friends,andspouseofsomefriendswenttoB.R.Farm,themobilephone

405

ofA3is9824074588,intheB.R.Farmtheyreachedatabout1:15A.M. straightfromtheGreenwoods,atthattimeA3waspresentatB.R.Farm, NitatheA3'ssisterwasalsopresentthere,atabout30to35friendswere there,A3wasdancing,thebirthdayofJituafriendofA3wasthere,at about2:15a.m.theyhavedepartedwhilethedancepartywasgoingon, on02/01/2004,thewitnesslearntthatthecaseagainstA2andA3has beenfiledandthentheywenttothehouseofA3andA2on02/01/2004, motherandsisterandotherfamilymembersofA2andA3werecrying. ThewitnesshastoldtotheA7thatA3waswithhim,thewitnesshas toldtoA7thatifneedbe,letusknow,ifitistobetoldtosomeonewe shalldoso,thepolicecameathishouseandcalledhimtothepolice station,afteraboutsometime,theymetthelawyerofA2andtoldthe advocateofA2everythingwhothenaskedwhethercanwedoaffidavit, whenthewitnesssaidthathewasreadytodotheaffidavit,whichwasthe timeafter2monthsfromthestatementgiventothepolice,theaffidavit was executed and notarized which has been brought on record being MarkYaxeroxcopy,thereafter,after1yearsthewitnesswascalledat thepolicestation.

Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationthewitnesshasadmitted thatthedistancebetweenhisandA3'shouseishalfkm.,thewitness usedtomeetA3onSundaysandsometimesonweekends,B.R.Farmis awayforabout67kms.fromhisresidenceandittakesabout2025 minutestoreachtoB.R.Farm,thewitnessadmitsthathesharesgood relationshipwiththefamilymembersofA2, thewitnesshasadmitted thathewasknowingabouttheinvolvementofA2andA3rightfrom

406

02/01/2004,theaffidavithasbeenadministeredafteraboutfourmonths, sincethepolicecametohishouse,hedidnotfinditnecessarytogoto thecourtandtotellthatheknowsthetruth,thewitnessadmitsthatitis truethatheknowsthetruthbut,hedidnotgotothepolicestationtotell thetruth,untilthepoliceofitsowncametohimhedidnotapproachthe police. While responding tothequestionsbytheCourtthewitnesshas answered that Babuprasadji Khatod the member of Maheshwari Community,istheownerofB.R.Farmandthatthewitnesshasalsogone previouslytothatfarm,thefestivaloffullmoonday(SharadPoonam)is being celebrated there, A2andA3arefromtheJaiswalcommunity, whichisdifferentfromMaheshwaricommunity,itwasnotknowntothe witness that the B.R. Farm is given on rental basis, but, he has volunteeredthatheisaleadingpersoninthesocietyandhegivesthe farm house to his acquaintance, persons and persons in relation. The witnesshasstatedthatheknowsthatthispartywaskeptbyA3which wasonlyforinvitees,andthatA3telephonedhimintheevening,the mobiletelephoneon31/12/2003wasbeingclosedbythiswitness,the telephonecallofA3cameonlandline,thewitnessdidnothavepasses etc.OftheGreenwoods,nophotographorvideographywasdoneinthe partyof31/12/2003.

ThisCourtisofthehumbleopinionthatthiswitnessisnotworthy tobebelieved,thiswitnesshasnothelpedthedefenceandhasinany mannerprobabilizedthedefenceraised,hehasneitherbeenabletoraise

407

anydoubtagainsttheprosecutionversion.Intheparty,therenormally usetobephotographyorvideographyandthattoointhesedayswhen mostofthemobileinstrumentsarehavingcamera,photographyistoo commonwhichisnotproduced,whichshowsthattherewasindeedno partyarrangedbyA3asclaimed,thenameoftheowneroftheB.R. Farm has very much come on record, it was in fact the duty of the defencetoexaminetheowneroftheB.R.Farm,whomustbetheperson topermittouseorhirethefarm,instructionstostaffmembersofB.R. FarmtopermittheA3tousetheB.R.Farm,orelsewhetherB.R.Farm hasbeentakenonrentalbasisisalsonotcomingonrecord,ifnottaken onrentalbasis,itismoreeasythattheownerhimselfcancometothe CourtandtellthatthiswastheoccasionforwhichtheB.R.Farmwas giventotheA3,but,sinceA3iscreatingthestoryofpartyhavingbeen keptbyhimatB.R.Farm,theownerofB.R.Farmhasnotbeenexamined nor any receipt for the rent of the B.R. Farm has been produced on record.

ItisextremelyastonishingthatthoughthewitnessisafriendofA 2andA3,thoughthewitnessisinknowofthefactthattheA2andA3 hasbeenfalselyimplicatedrightfrom02/01/2004thewitnessisnotfiling hisaffidavitimmediatelytoprovethattheA3wasinthearrangementof hisownpartyhasbeenfalselyimplicatedbut,thesaidfrienddoesnotgo tothepolicestation,doesnottelltoanyotherauthority,doesnotgivehis affidavittothepolicestationorCourt,eventheaffidavitisgivenafter fourmonthswhichitselfmakesitclearthatafterhavingarrangedthe defenceproperly,collectionofthisaffidavitmusthavebeenundertaken,

408

writpetitionshavebeenfiledintheHighCourtbyA3andhisfamily, but,nowheretheaffidavitofthispersonisproduced,iftheaffidavitwas made available only after 4 months of the occurrence, under what circumstancesthesaidaffidavitwasnotannexedwiththepetitionofthe HighCourt,itthereforedoesnotinspiretheconfidenceoftheCourtasit doesnotseemstobeusualornaturalthatafriendwillobservesilence forfourmonthsandwillnotevencomeouttospeakthetruthandwill alsonotlettheauthorityknowthetruththattheA3wasattheB.R. Farm.

FromthecrossexaminationitisclearthattheB.R.Farmisnotfar fromtheirresidence,theresidenceandAshokPalaceareinthesamearea andthewitnesshasstatedthattheB.R.Farmis67Kms,awayfromthe same,havingaboutwayof25minuteswhichthrowthedefenceofalibi ontheground.Thewitnesshasstatedthathehaspurchasedthepassesof Greenwood,onewouldbesurprisedthatwhenthefriendisarrangingthe party and when he is invited to attend the party what would be the purposetogotosomeanotherparty,purchasethepass,enjoyingthere, andasandwhenthetelephonecomestocomebackinthatpartyleaving thepartyandjoininghereatGreenwoods.Thisseemsimprobable.The family of the A2 and A3 seems to be very right awakened, very sensitized, they have filed Special Criminal Applications, the accused himselfhasmaderepresentationbeforetheHonourableChiefJusticeof GujaratandHon'blePresidentofNationalHumanRightsCommission, andwhensuchsensitizedpersonsweretoldbythiswitnessthatincaseof needheshallbeinreadinesstorevealthetruthandthatstillhowever,

409

thesesensitizedandawakenedfamilymemberswhofileswritpetitionat theHighCourtremainsveryidleanddoesnotobtainanyevidencetelling anytruth,whichthiswitnessaccordingtohimwasreadytogive,This seemsabsolutelyimprobableforthosewhoareinferredinlibertyofthe A2andA3thiswitnesshasbeenexaminedtoestablishthattherewasa partyarrangedbyA3attheBR..Farm,butthereisnothingonrecordto believethatthepartywaskeptbyA3.

HadtherebeenreallyapartytheowneroftheB.R.Farmwasa rightmantobeexamined,therentreceiptorthecaterersbillforcold drink,Bisleri,affidavitofsomemusiciancouldhavebeenproducedto establishthatsomemusicalpartywasarrangedasstated,but,nothingof thesorthasbeenproduced,thisitselfissufficienttoholdthatthewitness hassteppedintothewitnessboxtoonlyprotecthisfriendviz.A3.Itis anadmittedpositionthatthewitnessisafriendofA2andA3fromlast 7 years. This witness is notaprobabilzed thedefencein anymanner ratherhisdepositionisfullofdoubtandthatthiswitnessisnotfound reliable.

42(f)

DW5:

SandipJainashasbeennotedinthetitleitself,thewitnessisa witnessforA2andA3whohastestifiedthathehasabusinessofsteel vessels,A2,A3andothersarehisfriends,23yearspriortothecase, heknowsA2andA3,on31/12/2003,oneAlpeshtelephonedhimand

410

toldthatintheB.R.Farmtheyhavetogoforapartyandthepartyhas been kept by A3, at about 10:00 Alpesh came to the house of this witness,thenafter,afterplyingdifferentfriends,theyreachedatabout 10:30 p.m. At theB.R. Farms,theretheysawA3 andmetA3, one RuzanwastheDJwhowaspreparingfortheparty,theyleftB.R.Farmat about10:45p.m.ThewitnessandotherreachedatGreenResortsatabout 11:30p.m.,thepasseswerepurchasedandtheywentinsidetheGreen Resortanddancedthere,ataboutwhichtimetheA3telephonedthem, thenaftertheydecidedtocometoB.R.Farm,thefourofthemhadstarted forB.R.Farm,itwasatabout1:15a.m.whereA3metthem,dancewas goingon,RuzanDJwasplaying,A3andother4friendsweredancing, therewereabout3035otherpersons,itwasthebirthdayofonefriend Jitu,thecakewascutthere,then,danceagainandatabout2:15or2:30 theymetA3andwenthome,tillthattheA3wasattheFarmHouse itself.On02/01/2004,theyreadinthenewspaperhowA2andA3were involved,afriendAlpeshtelephonedhimandtheyhadintersetalk,then aftertheycametothehouseofA2andA3,theA2andA3andother familymemberswerepresent,motherandsisterwerecrying,thewitness informedA7thatA3waswithhimandthatifrequiredtheyshallrender help,thenafter,after10dayspolicecameandstatementwasrecorded, after23monthstheywenttotheCourt,metthelawyer,andinformed thelawyerabouttheoccurrence,andthen,ultimatelyanaffidavitwas filed,forwhichafter1015daystheywenttothelawyer'sofficeandthen after1015days,theywenttothelawyer,soaftermeetingattheCourt, afterone monththey wenttothelawyer,affidavitwassigned,itwas notarized,itwasgiventoalawyertoenablehimtoproducebeforethe

411

Court,thexeroxcopywaswiththewitness, Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,thiswitnesshasstatedthat theB.R.FarmisinBhatvillagewhichmaybeabout78kms,fromthe hotel,ittakesabout1520minutesfromhoteltoreachsaidB.R.Farm, thewitnesshasadmittedthathehasnotgivenanystatementtotheCourt, the affidavit has not been given to the Court by himself, the witness knowsthatafterhavingbeenarrestedA2andA3arestillincustody,the witnesshasadmittedthatheknowsthefamilyofA2andA3.While answeringtoaqueryoftheCourtthewitnesshasrepliedthathedoesnot rememberastowhatisthemobilenumberofhimatthatpointoftime, the witness did not have any pass of the Greenwoods, no record to establishwhetherthewitnesswasatB.R.FarmoratGreenwoods,heis withthewitness.

Thiswitnessalsoliketheotherwitnessisspeakinganabsolutelie, itisextremelysurprisingthatthoughthewitnessisafriendofA2andA 3andthough,accordingtothewitnessheknowswhatistrueandthough accordingtowitnesstheA2andA3werefalselyimplicatedandthough theA3wasatB.R.Farmitselfandnotatthehotel,hehasbeenwrongly booked, the witness does not bother to give any kind of affidavit or statementto anyone toestablishthesaidfact,evenaftergoingtothe Courtforaboutonemonthhedoesnotbothertoprepareanyaffidavit, even after the affidavit has been prepared, the said affidavit is not producedanywhere,andthatthewitnessdoesnotbotherforit.Ifthese improbableandunnaturalhappeningareallputtogether.Itsuggestthat

412

thewitnessisapersonwhoisdoingashasbeendirectedbyA2andA3. Itisastonishingthatthoughtheawakenedandsensitizedfamilymembers ofA2andA3areknowingthewitnesswhowasabletosupportthe causeofA2andA3,whytheiraffidavitshavenotbeenobtainedand whytheyhavebeennotmadetospeak,whytheiraffidavithasnotbeen filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in different special criminalapplications.HadMR.RUZANwasplayinginthepartyonthe verynextdate,hisaffidavitcouldhavebeensecured,butithasnotbeen secured. Evenhisreceiptforpaymentcouldhavebeenproduced. Mr. Ruzanseemstobenottraceable,butwhyidlenesstoprocureaffidavit spontaneously which could have ensured credibility to the defence version,butithasnotbeendone.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussionit getsclearlyestablishedthatthewitnessisnotabelievablewitnessand thatallthesewitnessesdiscussedhereinabovearefriendsofA2andA3 andarenotwitnessesoftruthandhavesteppedintothewitnessboxto assisttheA2andA3inadvancingtheirfalsedefenseofalibiwhichhas absolutely no base and that which defense is never tallying with the elementofprobability.

42(g)

DW6:

DW6thiswitnessisalsoafriendofA2andA3whohasenteredat theB.R.Farmhouseatabout1:00to1:30,whenthewitnesshasentered atthattime,thepartyhasstarted(theDW3saysthatatabout1:15when theyreachedtoB.R.Farm,thedancewasongoing,DJwasplayingand

413

allthefourfriendsweredancingwithA3),thiswitnesssaysthatthere wereabout4050personsintheparty(theDW3saysthattherewere 3035 persons who were dancing, the dance according to DW3 was alreadyonandthepartywasalsoonat1:15whereas,thiswitnessis tellingthatwhentheyhaveenteredatabout1:00or1:30thepartyhas startedatthatpointoftime.),thecakecuttingoffriendJitu(whoisnot examined) has been mentioned even by this witness, this witness is statingthattherewassnacksinbetweentheparty(thebillforthissnacks, orbillofcaterer,orbillofcakeetc.Couldhavebeenproducedhadthe partybeengenuinelybeenarrangedbyA3),thewitnesshasleftatabout 2:30A.M.fromtheparty,thewitnesstoohaslearntfrom02/01/2004but, thiswitnessstillgoestohoneymoonon06/01/2004,remainedoutsidefor onemonthandafter1year,whenthepolicewenttohim,thiswitness giveshisreply.

Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationthiswitnesshasadmitted thatafterreturninghehasnotgivenanyapplicationorinformationtothe Court,thewitnesshasadmittedthathecameforthefirsttimeinthecourt andhehasnevergivensuchkindofinformationwhichhegivestodayin theformofdepositiontotheCourt.

Thecommentsmadefortheotherwitnessesalsoneedtobemade for this witness that this witness is not creditworthy for the same reasoninggivenabovefortheotherwitnesses.

What is most important to note is that the accused have not

414

examinedanyindependentwitness,everywitnessisaclosefriendofthe A2orA3oracloserelativelikeasisterofA2orA3,whensomeone arrangesaparty,itisveryeasytoproduceonrecord,certaindocumentary evidencewhichonthefaceofitcanestablishthattherewasaparty,B.R. Farmseemstobeonthehighway,ifA3wouldhavegenuinelyarranged thepartyhemusthavemadecertainarrangementsbecausenothingwill beavailableonthehighway,theA3shallhavetocarryittotheB.R. Farm and for that purpose also he could have examined some of the witnesses,but,nonehasbeenexamined,allthewitnessesareallthough closefriends,theyhavebeenunabletoexplainaswhyeventhoughthey knewfrom02/01/2004thattheirfriendsareindifficultyandhavebeen falselyimplicatedinrapecase,theydonotgotoanyauthorityoreventhe press where according to the defence the news were coming and accordingtodefencetheelectronicmedia,wastakinginterviewlikeof thewitnessMr.Bokadiahasalsogiveninterview,whathasrestrainedthis witnessestogoandtellthetruthtotheworld,allthesehavenotdone,this wouldonlymeaninonelinethatallthewitnessesarenotthewitnessof truthandtheyhavesteppedinthewitnessboxonlywithaviewtohelp thecauseofthedefenceandthatinabsenceofreliableandindependent witnesses,thisCourtisnotreadytobelievethelamedefenceandwhen, thedefencehasmiserablyfailedtoprobabalizeitsdefenceitdoesnot sound safe to believe such a defence and to disbelieve the deceased victim whose dying declaration is worth believing and needs no corroborationatall.

42(h)

DW7:

415

DW7,isthesisterofA2andA3,thewitnessstatesthatthe businessofMahekGutkha(relatedtoA4)andthebusinessofJellyBelly (relatedtoA4)wererespectivelybeinglookedafterbyA3andA2.A3 waskeepingtwomobilephonesofIdeamobileandA2wasalsokeeping twodifferentmobilephonesofIdeamobilewhichwere9824074588and 9824066729(A3)and33111331and9824313333(A2). On31/12/2003,thewitnesssisterwasinformedbyherbrother theA3thatpartyfornewyearhasbeenkeptatB.R.Farm,whenhewent toB.R.Farm,itwas11:00p.m.,atthattimethemusicwasongoing,the guestshadarrivedandtheA3wasnotthere,(theDW6saysthatwhenhe hadenteredatabout1:00to1:30a.m.atthattimethepartystarted,this witnessistellingthatwhenat11:00p.m.of31/12/2003shehasreached totheB.R.Farm,themusicwasongoing),theguestshadalreadycome, theA3wasnotthere,whileinquiringwiththeDJshehaslearntthatA3 hadgonetochangehisclothes,(DW5hasstatedthatwhentheyreached totheB.R.Farmandleftatabout10:45p.m.thepartydidnotstartbut, thiswitnesstherealsisteroftheA2andA3saysthatat10:45to11:00 whenshereachedtheB.R.Farmthemusicwasongoingandtheguests havealsocome,but,thisisnottallyingwiththeotherwitnesses.) On page4thiswitnessstatesaboutthefactthatatthistimewhenA3wasnot presenttheyhadthoughtofgoingtoTajandifpasseswouldbeavailable theywillgotoTaj.Atabout11:30orso,theyhavestartedfromB.R. FarmandreachedtheTajhotel,(ifthepartyhadstartedoverherewhat couldbethereasonforthewitnesstoleavethispartyandtogotoTaj

416

hotelandtopurchasepassesandtoenjoytherethisissomethingwhich doesnotpenetrateinonesmind.)Thewitnessstatesthatsheagaincame at12:15a.m.tothepartyatB.R.Farmhousewhenshesawthattheparty wasfullfledged,(theDW6tellsthepartytohavestartedat1:30a.m.the DW5statesithavestartedat1:15a.m.andthiswitnesstellsittohave startedat12:15a.m.) ThiswitnessstatesthatA2cametothispartystayedtherefor510 minutesandwentawaybutexceptthiswitnessnobodyelsehasstatedso. Thiswitnesshasstatedinherdepositionallthefactaboutthehabeas corpusandthehighCourtlitigation.Onpage7shehasstatedthatA2 andA3haveinformedinthepetitionthatbothofthemwereattheB.R. Farmandafalsecomplaintwasfiledagainstthem.(thiswitnessherselfis tellinginexaminationinchiefthatA2came,waitedforabout10minutes andthen,wentaway,butthen,merelythatentryfor10minutescannot speakeverythingaboutthewholeinterveningnightandmoreparticularly forthecrucialtimebetween12:45A.M.toabout3:45to4:00a.m.This witnesshasstatedthatthebrothershaveinformedabouttheB.R.Farm but,iftheapplicationofhighcourtareperusednothingiscontendedby A2aboutB.R.Farmitisonlystatedthattheywerewiththeirfriendson thatnight,onlyA3hasstatedabouttheB.R.FarmandnottheA2.The A7 and his daughter Usha who filed the habeas corpus petition have merelystatedinavaguemannerastoA2andA3wereoccupiedwittheir friendsonthatnight. Thiswitnesswascrossexamined,thiswitnesshasstatedthatthe distanceoftheAshokPalacehotelandTajhotelcanbecoveredwithin5

417

10minutes.TheTajhotelisinbetweenAshokPalaceandB.R.Farm, fromAshokPalacetoB.R.Farmthedistancecanbecoveredwithin15 20minutes,thewitnesshasadmittedthatshedidnotsayaboutthefactof herbrotherandfatherintheCourt. WhilerespondingtothequestionsbytheCourt,thiswitnesshas admittedthatshedoesnotknowastowhoownstheB.R.Farm,priorto thisherfamilyhasnotarrangedanypartyinthatfarm,thewitnesswent forthefirsttimeatthatfarmon31/12/003,thewitnessstatesthatshewas informedbyA3onlybeforeadaythathewasdesiroustogiveaparty but,itwasnotinformedtothewitnessastowhereitwastobearranged, on31/12/2003innoontheA3toldaboutthevenuetothewitnessatB.R. Farm,thetimewasnotinformed,thewitnesshaspleadedherignorance tothequestionthatinthispartyhowtheBR..Farmwasprocuredforthe purposeofparty. Uponperusalofthedepositionofthiswitnessaplainadsimple wordwhichcanbewrittenisthatthewitnesshasgiventhisdeposition purelytoscreenherbrother,whoisaninterestedwitnessandshehasnot probabilizedthedefenceratherbyherversionitbecomesclearthatthe distancebetweenthevenueofoffenceandBR..Farmisquitenegligible andthedepositionlikeanyotherwitnesshasprobabalisethepossibility oftheA2andA3havingvisitedthevenueoftheoffenceandthatthis kindofdepositionaddstothestrengthoftheprobabilityfactorofthecase putupbythedeceasedvictimvideExh.283.. 42(i) DW8:

418

ThiswitnessresidesattheplacebesideswhichthereistheOffice ofjellybellyandMahakgutkha.ThewitnessstatesthatA2telephonedat 9:00p.m.thenafter,theywenttoC.G.Road,andtelephonedtoanother friend,A2andthiswitnessreachedthePrimalGardeninLancercar,this witnessmentionedaboutawitnessKim(girl)whowastobepickedup fromherresidenceandthenafterheandA2wenttotheresidenceofKim whenotherfriendsreachedatTaj,thiswitnessstatesthatbeforethey reachedhouseofKimA2telephonedher,theresidenceofKimisbehind NavrangpuraPoliceStation,whenthewitnessmetA2attheresidenceof Kimshecamedownandaftertakingher,theyallwenttoTajhotelwhen itwas11:30p.m.anattempttoobtainthepassweremade,buttherush wastoomuch,thepassescouldnotbeproduced,thepricewastoohigh, then,afterultimatelytheyreachedB.R.FarmwhereA3andhisfriends werethere,wheretheystayedbackfor10minutesandthereafterthey reachedCityPulseatabout12:30a.m.thewitnesshasstatedthatA2 wentforarrangementoftheF.O.C.passfromthemanagerbut,ultimately thepassescouldnotbeproduced,thewitnessA2andKimwenttoGrand BhagwatiwheretheytooksnacksandthepaymentwasmadebyA2,it wasabout2;45a.m.whentheystartedfromGrandBhagwati,rightfrom 9:00P.M.toabout4:15a.m.thewitnesshasnotpartedfromA2,onthe nextdayhereadinthenewspaper,hencehewenttotheresidenceofA2 andcamebackhome,after810daysapolicemancameandrecorded hisstatement,thewitnesswenttotheCourtinthemonthofJanuary,and then,inMarch,ending,thelawyeroftheA2wasinformedaboutthefact that A2 was actually with him, theaffidavit was prepared andit was

419

notarized. Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationthewitnesshasadmitted thatKimwasnothisfriendandhemetherforthefirsttime,thewitness admitsthatheisafriendofA2,therewerecertaincommonfriendsofthis witnessandA2,thiswitnessdoesnotknowthefulladdressofKimnor doesheknowsastowhatherfatherdoes,KimisafriendofA2. In the representation, the eye catching feature is Kim, who has beenreferredasafriendA2,nowamilliondollarquestionisastowhy thisKimwhoisaneyewitnessofthefactofpresenceofA2withher accompanyingthroughoutthenightalmostupto3:30A.M.doesnotcome todeposebeforetheCourt,neitheranyaffidavithasbeenfiled,norshe hasbeenexaminedasawitness,thisfactcreatesadoubtinthemindof theCourtaboutthegenuinenessofthedefenceversion.Thedefencehas examinedthewitnessesafterensuringthatthewitnessisouttohelpthe defence,atanycost,then,onlythewitnessesarebeingexamined.The defencewitnessesmaybeexaminedtoprobabilizethedefenceversion, but,herethedefencewitnesseshavenotdonesoandthereisdiscrepancy intheirversionsandsincetheyarenotindependentwitnessesandnoneof themhavecomeforwardtoassisttheCourtforbetteradministrationof justice,thesearewitnessesheldtohavecometoputforwardcauseofA2 andA3whichcouldnotbethegoaltoexaminethedefencewitness.The goalisthatthewitnessshouldprobabalizethedefenceraised,but,when itisamatteroffactthatthedistancebetweenAshokPalacehoteland B.R. Farm is extremely less, may be not even of 20 or 25 minutes distance, then, the question does not arise to allow and entertain the

420

defenceversionofalibiputforth.Furtherthosewhowishtotakethe defenceofalibimustprovetheirpositivecase,oncethepresumptionof innocenceiseffectivelyrebuttedbytheprosecutionbyprovingthecase beyondreasonabledoubt,itisobligatoryforthedefencetodischargethe onus.Inthiscasedischargingtheonusmeanstobringonrecordvery independent,reliableandcreditworthywitnesseswhoshallprobabilize the defence version, not only that but by genuine means and other documentaryevidencealso,onecanassistthedefencesoastoservethe interest of justice. In the case that A2 was only in company of two persons, Kim and this witness, the reason for not examining Kim is nowherecomingforthonrecord,onpage3ithasbeenstatedthatA2was expertineventorganizationandwasknowingthemanagerofcitypulse andmethimbut,hehasnotbeenexaminedbythedefenceandhence,the versionthatA2meteventhisManageratcitypulseisnotatalltrue. AllthedefencewitnessesthosewhoarefriendsofA2andA3and onesisterhavesteppedintothewitnessboxbut,forwantofindependent, bona fide witnesses and for want of reliable documentary evidence, whichwaspossibletobeprocuredandprovedonrecordbythedefence have since not been brought on record the defence version becomes extremelydoubtful. Mostofthesewitnesseshavenotstatedbeforethe InvestigatingAgencywhathasbeendeposedbeforetheCourt.Someof the witness has given his opinion about his impression of Deceased VictimandPW3.ThefriendJituwhosebirthdaycakewascut,hasnot beenexaminedandifA3hasbroughtthiscakesufficientforfiftyperson (boundtohavebeenorderedbeforesomanyhoursorevenadaybefore

421

sinceitwasnightof31/12/2003wherethecakeisonthehighdemand) thenwhereisthebillofthecake,fromwhichbakery,itwasbroughtor was it a party of Jitu whoisnot examinedto see to it thatthefalse defence of party by A3 does not come out. The witnesses are not natural,reliable,wereconcealingthetruthanddonothelpthedefenceat all. Asdiscussedabovewhenthecaseagainsttheaccusedhasbeen provedbeyondreasonabledoubts,andtheprosecutionhasdischargedits obligation,then,thedefenceshallhavetoleadpositiveevidence.Itis obligatoryonthedefencetodischargetheonuswhichthedefencehas miserablyfailedinthepresentcase.

43.

FURTHER STATEMENTS AND WRITTEN STATEMENTSOFTHEFIVEACCUSED: Thedefenceversionassuch,hasbeendealtwithbutstillhowever,

letusseefromthefurtherstatementsthedefencehasimprobabalizedthe prosecutioncaseinanymannerornotorhasclarifiedinthemannerto raisedoubt.. 43(a) AccusedNo.1: On page No.9 of the F.S. The A1 states that he brought the deceased victim from Bhuyangdev, on page 27 that his clothes were seized by the police, on page60thehistorygivenbyhim before the prosecutionwitnessNo.38istrue(inthewrittenstatementattachedtothe

422

F.S.Andgivenasapartoffurtherstatement,theA1hasstatedthaton 31/12/2003,hewenttotakethedeceasedvictimandthenafter,sleptat hishouseatnightwhichiscontradictorytowhathasbeenstatedbefore the PW38), on page 61, he did not consume alcohol (The alcohol examinationreportstatesotherwise,whichisacircumstanceagainstA1 thatheisspeakingalie),onpage64,theA1statesthathewaspresentat thePoliceStationon01/01/2004(heretheA1doesnotmakeoutacase thatthecomplaintexh.283wasnotgivenbythedeceasedvictimbut,was givenbyPW3whichtooissupportingtheprosecutioncase). Inthewrittensubmission,theA1hasstatedthaton01/01/2004,he received a phone call of A4 who has informed that the PW3 and deceasedvictimareatthepolicestationandthattheA1shouldgothere, hence,aftertakingbath,theA1wenttothepolicestationat5:00a.m. wherehewasmadetositandat4:30p.m.Hewasarrested(Thisfactis notstatedbytheA1beforethedoctorwhiletellingthehistoryofthe occurrence), in the further statement, the A1 has also stated that the deceasedvictimhascommittedsuicideandthatheisinnocent,thisaspect ofA1isasupportingfeaturetotheprosecutioncasethatthedeceased victimhascommittedsuicide,(hereA1likeA2to4)doesnothavea defence that the death of the deceased victim is not a suicidal but, homicidal. The A1 has not brought on record any material to question or challengethetruthfulnessofthedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictim.

423

43(b)

AccusedNo.2: ThisaccusedisthebrotherofA3whohasstatedonpageNo.14

thathisnameisfalselygivenbyA1,onpage16hewenttoCityPulse discoparty,atpage51and54hehasstatedthatthehotelisownedbyhis father wherein, one Pramodbhai and one Mr. Saji Nair are in employment,onpage55theA2hasstatedthatthealcoholreportofthe A2isfalseandforgedreportandonpage91hestatesthatthereport showingbloodgroupOisafalsereportbyF.S.L. HerethealcoholreportandthereportofbloodGroupOisalleged tobefalse,but,quaboththereportsthereisapresumptionofanofficial act to have been performed in regular manner and that the said presumptionhasnotbeenrebutted. TheA2hasalsofiledaffidavitalongwithhisreplywiththeF.S. whichisonrecordvideEXH.462.Inthisaffidavittheaccusedhasstated thathisfatherhasnumerousbusinesseslikehotel,agenciesofMahek group,jellybellyetc.,thetelephoneNo.33111331and9824313333were usedbytheA2onthesaiddate,thisaccusedwenttodifferentplaces includingatresidenceofonegirlfriendKim,metthemanagerofCity Pulse,wentatGrandBhagwati,etc.,but,itisquitesurprisingthathehas notdeposedasadefencewitnesstoestablishthesaidfactualdefenceof alibiwhichisinawaypositivedefence(therighttoobservesilenceof theaccusedisinthemindoftheCourt,butthisiswithreferencetothe explanationgivenbyA2tonotexaminehimself)eventhemanagerof CityPulse,agirlnamedKimhavenotbeenexaminedandthebillof

424

GrandBhagwatihasalsonotbeenproducedonrecord.Onpage6ofthis affidavit, the A2 has specifically stated that while he was standing outsidethehouseofAnkitupto4:00a.m.hisanotherfriendRoshanhas seentheaccusedbut,saidRoshanhasalsonotbeenexaminedbythe defence.FurtheronthesamepageitisstatedthatonthemorningtheA3 wakedhimupfromsleepandtoldhimthatthePW3isfalselygivingthe namesofA3andofthisaccusedinthecomplaintandthenafter,this witnesshastelephonedtothePW3somewhereinthenoonandthaton thenextdatethroughthenewspaper,thisaccusedcametoknowaboutthe factofthecomplaint. Theaccusedisputtingonrecordofhavingknowledgeoffilingofa complaintagainsthimon01/01//2004itselfandthattheaccusedhasbeen arrestedon05/01/2004,thequestionisafterhavingknowledgeoffilinga complaint,normallyapersonwouldtrytobringonrecordthetruthwhich wouldfalsifythecomplaintoratleastwouldtrytopresenthimselfbefore theauthority,but,theaccuseddidnotdoanythingofthatsort,thefriends who have been examinedby theaccused as his witnesses in thetrial couldhavegiventheiraffidavitsorinanymannertheirknowledgeofthe absenceoftheaccusedatthecrucialtimeatthehotelbut,thesamehas notbeendone. In the representation made by this accused and in the special CriminalapplicationfiledbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtofGujaratthe accusedhasnotgivenhismobilenumberswhichhehasclaimedthrough thisaffidavittohadbeeninhiscustodyandwerebeingusedbyhim duringtheinterveningnight.Videthisaffidavittheaccusedhastendered

425

an explanation that he did not know the print out could be used to establish his presence at the relevant time, but, it seems that this explanation is not a swallow able one, as, the natural conduct of an innocentpersonwouldbetoplaceeverythingonrecordbut,theaccused hasnotsodone. Intheaffidavit,thesuicidenoteandthecomplaintEXH.283have beenalleged tohavebeenwrittenbythePW3tofalselyinvolvethe accusedbut,ithasalreadybeendiscussedthathowthedeceasedvictim wasauthorofboththedocumentswhichtherefore,neednotberepeated atthisstage. Theapplicationofthedeceasedvictimdated03/01/2004hasalso been highlighted but, even that has already been discussed while discussing the oral evidence of the PW3 which also need not be repeated. IthasbeenalsosubmittedthatonaccountoftheD.N.A.Report, wherein,theS.T.R.Patternoftheaccusedhavenotbeenreported,the accused should be given a clean chit as, his presence at the time of offencedoesnotstandprovedthroughthisreportwhichhasalsobeen submittedbythelearnedadvocatewhichtooinfacthasbeendealtwith. But,atthecostofrepetitionitneedstobestatedthatthereportofD.N.A. can be conclusively point out the non participation of the accused providedthatitisallegedthattheaccusedhaddischargedhisbodilyfluid becausetheD.N.A.Reportcanbebasedonlyonthebodyfluid,but,in absenceofanybodyfluidfromthebodyoftheaccused,itcannotbesaid

426

thattheD.N.A.Reportisaconclusivereport.

HereitalsoneedstoberepeatedthatthepresenceofsemenofO groupneednotbetakentograntbenefitofdoubt,andthatthoughthe accusedno.2and3haveOgroupitdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthe bodyfluidoftheaccusedwasflownoutfromthebodyoftheaccusedand sincetheD.N.A.reportisnotincludingtheaccusedneedstobeacquitted. Averypeculiarandveryglaringfactofthiscaseisthatstilloneofthe accused is absconding and nobody knows the blood group of that accused.Inthatsituation,thepractical,logicalandlegalinferenceisthat ifthedeceasedvictimistellingaboutpresenceandparticipationofthis accused,then,thesaidinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,should bebelievedandthatpresenceofOgroupfoundbytheF.S.L.couldbeof anyotherpersonormaybeoftheabscondingaccusedandthatthereport of D.N.A. Should necessarily be looked with a situation wherein, the accusedmightnothaveflownbodyfluidfromhisbody.Thatbeingthe situation,thereportofD.N.A.Isincapabletoprovideanyumbrellaas pleaded. The point needs tobenotedthattheaccusedhasnot examined himselfasthedefencewitnessandhasnotofferedhimselftobecross examinedbytheprosecution. 43(c) AccusedNo.3: Onpage12oftheF.S.Theaccusedsaidthathehadatalkwith

427

PW3between6to6:30a.m.,thecomplainthasbeenbookedbythePW 3tofalselyinvolvetheaccused,thehotelisownedbythefatherofthe accused, one Shri Pramodbhai is in employment of the father of the accused, deceased victim came along with A4 at the B.R. Farm, the clotheswornonthedateofarrestwerenottheclotheswhichtheaccused hadwornonthedateofoccurrence,thedefenceofalibi,thereportof serologymoreparticularlyrelatedtobloodgroupOisallegedtobe false,theaccusedwasusingmobileno.9824074588and9824066729out ofwhich9824074588wastakenonthenameofShriJayeshBhavsar,but, boththephoneswereusedbytheaccusedandwereusedonthecrucial interveningnight,falseprintoutshavebeenforgedbyI.O.ShriGadhvi, the accused was at B.R. Farm from 11:40 p.m. To 3:10 a.m. of 01/01/2004,thebirthdaycakewascutforthefriendoftheaccusedJitu whosebirthdaywasonthesaiddate.Thepartywasarranged,disco jockeyRuzanwaspresent. Itneedstobenotedthattheaccusedhasnotbroughtonrecord affidavit of DJ Ruzan (could have produced immediately) or has not examinedhim,hasnotproducedonrecordanythingtoestablishthatboth thephoneswerebelongedtotheaccusedandwerekeptbyhimonthe said day, a friend Jitu whose birthday cake was cut has not been examinedbythedefence,thepossible,probableandnaturallyavailable documentstosupportthedefencehavenotbeenproducedbytheaccused, aboutthepartyhavingbeenarrangedbyhimwhichitselfshedscloudsof doubtonthedefenceofalibi. AffidavitatEXH.463alongwiththereplyoftheF.S.hasalsobeen

428

filed.Onpage5ofthisaffidavit,theaccusedhasstatedthatthepartywas overbyabout3:10a.m.thenafter,theaccusedwentfromB.R.Farmto dropDJRuzan,andthenafter,sincehereceivedaphonecallofA4for demandofthecarofA4theaccusedcametothehotelatabout4:00or 4:15a.m.atwhichpointoftimetheaccusedlearntfromA4thattheA1 hadgonetodropthedeceasedvictimandhadyetnotreachedandthe PW3iscontactingtheA4,thenafter,theaccusedwenthometosleep, bywhichtimehereceivedaphonefromA4wherein,A4toldhimthat PW3isfilingafalsecomplaintandthePW3isalsogivingnameofthis accused,thisaccusedhasfurtherstatedthathethentelephonedPW3to informabouthisinnocence. InviewofthisitbecomesclearthatthisaccusedhaslearntfromA 4aboutacomplaintbeingfiledandinturnalsotelephonedtoPW3but, thisaccusedisnotgoingtoanyauthority,isnotbringingthefriends, relatives, etc. who had attended the party, and not informing any authorityabouthisabsenceatthesiteofoffencewhichseemstobequite unnatural. ConductleadingtoonlyoneconclusiontheA3wasaware thathehascommittedtheoffenceasalleged. TheaccusedfurtherstatesthatheinformedaboutthefacttoA2 (thisshowstheknowledgeofA2atthesametime),theaccusedhasalso statedthathehaslearntevenfromnewspapers,itisnotbelievablethat onewholearnsabouthavingfiledafalsecomplaintagainsthimwould observesilenceinthemannerthisaccusedhasobservedandwouldnotbe available for about 4 5 days, this conduct if seen with the dying declarationofthedeceasedvictimmakesitamplyclearthatthisaccused

429

isnotspeakingtruthinhisfurtherstatementwhichisalsoofferingan additionalcircumstanceagainstthisaccused. Thisaccusedtoo,hasmaderepresentationandapplicationbefore theHon'bleHighCourtofGujarat,wherein,hedoesnotplaceonrecord aboutthetwomobilesinhiscustody. TheverysamesituationhasbeendiscussedincaseofA2whichis applicabletothisaccusedaswell. Thisaccusedhasalsostatedaboutanapplicationbythedeceased victimdated03/01/2004,defencebasedonD.N.A.Report,defencebased onalibiandthesubmissionoffalseinvolvementwhichareallsimilarto thesubmissionsofA2whichhavebeendealtwithbythisCourt,andthe samediscussionisapplicabletothisaccusedaswell. Thiswitnesstoohasnotexaminedhimselfasadefencewitness whichitselfisselfexplanatory. ThisaccusedhasalsostatedthatintheUttarayanof2003(which comesinthemonthofJanuary),thedeceasedvictimhadoralexchangeof heatedwordswithfriendJituandthen,oralexchangeofheatedwords amongstthedeceasedvictim,PW3andthisaccused. Ifthatisthecase,theaccusedshouldhaveexaminedhisfriendJitu toestablishthesaidfactthough,thesaidfactdoesnotleadustobelieve thatforthistriflereasonthedeceasedvictimwouldfalselyinvolvethis accusedevenwhensheisdyingandthattooforcommittingrapeonher.

430

Inviewoftheabove,thefurtherstatementsandtheaffidavitfiled byA2andA3hasinnomannerprobabilizedthedefenceversionand doubtthecaseputforthbythedeceasedvictimherself.Notonlythat,the accused have taken a positive defence of alibi and therefore, such a positivedefencewhichisbasedonthespecialknowledgeoftheaccused should be proved by the accused themselves, but, the accused have miserablyfailedtodoso.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,the prosecutionhasestablisheditscasebeyondreasonabledoubtagainstthe accused,thepresumptionofinnocenceoftheaccusedhasrightlybeen rebuttedbytheprosecutionandthatinsuchacasethedefencehasaduty to discharge its obligationandtheprincipleofonusdemandsthatthe positivedefencetakenupbytheaccusedshouldbeformallyprovedby theaccusedwhichtheaccusedhavenot.Inthefactsandcircumstancesof thecasethedefenceofalibicannotbebelievedatalltobegenuineand true.. ThedistancebetweentheBhatVillage,B.R.Farm,andthehotel, theGandhinagarcity,theGrandBhagwati,etc.Istoolittlewherefrom,it cannot be held that the accused was present there, hence, it is not probablethathewouldcomeatthesiteofoffence.Theprosecutioncase articulatedthroughthecomplaintEXH.283andsuicidenoteEXH.571 have not been successfully challenged and that the defence of alibi therefore,cannotbebelievedinanycase. 43(d) AccusedNo.4:

431

A4 has stated in his further statement that the death of the deceasedisnotsuicidaldeathandisahomicidaldeathandthatwiththe dupattatherecannotbealigaturemark,andthatthedeceasedvictimwas killedonthenightof06/01/2004atanytimeandthattogiveashowof suicidaldeaththepersonconcernedhaveremainedawayfromtheplace wherethedeceasedvictimwaskept. Thiscourthasdiscussedatlengthandshallstillfurtherdiscussin anothersessionscaseastohowitisacaseofsuicidaldeath.Itisnot believablethatwiththedupattanoligaturemarkwouldcome,theonly differenceisthatwithasoftdupattadeepseatedligaturemarkwouldnot comeandwiththehardsubstancedeepseatedligaturemarkwouldcome. On the plain reading of EXH.62 the P.M. Note along with the oral evidenceofPW2itbecomesamplyclearthatthisisacaseofsuicidal death and it is not a case of homicidal death and thus, there is no substanceinthissubmission. Onpage5A4hasstatedthatthedeceasedvictimwasinjuredby

thedigitalpenetrationbefore23daysofherdeathwhichwaspurelyto createasupportfortherapecase. Thissubmissionisnotatallpenetrableoneandthatitisabsolutely improbablethatapersonwouldallowsomeonetodoinjuriesbydigital penetrationonlytosupportarapecase. IntheopinionofthisCourttheseinjuriesareratherstrengthening thecaseofthedeceasedvictimandthatthisinjurycanclearlybelinked

432

withtheoccurrence,asnopersonwouldcauseinjurytooneselfinthe manner described by A4 and if some another has caused it than the deceasedvictimwouldhavereflecteditinhersuicidenoteandthenshe mightnothavepainedon01/01/04and02/01/04asstatedbeforeA11 andPW39. Onpage10,ofthefurtherstatementtheA4hasstatedthatwhile

goingtoB.R.Farmatabout12:00oftheinterveningnightthedeceased victimtelephonedfromhismobilephone,onpage10whilereplyinga questiontheA4hasstatedthatwhileA4toldthePW3thatsheshould takethedeceasedvictimatabout3:50or4:00a.m.atthatpointoftime, A4gavetheaddressofSolaPetrolPump,thisagaininpremeditation. ThereplytothisquestionmakesitamplyclearthatitistheA4 whoinformedthePW3thatatabout3:50to4:00a.m.sheshouldtake awaythedeceasedvictim.Thisismakingitamplyclearthatthedeceased victimhasnotpartedfromthehotelinanycasebeforeabout3.45to4:00 a.m.andthisitselffalsifiestheversionputforththatatabout1:30or2:00 a.m.theA1hadleftwiththedeceasedvictimandsomethinghappenedon thewayforwhichtheA1issolelyresponsible.Thisallegeddepartureof 1.30to2.00a.m.ismerelyeyewash. ThecomplaintandthesuicidenotehasbeenwrittenbythePW3. Ithasbeendealtwiththattheauthorofbothofitwasthedeceased victimherselfandhence,neednotbediscussedagain.

433

Onpage22and23A4hasstatedthathehadfriendshipwiththe

deceasedvictimforoneandahalfyearsto2years,PW3anddeceased victim came to meet theA4on31/12/2003atnoon,themarriage of deceasedvictimwastotakeplacewiththePW10. Thedefenceputforthhereabouttheproposedmarriagebetween

thedeceasedvictimandPW10assuch,hasneverbeenraisedandhas been raised for the first time hence, such a defence which is an afterthoughtcannotbeconsidered,andthatevenifitisbelieveditdoes notimprobabalizetheprosecutioncaseinanymanner.Itratherreflects thementalityofA4. TheD.N.A.sampleshavenotbeenproperlytaken,carehasnot

beentaken,supervisionandanalysisforithasnotbeendoneandthe reportisfalse. This defence is an absolutely vague defence and has no base

whatsoever, all the reports prepared at the government offices have presumptionofitsproprietaryundertheIndianEvidenceAct,whichdoes notstandrebutted. TheP.M.Reporthasbeenassailedonthegroundthatithasbeen

givenunderthepressureofpoliceandgovernmentandthefindingof hanginghavebeentakendownfromthebookofDr.NarayanReddi. This submission in fact means that the EXH.62 tallies with the

book of Dr. Narayan Reddi and rather it proves the case of suicidal

434

hangingofthedeceasedvictim.

Theallegationagainstthedeceasedvictimthatshewasahabitual

drinkerofbeerandwasachainsmokerisheldtobeabsolutelyirrelevant as that does not grant licence to anyone to ravish her cherished possession. On page 52 the A4 has stated that on 31/12/2003 he came to

Ahmedabad on account of persuasion and invitation by the deceased victimandhasleftthecityasperhisprescheduleon01/01/2004at5:00 a.m. This aspect too is helpingtheprosecutioncase andproving the presenceoftheaccusedatthehotel,thisstatementhastobeseenwiththe statementonpage4andpage7ofthewrittensubmissionattachedtothe F.S.wherein,theaccusedhasmentionedthatheleftthecityat4:00a.m. andonpagebetween4:00to4:30a.m. Onpage54,A4hasstatedthatthedeceasedvictimleftthehotelat

about1:30a.m.andthenaftertillshereachesherhomeA4hasremained inconstanttelephoniccontactwiththePW3andthathehasperformed hisdutysufficiently. ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowthattheA4wasintelephonic contactwiththePW3at1:30a.m.Thisstatementisrathersuggestive thattheA4hadtalkedwiththePW3asandwhenthedeceasedvictim hadleftthehotel,whichwasnot1:30a.m.but,shouldanytimeafter3:30

435

a.m. and therefore, this statement does not inspire confidence of this Court. On page 73 it has been stated by A4 that the statement of the

watchmanofB.R.Farmissupportingthedefence. One fails to understandthatwhenthedefencehasexaminedso many witnesses why not examined the watchman of B.R. Farm who could have provided better assistance to the defence, the act of not examining the watchman of B.R. Farm itself proves that there was nothinglikeapartyattheB.R.Farmontheinterveningnight. On page 82 (i) the A4 has stated that the deceased victim was

lovinghimso muchandwasconsideringhimasherhusband.Evena bunch of SMS attached to the F.S. Is also suggestive of some soft relationshipbetweenthedeceasedvictimandtheA4whichcanbeseen fromtheplainperusalofthoseSMS. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthismustbethereasonforthe deceasedvictimtosustaintremendousmentaltraumaastheA4towhom shewasloving,shewasconsideringhimashusbandhadbetrayedherand hadallowedtheremainingfouraccusedthefriendsofA4torapethe deceased victim. Here it needs to be noted that on page 6 this very accusedisstatingthatthedeceasedvictimhadonesidedloveforhim. Thisisagainanewdefenceputforthandhence,needsnoappreciation. Inthelightofabovediscussion,itbecomesamplyclearthatby wayoffurtherstatementalsotheA4hasnotbroughtanymaterialon

436

recordwhichwouldimprobabalizetheprosecutionversionandwhichcan offeraneffectivechallengetotheelementoftruthfulnessinthedying declarationofthedeceasedvictim. 43(e) AccusedNo.12:

WhilediscussingtheoralevidenceofPW44thedoctorwhohas examined the A12, this Court hasdiscussed atlengththeaspect and defenceofidentityraisedbytheA12,toavoidrepetitionthesameisnot discussedhere. The defence has placed on record as many as 29 documents

rangingfrom1982to2005allshowingthenameofMr.Dharmendra JainwhicharetosubmitthattheissueofidentityquatheA12issuch whichentitlestheA12tobegrantedbenefitofdoubt. Allthesaiddocumentsaresimplexeroxcopies,thedocumentsare not certified or authenticated, not notarized copies, not original documents and not even being certified as true copy by any of the lawyersevenhasnotsignedbythelawyer.Hence,thisCourtdoesnotsee anyelementofcreditworthinessinthesedocuments.Itisastonishingthat eventhelistofthe29documentsisnotsignedbythelearnedadvocate fortheA12.Thedocumentshavebeenplacedonrecordbut,noaffidavit whatsoeverhasbeenfiledeitheroftheaccusedorofanyfamilymembers toformallyemphasisethatthesedocumentsaregenuineandcomingfrom their custody and are true copy compared with original dealing with defenceofA12..TheA12couldhaveexaminedhisownfatherorany

437

of the family members or any person from his school or college to establish what is being tried to establish by the production of 29 documents. The A12 was absconding for quite a long time and that the

proceedings under the Cr.P.C. hadto beinitiated bytheinvestigating agencywhichisaverystrongcircumstanceagainsttheA12. IntheF.S.theA12hasstatedonpage11thathisidentification

paradehasnotbeendone,hisnamehasnotbeengiveninthecomplaint, hisnameisnotKaran,henevermetthePW3before,heisbrotherinlaw ofA4,hehasbeenfalselyinvolvedandarrestedonaccountofmedia publicity,hewasnotabscondingbut,wasonbusinesstour,hedoesnot knowthePW3andthedeceasedvictim,hisnameisnotshowninthe suicidenote,heisinnocentandhasbeenfalselyinvolved. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthereisnothingonrecordfrom

whichitcanbethoughtthattheA12hasbeenfalselyinvolvedandhas beenwronglyarrestedbytheinvestigatingagency.NeitherthewifeofA4 whoisadmittedlythesisterofA12noranywitnesshasbeenexaminedto establishthedefenceofidentity.Nobodyevenhasfiledanaffidavitto establishthedefenceofA12.Itisadmittedpositionthatheisbrotherin lawofA4andthatA4veryclearlystatesthathebroughtalongwithhim inthesamewayA12statesbeforethedoctorthathewaspresentinthe interveningnightinAhmedabadandthathestayedatthehotel,eventhis isthecircumstanceestablishingtheprosecutionversiontobetrue.There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version more

438

particularly,whenitisdyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictimwhich doesnotrequireanycorroboration.SufficeittosaythattheA12hasnot brought on record, any material, any fact or any point by which the probabilityaspectoftheprosecutioncasecanbesuccessfullytermedto havebeenchallengedandthatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase whenthepresumptionofinnocencewhichwasrunninginfavourofthe A12hasbeenrebuttedbytheprosecution,theA12hasdutytopositively prove his defence which has not been successfully done and that the defence put forth in the case isabsolutely not creditworthy, theother pointsbeingsuchwhichcannotberelieduponasvaliddefence,andthat thedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictimdoesnotstandchallengedas not to be truthful or voluntary and that no element of the dying declarationhavingbeenpromptedortutoredstandestablishedinviewof whichthedefencehasmiserablyfailed.Asagainstthattheprosecution hassuccessfullyestablishedthepresenceandinvolvementofallthefive accusedinthepresentcrime. In the humble opinion of this Court, the numerous facts and

circumstances,documentaryevidence,historywrittenbythedoctoratthe instanceofA12,thecomplaint(Exh.283),thereportu/s.157ofCr.P.C. (Exh.284),thehistorybeforeA11,Dr.Jadavbythedeceasedvictim,etc. if are seen together, it becomes amply clear that the prosecution has provedbeyondreasonabledoubtofarrivalandthereafter,presenceofA 12rightfrommorningof31.12.2003,thevisitofdeceasedvictimandher sister at noon of 31.12.03 at Hotel Ashok Palace where they were introduced with A12, etc. are proving the presence of A12 clearly.

439

Though,theemployeesofAshokPalaceHotel,haveresiledfromtheir statement before police the presence of A12 is proved beyond any reasonabledoubtattheAshokPalaceHotelattheinterveningnightand at room no.106 at the crucial time. There is nothing on record to establishthatA12isnotknownasKaran@Montu.Thefactthatin Exh.283A12isshowntobetheresidentofDelhiandinExh.284heis showntobetheresidentofJaipur,hasbeenverymuchclarifiedbyPW 43. The fact remains thatA12 alongwithA4 joinswhocamefrom JaipurandthatA4belongstoDelhiandA4hasnotintroducedA12as hisbrotherinlaw,isverytellingcircumstanceagainsttheA4andA12. Itwouldnotbeeasyforanyonemoreparticularlythedeceasedvictimand hersister(PW3)tomakeoutastoA12belongstowhichcity.Merely this discrepancy does not raise any reasonable doubt. It is rather strengthening the prosecution case that all the conscious efforts were madebyA4,A12andotheraccusedtoseetoitthattrueintroductionof A12doesnotrevealbeforethedeceasedvictimandPW3.Itwouldbe moreappropriatetosaythatthisisonemoreadditionalcircumstanceto concludethatA4andA12hadguiltyconscience.

44.

PW21&PANCHNAMAOFT.I.PARADE: Exh.217 yadi and Exh.218 / Exh.291 panchnama of test

identificationparadeifarereadwithdepositionofPW21,itbecomes amplyclearthatA12hasbeenidentifiedbyPW3tobetheonewhowas present at Ashok Palace Hotel on 31.12.2003. The A12 has not explainedwherehewasinthenoonof31/12/2003.TheA4statesand

440

evenA12statesthatPW3andD.V.cameatabout9.30A.M.orsoon 31/12/2003attheHotelandhencetheprobabilityofA12havingmet PW3inthesaidnoonistoopowerful,hence,thesaidisbelievedtobe trueThecircumstanceincludingthehistorygivenbytheA12beforethe examiningdoctorclearlyshowsthatatleasttillthe3.00to3.30A.M.of 01.01.2004 A12 was present at the hotel. Considering which, the test identificationparadedoesnotleaveanyscarbehinditwhichbringsitinto pursebenefitofdoubtinfavourofA12.Moreover,PW3isnotanew persontotheA12.SheisknowingA12evenpriortotestidentification paradeastheymetinthenoonof31.12.03.. Itcannotbeforgottenthatthepurposeoftestidentificationparade

istotestthestatementofthewitnessmadeintheCourtwhichconstitutes substantialevidenceandthatasasaferule,suchtestimonyofthewitness intheCourtastotheidentityoftheaccusedsincerequirescorroboration, itisbeingofferedintheformoftestidentificationparadeproceedings. SuchtestidentificationparadesaretoassuretheInvestigatingAgency that they are on the right line of investigation. The physical fact of identificationhas,assuch,noseparateexistenceapartfromthestatement involved in the very process of identification. Thus, the forceful submission by Ld. Advocate for the A12 on the aspect that the identificationparadewastobeheldnotinaccordancewithlawandwasa farasasitwasheldafterfivedaysofthearrestofA12 (arrestedon 23.02.2005 and the test identification parade was conducted on 28.02.2005)iswithoutanymerit,asthisisnotacasewherePW3wasa strangerorwasapersonlessknowntoA12.PW3hadanopportunity

441

alongwithdeceasedvictimtoobserveandknowA12forthewholenoon of31.12.2003atAshokPalaceHotelandthatastheaccusedwasarrested on23.02.2005,itcannotbesaidthatthereisbiggapoftime.Hence,the question of creating reasonabledoubtin favour of A12 or titlingthe identificationproceedingstobefarceistotallyoutofquestion.

Here,atthecostofrepetition,itisnecessarytonotethatExh.283isthe firstandforemostreactionbythedeceasedvictimwithdetailsincluding thepresenceandparticipationofA12.ItisnotthecaseofA12thatat thecrucialperiodoftheinterveningnightof31.12.2003and01.01.2004 he wasnot inthe CityofAhmedabadandthathewasnotstaying at AshokPalaceHotel,ShahibaugwithA4.RatherthecaseisthatA12 wasinroomno.205after12:30or1:00a.m.of01.01.2004forwhich thereisnonewhosteppedintothewitnessbox.

PW21sdepositionclarifiesthatthepersonsofthesameagegroupof A12werekeptpresentintheT.I.ParadeandtheA12wasnotshownto the witness before T.I.Parade are the elements which proves the fair T.I.Parade.

TheaspectofpublicationofphotoofA12inthenewspaperdoesnot provefatalforthedyingdeclarationastheA12wasverywellknownto the PW3 who had opportunity to closely observe him in the noon of 31.12.03foraboutthreehoursandfurthertheT.I.Paradeareproceeding forconfirmationtotheinvestigatingagencyanditisnotforcourt.

442

Here,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thisCourtisinclinedto hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily, sufficiently, clearly, convincinglyestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubtthepresenceofA12 atHotelAshokPalaceonthatnight.Thisbeingthesituation,itseems totallyoutoftheplacetoacceptthesubmissionmadeonbehalfofA12 abouthisabsenceoraboutthepresencenothavingbeenproved.Itcannot go out of mind that in the dying declaration of deceased victim, the presence andparticipationof A12hasbeenproved whichrequires no corroborationandwhenitsoundsquiteitbeingtruthfulandvoluntary.It isnotmerelydrawingofthePanchnamaoftestidentificationparade,but itisacasewhereinPW21,ExecutiveMagistratehassteppedintothe witness box and has concretely strengthened the presumption of test identificationparadehavingbeencarriedoutinasatisfactoryandproper wayasofficialact,hence,thepresumptiontohavedoneappropriately, whichagainconfirmedthroughhisoralevidencewhichissubstantialin natureandwhichisfurtherstrengthenedbytheoralevidenceofPW3 whoidentifiedA12notonlyinthetestidentificationparade,buteven duringthetrialaswhileinthewitnessbox,A12hasbeenidentifiedby PW3andPW21andtherefore,thetestidentificationparadehasbeena proceeding which is proving the identity of A12 beyond reasonable doubt.

45.

MERITS OF THE DEFENSE ON THE MOBILE PRINTOUTSBYA2ANDA3:

443

Thefollowingpointneedstobejotteddownbeforeappreciationofthe defenceonthiscount:

45(A)

The prosecution has not relied upon mobile print outs to

establish the prosecution case. It seems that while carrying out the investigation,theinvestigatingagencyhascollectedcertainprintoutsof different mobile numbers belonging to deceased victim, prosecution witnessNo.3andtheaccused.Afterdirectionforfurtherinvestigation fromtheHon'bleHighCourtofGujarat,furtherinvestigationhasbeen done.

45(B)

Allcorrespondencewithdifferentmobilecompaniesandthe

printoutsobtainedofdifferentmobilenumbershavebeenexhibitedat the instance of the defense and more particularly accused No. 2 and accusedNo.3whichareonrecordvideExh.355to370,383to402,426 to432and436to443.

45(C)

Thedefensehasharpedupontwoaspectsbyhighlightingthe

printoutsandcorrespondence.

45(C1)

Thedefensehassubmittedthattheinvestigationisbiased,

notbonafide,dishonestandhasattemptedtofalselyimplicatetheaccused bypartialandonesidedinvestigation.

444

45(C2)

Bytheseprintouts,itisattemptedtoshowthattheaccused

no. 2 and 3 were not present at the site of the offence and were somewhereelsewhichcouldhavecomeonrecordhadthegenuineprint out,withoutanyconcoctionbeenproducedtheabsenceoftheA2andA 3couldhavebeenproved.

Thus,theseprintoutsaredefensemainlytoadvancethedefenseof alibiandtopointoutthedefectsoftheinvestigation.

Whathasbeencanvassedisthatthiscourtshouldappreciatethe printoutsandconcealmentandconcoctioninitandshouldholdthatthe accusedwerenotpresentatthesiteoftheoffenceandwereatsomewhere else.

45(D)

Thiscourthascarefullyconsideredthematerialinformof

print outs and the submission madethereupon. Following points have emergedwhichhavebeenconsideredbythiscourt.

(1)

Lookingtothetotalityoftheevidence,itdoesnotseemsafeand

sound to infer that the investigation is malafide, partial, unfair andis biased.Itcannotbeforgottenthatthemobiletechnologyistotallynew science and it cannot be expected that every police officer would be knowingallthetechnicalitiesofthemobiletechnology.

(2)

Prosecution Witness No. 49 has deposed on page 97 in his

445

depositionthatthemobiletelephonenumberofthedeceasedvictimwas 31085810inreplytoquestionno.326,hehasstatedthatthestatementof anypersonfromtheRelianceCompanyhasnotbeenrecorded,onpage 100 he has stated that mobile telephone and its technology and functioningwerenewsubjectforhim,onpage101,hehasstatedthatno inquireshadbeenmadeinmobilecompanies,replyingquestionno.257, hehasstatedthatthecopiesoftheprintoutsareproducedasweresentby themobilecompaniesandnotthexeroxcopies.

(3)

Prosecution Witness No. 51 has also stated in nutshell that the

investigationdidnotgetanycluefromthemobileprintoutsandthathe doesnotpossessexpertiseknowledgeonthesubject.

(4)

Itisanadmittedpositionthatstatementofanyoftheofficeror

personfromanyofthemobilecompanieshavenotbeenrecordedbythe investigatingagencywhichwouldmeanthattheprosecutionhasthough chosenasoneofthemodesofinvestigationthroughtheprintoutsofthe mobilebutthenafterthesaidhasnotbeenfurthered.

(5)

Withthecommonsense,itisheldbythecourtthattheprintoutis

nothingbutmovementofthesimcardandisneitheroftheindividualnor oftheinstrumentbecauseprintouthasarelationwiththesimcard,the instrumentandperson/holdermaychange.

(6)

In the humble understanding of this court, the prosecution has

446

provedbeyondreasonabledoubttheguiltofthefiveaccusedandthatitis thereforethedutyofthedefensetoexaminetheofficialsofthemobile companyaswitnessesofdefensetobringonrecordgenuineprintoutand ifthedefensewantedtoestablishthattheprintoutsbroughtoutfromthe custodyoftheinvestigatingagencywereconcoctedorforged.

In the case on the hand, the investigating agency is clearly testifying that whatever was received by them from the mobile companies, the same have been produced by the investigating agency uponthedemandofthedefensewhichcanalsobepresumedtobeso unlessproveotherwise.

Unlessthedefenseexaminedtheexpertsofthemobiletelephone technologynothing can beheldagainsttheinvestigatingagencyor in favour of the accused to conclude defense of alibi in favour of the accused.Theonusistobedischargedbythedefenseofhisabsenceatthe siteoftheoffencetosuccessfullyimprobabalisetheprovedfactofhis presence at the site of theoffence, but nothinghasbeendonebythe defence.

(7)

AshasbeendeposedbyfilingaffidavitsbytheA1andA3,theA

2wasusingmobilenumber33111331and9824313333andA3was using98240 74588and 9824066729,whichalsostandfortifiedfrom Exh.389correspondence.EvenintheordersofHon'bleHighCourtof Gujaratonpage12,onrecordasExh.408,theabovefacthasbeen

447

observedinadditiontothefactthatthemobilenumberofA1is98790 99994,A4is9868157468;35740459,A12is3100210,deceasedvictim is31085810,PW3is9898019689,whichisalsothecaseputupbythe A2andA3.

Evenonpage157ofthedepositionofPW49andonpage95of depositionofPW3,thesaidfactthatthemobilenumberofKaran(A12) was 01453100210 and the print out of it is Exh.395 clearly get confirmed.

(8)

VideExh.391,aprintoutoftelephonenumber3111331hasbeen

broughtonrecordthroughprosecutionwitnessno.49.Onpageno.31of theprintoutinthefirsttwoentryof01/01/04,anothernumberseemsto havebeentypedviz.insteadofthisnumberofaccusedno.2.Theprintout forthetwoentriesisofnumberis35510194.Thisisforthecrucialtime of1.00a.m.toabout3.00a.m.of01/01/04whereintheoriginatingB.T.S. isshowntobe49.

Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourtintheprintoutof41pages, only these two entries have been smartly inserted of some another number and if not read carefully, this would give an impression that duringthetimeof1.00a.m.to3.00a.m.,theaccusedno.2wasinthe areaoforiginatingB.T.S.49.Thisisthecrucialperiodi.e.of1.00a.m. to3.00a.m.whichtheaccusedno.2wantedtoshowthathewasnotat thesiteoftheoffence.TheseprintoutsatExh.291havebeenexhibited

448

attherequestofthedefensefromtherecordoftheanothersessionscase.

Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,nobodyknowsthatB.T.S.49 reflectswhichareathennowcanitbebelievedthatthisinsertionismade by Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused when by showingthemovementatotherthanthehotelareaitisexcludingtheA 2.OnewhoisinterestedinexclusionistheA2andhadtheinsertion beenbytheInvestigatingOfficer,itcouldhavedeletionorshowinginthe hotelitself.Thisentrydoesnothelpprosecutionandhence,couldnot havebeendonebytheinvestigationofficerbut,musthavebeenarranged attheinstanceoftheA2.

Thedefensehastodischargetheonusbyinvitingtheofficerofthe mobilecompanytoestablishthatatthiscrucialperiodof1.00to3.00 a.m.wherethetelephonenumber33111331hasmovedandthatthese papersofprintoutshavenotbeenthegenuineprintouts,givenbythe mobilecompaniesasthemobilecompanymusthavesomethingintheir record which can prove as to what was handed over by the mobile company to the investigating agency. If, the A2 wanted the court to accepthisdefenceofalibiontheseprintoutsfortheperiodof1.00a.m. to3.00a.m.of01/01/04,hehastoexaminetheofficerofthemobile companyasdefensewitnesstoestablishthatthesearenottheprintout givenbythemobilecompanytotheinvestigatingagencythenatleastthe court has reason to believe that someone in the investigating team is playingmischiefwiththerecord.Thedefensehasnotchosentodoso. Unlesstheseprintoutsareeffectivelychallengedbytheaccusedno.2,

449

thedefenseofalibithroughthisprintoutscannotbeconsideredtobe probabilised.

(9)

Ashasalreadybeendiscussed,sincetheprosecutionhasprovedits

casebeyondreasonabledoubtthroughthedyingdeclarations,theaspect ofdefectiveinvestigationdoesnothittheprosecutioncaseandthatthere may be lacunas in the investigation but, it cannot be termed to be malafide as it is the matter of common knowledge that every officer mightnotpossessknowledgeonthemobiletechnologyandthatlackof knowledgeorexperiencetoinvestigatewiththehelpofprintoutscannot belabelledasmalafide,biasedorwithulteriormotives.

(10) ProsecutionwitnessNo.51hasveryclearlyreflectedthatpleaof alibiquatheaccusedno.2andaccusedno.3wasnotfoundgenuineon readingoftheprintoutsaccordingtohisunderstanding.Hehashowever, did not claim expertise on mobile technology. This is another reason becauseofwhichthedefenseneedstoestablishthedefenseofalibiofhis ownanditcannotrelyuponthedocumentscollectedbytheinvestigating agency.

It has to be noted that all the procured print outs and all the correspondence with different mobile companies entered into by the investigating agency have been exhibited on record but merely the contents of the print outs cannot be termed to have been proved by exhibition thedocuments.Unlessmobilecompanyfromwhosesource

450

theseprintoutshavecomeontherecordstepsintothewitnessboxand formerly prove the contents it is unsafe to come to some conclusion basinguponit.Theseprintoutshavebeenexhibitedforthetechnical reasonsthatthedefensehasrequestedthoseprintoutstobeexhibitedbut merelygrantofsuchrequestcannotgivethestatustothedocumentsof having formally and legally proved. It is well known that during the investigation,severaldocumentsarecollectedbytheinvestigatingagency butthegenuinenessofthecontentsisalwaysmatterofformalproof.One (herethedefense)whoreliesupon,mustproveitanddefensehasnot provedthesameinthiscaseforwhichreason,thesedocumentsdonot provide and do not termed to have been proving defense of alibi for accusedno.1andaccusedno.2.

(11) IthasbeencanvassedthatfromtherecordofAirtelonrecord,the prosecutionwitnessno.3wasatBarejaon31/12/2003andnotatHotel Taj.Theveracityoftheprosecutionwitnessno.3hasbeenchallengedon thisaspectbutithastoberememberedthatfirstlywearenotconcerned withthemovementofPW3ontheinterveningnightassheisnotbeing triedandsecondlyunlessitcomesonrecordastoonwhichtechnology themobilecompanywhichhasprovidedservicestoPW3isworking, nothingcanbeconcludedassomeofthemobilecompaniesareworking onthetechnologywheretheircellradiumisfixedandsomeareworking othetechnologywhereincellbreathingactsinwhichcasewheneverthe traffic is less the radius would expand to include more customers. In somecompaniestheB.T.S.radiusisatthedistanceof3to4kilometres andinsomecases,itcouldbeatthedistanceofmorekilometres.Now

451

until all such material is brought on record, the court cannot held anythingmerelybasingupontheargumentoferuditelawyeroftheA2 andA3.Thesearethefactumwhichneedsveryhighdegreeofformal prooftobelieveordisbelievethesame.

Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itdoesnotseemlogicaltoraise the eyebrow and doubt the investigating agency or mobile telephone operatorastheonusistobedischargedbythedefensewhichforthe reasonsbestknowntothedefensehasnotbeendischarged.Thisistobe seen keeping in the mind that A2 and A3 have examined many witnessesbutnonefromthefieldofmobiletechnologywhichhasbeen heavilyreliedupon.

(12) Inthecasesofanykindoftechnologyitdoesnotseemsprudentto acceptthesubmissionofld.Advocateoncontentsofthedocumentsasit iswhenthepartiesarenotagreeingonthecontents. Eveniftheseallprintoutsarebelievedasforged,concocted,bogus thenalsoitdonotthrowawaytheworthofthedyingdeclarationclearing implicatingboththeaccusedinthecrime. (13) It has to be remembered that taking out printout from the computerisedsystemintheofficeofmobileoperatorisaministerialjob andthatthemistakeingivingcommandtothecomputerorthepossibility oftypingerrorscannotberuledout.

452

Normally,theB.T.S.numberisbeingtakenintheprintoutsandthe correspondingtableofB.T.S.numberismanuallypreparedbythestaffof mobileoperatorinwhichwork,somanypersonsattheofficeofmobile operatorareinvolvedhence,itdoesnotseemtobesafetoconcludethat themistakesinprintoutwereintentional.

Hereitisalsonotknowntotherecordastowhethertheprintout weresuppliedbythemobileoperatortotheinvestigatingagencyinhard copyorinsoftcopyandthatitisalsonotknowntorecordastohow many persons in the investigating team were handling the affairs of mobileprintouts.

(14) LearnedadvocatefortheA2andA3hasharpeduponthechange intheformatasastrongelementtodoubttheprosecutionrecord.But, untilitisknowntothecourtastowhetherthereareanyguidelinesforthe mobileoperatorsasfortheprintoutpreparationintheprescribedformat giveprintouteitherfromthedepartmentoftelecommunication(mostly the licensor) or from the TRAI (the regulatory authority telecom regulatoryauthorityofIndia).Noconclusionasdesiredbythedefence canbedrawnasitisnotlawpointswhichcanbearguedandrepliedby thecourt.

Theguidelinesmightnothavebeengivenfortheuseofprescribed formatforthereasonsthatdifferentsecurityagencieslikepolice,C.B.I., etc.requiredataindifferentformataspertheirrequirementoraspertheir

453

destination of investigation and that until it is learnt that what was highlightedasneedoftheinvestigatingagency,inthecaseonhand,the informationgiveninthepresentformatcannotbedoubtedascomeson recordtheinformationweresoughtbythehanddeliveryontelephonic request.

Atthecostofrepetition,itshouldbeopinedthatthedefenseought tohaveestablishedonrecordthatthechangeinuseofformatwasself styledandintentionaltofalselyimplicatetheaccusedasissubmittedas otherwiseitisnotopentocourttosoholdonmeresubmissionoftheld. Advocate.

(15) Unlessitisknownthattheoperatorhasgivensoftcopyorhard copyitcannotbedecidedastoatwhoseendmistakeormischiefwas committedandthatprintoutwaswhethertakenoutattheofficeofmobile operatororattheofficeoftheinvestigatingagencyisuntillearnt,itisall inswingingpositionandthattheCourtcannotbaseitsfindingonmere submissionassubmissioncannotreplacetheneedofformalproofmore particularlyincasewhere,subjectisnewtechnologywhichcanonlybe formallyprovedbyatechnicalexpertperson.

(16) The point raised by the defence about difference in manner of writingthedate,time,font,character,etc.hasnotimpressedthisCourt as, an able factor which improbabalizes the version put forth by the investigatingagencythattheinvestigatingagencyhasgiventheprintouts

454

as were given to the investigating agency by the respective mobile companies. Withthefundamentalknowledgeabouttheoperationofcomputer, itcanbeopinedthattheformatscanbeinnumericmanner,itcanbedate andtimebasedoritcanbeevencharacterbased.Theprintoutofthesame companycanbeindifferentformatsas,itisavailableintheformatin whichtherequireddataissoughttobesortedout.Thesequenceofthe timetherefore,cannotbestrictlyclockwise,as,ifthecomputercommand isrelatedtosortouttheincomingphoneofaparticularnumber,thetime sequence may not be exact. If date and time are not the base of the commandforsortingoutthedata,then,therecanbea.m.afterp.m. Innutshellwhathasbeenfocusedwhilesortingoutthedatai.e.the commandgivenforthepurposeismoreimportantandthereisnothingas either proved factorcanbeinferredbythecourtbywhichitcanbe doubted.

(17) Thatmobiletelephonecompanies/operatorshavedatainvarieties offieldsandifallthematerialofmobilenumberisgiventotheseekerof thedata,then,thematerialwillbeverybulkyandthedatawhichisnot soughtforwouldalsogooutbywhich,whatisnotrequiredbytheseeker wouldalsogoout.Itisforthisreasonthemobileoperatorwouldnotbe inclined to provide the data other than sought for and therefore, the formatisboundtobedifferentdemandtodemandevenifforthesame number.

455

Further,everymistakeorministeriallacunaattheendoftheoffice ofthemobileoperatorortheinvestigatingagencycannotbelookedupon aslackofbonafidesorpartialattitudeunless,itisprovedbytheperson whoisdesiringtheCourttobelieveitasinthewakeofthepresumption ofallofficialactstohavebeenperformedproperlythecourtshouldnot soholdunlessthepresumptionisredoubted.

(18) InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,theinvestigatingagencyhas rightlynotreliedupontherecordoftheprintoutswhichmighthavebeen obtainedasoneofthelineofinvestigationas,itdoesnotseemsafetoact uponthemobileprintoutstobelievethatapersonwaspresentorabsent wheretheprintoutmerelyspellsaboutthemovementofthesimcard.

(19) Both the accused have filed their affidavits of having both the telephonenumbersnotedinpointno.7hereinaboveinthecustodyof each accused but, they have not offered themselves for the cross examinationbytheprosecution.

Inacasewhenthedocumentsareproducedattherequestofthe defensethedefensehasdutytoprovethesamebut,thedefensecannot expectthattheCourtshouldtaketheinterpretationofthedocumentsas desiredbythedefense. Herethebelownarratedpointisworthnoting.

456

TheA2hasclaimedthathewasusingboththemobiletelephones viz.331113331and9824313333. WhilecursorilygoingthroughEXH.391abunchofprintoutsof telephone No.33111331 it is seen that on internal page 8 against the printoutdated04/12/2003,thereisintersetalkshownbetween33111331 and9824313333.Thereareabout7callsofthesamedatefrom21:00 hoursto23:00hours.Onthesamepagetheprintoutofdaytimeof4th Decemberandeveningof3rdDecembertoo,arealsoreflectingthesame situation. Now videEXH.389andintheorder ofHonble HighCourt of GujaratonrecordvideEXH.408atpageNo.12,boththesenumbershave beenshowntobethenumbersbeingusedandkeptbyA2.Hadthatbeen true,thementionedintersetalkbetweenthetwomobilenumberskeptby thesamepersonseemsabsolutelyabsurd.Asitmaybe,but,hereagain the fact remains that nothing should be inferred either side from the documents,thattoo,containingtechnicaldatawhichhasbeentechnically exhibitedi.e.attherequestofthedefensewithoutitsformalproof.Itis for the above referred sturdy and weighty reasons this Court is not inclinedtoopinethatthesedocumentsarecapabletoestablishthepleaof alibiwhichasamattershouldhavebeenprovedbytheA2andA3by leadingpositiveevidence. (20) In the humble opinion of this court the print outs have been attemptedtobeusedasweapontoassailtheprosecutionversion,butitis notsuccessfulfortheabovereferredreasons.

457

(21) VideEXH.101,Airtel(mobilecompanyofPW3)hasbroughton recordoftheCourtEXH.398,EXH.399andEXH.400on08/09/2006. VideEXH.365theAirtelcompanyhasstatedthatitisunableto providethedatafortheperiodbetween28/12/2003to31/12/2003dueto technicalreasons.TheofficeroftheAirtelhascomeafteranapplication u/s.91 by the accused to produce the printout. This printout is not authenticatedorsignedbytheofficeroftheAirtelandnodescriptionas totheinformationisgiveninhowmanypageshasbeenmentionedbut, thedefensedoesnotchoosetoexaminethisproductionwitnessofthe mobilecompanybutargumentsuponthishavebeenmadetobaseopinion onthecontentsofit.Thisissuggestiveofthefactthatinresponsetothe order of the Court desired material was produced by the respective productionwitnessorelsehewouldnothavegonewithoutassailing. Even, while complying the order passed by my learned predecessor,belowEXH.91whichwasanapplicationbytheA2andA3 seekingdirectionfromtheCourtfortheRelianceCompany.TheReliance Infocomm has provided the information through learned A.P.P. (list EXH.100)but,eventhiswitnessasthewitnessofAirtel(videEXH.92 application)hasnotbeenexamined. ItseemsthatoneMr.VinodTiwarifromAirtelcametotheCourt on15/09/2006whohasfiledanaffidavitEXH.118andhasproduceda license agreement between his company and Department of Telecom New Delhi. In the affidavit EXH.118 it has been clarified that the

458

information for the period of 28/12/2003 to 31/12/2003 has been overwrittenbythecompanyandthatthecompanyisunabletoprovide the said information and that the company is required to maintain commercialrecordoftheprecedentyearonly. Thepointhereisthatbyexaminingthiswitnessalso,thedefense could have improbabalized the record of the investigating agency or couldhaveshownthereasontodoubtthegenuinenessoftherecord.But, evensamehasnotbeendone.Thiswouldonlymeanthatthedefense wantedthattheCourtshoulddoubttherecordoftheinvestigatingagency uponthesubmissionofthedefensewhichsincedoesnotsoundlogical thisCourthasnotchosentodoso.Further,incaseoftechnicaldataitis unsafe to infer this side or that side merely by reading the data and without knowing the technical reasons for the same. In the humble opinion of this court, the defense owes responsibility to establish its defenseinthesepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthecasewhenthe defense has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accusedhavechosenpleaofalibiastheirdefense.

(22) Lastly on the point, the jugglery of the printout does not bring homethedesiredfruitofthebenefitofdoubtorsupporttopleaofalibiof A2andA3infavouroftheirasnothingcomesoutoftheseprintouts. Thiswholeaspectisbasedontwodifferenttechnologies,thecomputer commandsandthemobiletelephonetechnologyanditneedstobenoted thatthoughthedefensewantedtorelyuponboththesetechnologiesbut,

459

hasnotexaminedexpertofasinglefield.ThisCourtisoftheconsidered opinionthatitisunsafetotakethesubmissionondocumentsasitiswhen nothinghasbeenestablishedbysubstantialoralevidence. Thedefence,therefore,isheldtofailtocreatedoubtagainstthe prosecutionversionortoprovetheirabsenceatthesiteofoffence.

(23) Lastlytheprintoutofotheraccusedalsohelpstheprosecutionin followingterms: (a) (A1) A4Exh.367: Telephoned PW3 at 3.53 a.m., 4.08 a.m. and 4.10 of

01/01/2004 tallies with PW3's deposition. Telephones and SMS on 04/01/04tothePW3canbeseen. (A2) TelephonescontacttoA2on01/01/2004at12.40,13.13,13.52, 14.50,14.51,15.16,17.29,17.52,18.57,19.29,9.22of31/12/2003etc. Showsintimacy,conductofguiltofbothalongwithcommonintention. (A3) WithA3: 4.42, 4.47,4.54,5.08,5.28,5.30,6.37,9.57,12.15, 12.16(Twice),13.27on01/01/2004. (A4) WithA1: 01/01/2004,4.20,4.22and4.23a.m. (A5) Withdeceasedvictimeightcallson31/12/2003lastphoneon

460

21.59. (A6) WithA12,30/12/03,17.43,31/12/0300.58(afterwhichtheA12 musthavecomeintheroomofthehotel). (B) PrintoutofA1Exh.369

(B1) PhonewithA2on25/12/03,26/12/03,on01/01/04at9.14and 9.17a.m. (B2) PhonewithA311.34p.m.,11.00p.m.,11.43p.m.Of31/12/03,at 4.18a.m.on01/01/04. (B3) PhonewithA4: On27/12/03,at4.20a.m.,4.22a.m.and4.23 a.m.of01/01/04. (B4) Phone with A12 at 3.33, 3.52, 4.03, 4.07, and 4.09 a.m. of 01/01/04. (B5) toPW34.15a.m.of01/01/04(tallieswithherdeposition). (B6) todeceasedvictim: 10.21,10.28and10.36p.m.Of31/12/03.

Theaboveallshowofinvolvementofallthefiveaccusedinthe crimeascomplainedbythedeceasedvictimandaftertheoccurrencetheir reciprocateconcern.

461

(C)

RecordofA2EXH.431,394,426,427,390and391:

(C1)

ContactwithA1on25/12/2003,26/12/2003,01/01/2004at

9:11a.m.and9:55a.m.

(C2) EXH.427.

ContactwithA2on30/12/2003and31/12/2003asshownin

(C3)

ContactwithA3 10:31a.m.on01/01/2004(EXH.394),at

6:29,6:58,7:08,7:09and7:10a.m.on01/01/2004.

(C4)

Contact with A4, 16:40 hours of 31/12/2003, on 10:06,

10:10 a.m. of 01/01/2004, 12:37 p.m. of 01/01/2004, at 13:13, 16:17, 16:55, 19:30, 14:51, 15:16, 17:30, 17:52, 18:58 of 01/01/2004 (EXH.391),9:24a.m.of30/12/2003(EXH.426).

(C5)

ContactwithA12,11:35a.m.on01/01/2004(EXH.394).

(D)

ContactofA3,EXH.386,387,396,429and430:

(D1)

TelephonedPW3on01/01/2004at6:05a.m.(thequestion

remainedunansweredWhythephonetoPW3?)

462

(D2)

Telephone with A1 on 28/12/2003, 29/12/2003 (three

phones),30/12/2003(onecall),31/12/2003at15:40,16:42,16:48,20:21, 22:57, 23:32 and 23:41 hours and at 4:15 a.m. and 7:03 a.m. on 01/01/2004.

(D3)

Contact withA2 on31/12/2003 andpreviouslycontacted

maytimesbut,on01/01/2004,12timesat6:27,6:55,7:05,7:07,7:20, 7:59, 8:14, 8:16, 9:25, 10:31 a.m. and 17:36 hours (contacts in quick successionisselfspeaking.)

(D4)

ContactwithA42:59p.m.on31/12/2003.

(E)

ContactsofA12:(EXH.395)

(E1)

Contactwithdeceasedvictimon17/12/2003fortheduration

of899.04,on21/12/2003for1320.7(mustbeseconds),on28/12/2003, on31/12/2003(twice)(thisA12isclaiminghisinnocenceandhavingno contact (E2) a.m. with the PW3 ?)

ContactwithA1on01/01/2004at3:33a.m.,3:52a.m.,4:09

(E3)

ContactwithA2at11:38a.m.on01/01/2004.

(E4)

ContactwithA3at3:44a.m.and4:00a.m.on01/01/2004.

463

(E5) 31/12/2003.

Contact with A4 on 29/12/2003, 30/12/2003 and

Theabovecontactsofthefiveaccusedwithoneanotherwiththe deceased victim, with the PW3 are all strong tallying circumstances linking the five accused with the crime and incompatible with their innocence.Thereisnoreasonfortheinvestigatingagencytokeepon recordtheprintoutsofdifferentaccusedandprosecutionwitnessesnot givenbythemobilecompanies.

46.

ApplicabilityofthecitedjudgementsonProsecutionCaseand

Defence:

Having perused the highlighted and focused paragraphs from differentcitationscitedbylearnedadvocatesonrecord,mostofwhich havealreadybeenappliedtothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,and the principles for appreciation of evidence highlighted, have been thoroughly made applicablewhileappreciatingtheoral, circumstantial anddocumentaryevidences.

46(A)

CitationsofLearnedSpl.P.P.Mr.Desai:

SerialNos.1,2and5arethejudgmentswhichareinsupportof

464

3thecaseoftheprosecutionandapplicabilityofSec.32(1)oftheIndian Evidence Act. It is from these judgments EXH.283 is admissible in evidenceasitisstatementofthecircumstancesresultingintothedeathof thedeceasedvictimwhichhasproximaterelationtotheoccurrence.

Itisalsofortheapplicabilityforsuchstatementu/s.6oftheIndian EvidenceAct.

In view of EXH.283 the complaint / F.I.R. And in view of EXH.571thesuicidenote,allthethreejudgmentsaresquarelyapplicable inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.

Serial No.14 is also applicable to the case that in case of handwritingexpertifoneisnotwellversedwiththelanguageinwhich thequestioneddocumentisthen,thesuchevidencecannotthoroughlybe reliedupon.

JudgmentatserialNo.9hasguidedthatmorecredibilityisattached toPW2theP.M.Doctorwhohadanopportunitytoseethebodyofthe deceasedvictim.

SerialNo.4istotheeffectthatSec.114AoftheIndianEvidence Actisapplicableeveninthecasewhenthedeceasedvictimdied.

Serialno.6istotheeffectthattheproofofrapebyeachmemberis

465

notnecessaryinthesameway,seekingcorroborationwouldamountto addinsulttotheinjury.

All the above referred judgments are squarely applicable to the caseonhandandkeepingtheprinciplespropoundedinthesejudgments incentretheappreciationofevidenceandlawpointshavebeenheldby thisCourt.

46(B)

CitationsfromDefence:

ThecitationsrelatedtomoralsatisfactionoftheCourt,moralview of the Court, media trial, suspicion cannot take place of proof, appreciationinthecircumstantialevidencehaveallbeengonethrough highlightingtheparagraphsurgedbyrespectivedefenceandhavebeen religiouslytakencareofwhiledecidingtheguiltorbenefitofdoubtof therespectiveaccused.

Themediatrialhasbeendeprecatedandthatithastobedeprecated but,inthehumbleopinionofthisCourtitneedstobenotedthatmedia trial, usually, helps the accused and not the prosecution, may be unintentional.Inthecaseonhand,theCourthasnotbeencarriedawayby themediatrialwhichneedstobenoted.Theprinciplesrelatedtoother aspectshavebeenfullycompliedwithbythisCourt.

466

(i)

FromthecitationsoflearnedadvocatefortheA1,serialNo.1and5

needsdiscussionwherein,ithasbeensubmittedthatthedepositionof PW3isthedepositionbasedonhearsayevidenceandthatinacasewhen thePW3hasbeeninformedfromthedeceasedvictimthesaidcannotbe consideredasevidenceagainsttheaccused.

ItisclarifiedthatthisCourthasonlytakenintoconsiderationthe partofthedepositionwhichcomesoutfrompersonalknowledgeofPW 3.Theotherfactorhavesimplicitorbeentakenasoneoftheadditional circumstanceandthatthedepositionofPW3hasnotbeentakenasthe solebasetoconvictthefiveaccused.

(ii)

ThejudgmentabouttheapplicabilityofSec.32incaseofF.I.R.

AndthelimiteduseofF.I.R.hasbeendealtwithbythisCourtwhile discussingtheapplicabilityofSec.32oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Hence thesameneednotberepeated.

(iii)

Ontheaspectofdrawingadverseinference,againsttheprosecution

andtheaspectofprobability,falseinvolvement,conductofthedeceased victim, life style of PW3 and the deceasedvictim, material omission improvement, contradictions, etc. have been as such, dealt with while evaluationandappreciationofevidence.

Hereitonlyneedstobenotedthatthelifestyle,habitofgoing night outs, living western style of life of PW3 or even the deceased

467

victim,cannotbesaidtobeofanyimportancetodecidetheguiltofthe fiveaccused.Itisabsolutelyoutofquestionastowhatarethewaysof livingofthePW3andthedeceasedvictim.Whatistobedecidedinthe caseisthatastowhethertheaccusedhaveactedoromittedtoactwhatis prohibitedbylaw,i.e.whethertheyhavecommittedtheoffencesthey havebeenchargedwithandnotwhatwasdonebythePW3andthe deceasedvictim,moreparticularlyinacaseofgangrapethepresumption u/s.114(a)oftheIndianEvidenceActisapplicableandtheabsenceof consentofdeceasedvictimistobepresumedhence,allthosepointsare notatallrelevantorimportanttodecidetheguiltofthefiveaccused.The lifestyles,choiceofwesternlife,beingchainsmokersordrunkard(as alleged)cannotbejustificationforcommissionofoffenceofgangrape whichisseriousviolationofhumanrightsofthedeceasedvictim.

(iv)

Serial No.23 is for the principle that the complaint cannot be

treatedasdyingdeclarationuntilfoundgenuine.

IntheopinionofthisCourtashasbeenalreadyheldtheEXH.283 complaintisabsolutelyfoundgenuineandspontaneousaswell,which ensurescredibility.

(v) seen.

SerialNo.26,noreliancecanbeplacedwhenconflictingversions

indyingdeclarationontheaspectofnumberofaccusedinvolvedcanbe

468

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtashasalreadybeendiscussed, whiletakingdownthepointsforcredibilityandgenuinenessofEXH.283 and EXH.284, there is no conflicting versions whatsoever by the deceasedvictimbut,rathertheversionseemstobeabsolutelyconsistent inviewofwhichthisjudgementcannotbesaidtobeapplicabletothe factsofthiscase.

(vi)

SerialNo.30relatedtothequalitativeworthofdyingdeclaration

whichshouldinspiretheconfidenceoftheCourt.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtthedyingdeclarationofthe deceasedvictimintheformofthecomplaint/F.I.R.AndEXH.571the suicidenoteareinspiringtheconfidenceoftheCourt,beingcreditworthy, dependableandworthbelievingapartfromitbeingtruthful,voluntary andnothavingelementoftutored,promptedoneanddoesnotsufferfrom anyinfirmity.

(vii) SerialNo.31isrelatingtojointliabilityandserialNo.33isrelating toingredientofSec.376(2)(g)oftheI.P.C.

InthehumbleopinionofthisCourtalltherequisiteslaiddownin serialNo.33standsatisfiedinthecaseonhandandashasalreadybeen held,thecaseonhandisafitcasewherein,theprincipleofjointliability can rightly and satisfactorily be invoked and has been invoked accordingly.Thisjudgmentsupportstheprosecutioncase.

469

(viii) CitationsofA4:

TheprinciplethattheCourtcannotconstructanewcase,theaspect of probability is the chief test, irregularity, impropriety in the investigation,theinvestigationbeingmalafideanddishonest,importance of consistency in the dying declaration, principle of not considering confessionoftheaccusedwhileinthecustody,closeandminutescrutiny oftheoralevidence,lackofmotiveoftheprosecutionwitnesscannotbe a ground to believe the prosecution case, etc., have been thoroughly applied in the case on hand and that all the said aspects have been discussedrepeatedlyindifferentpartsofthisjudgement.

At the cost repetition it needs to be noted that irregularities, improprieties in the investigation, defective or mala fide investigation cannotprovideanygroundforacquittaltotheaccusedunless,itbecomes fatalfortheprosecutioncase.Inthecaseonhandthebaseofprosecution caseisthedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictimandtherefore,the defectsorirregularities,etc.,intheinvestigationdonotplayavitalrole.

(ix)

ThejudgmentatserialNo.5inthisjudgmentthequestionasto

whether the statement of the deceased victim can be treated as dying declaration u/s.32 and Sec.6 of the Indian Evidence Act has been answeredinnegationanditisheldthatthecomplaintofsuchavictim cannotbeprovedasu/s.8oftheEvidenceAct,itisinadmissibleinlaw.

470

This Court has already discussed the judgment of Hon'ble the SupremeCourtofIndiainthematterofCriminalAppeal1166/01dated 24/10/2007inthematterofDashrathaliasChampaandothers(thefacts ofthecasementionedandthecaseonhandistoosimilar)andthatinthe lightofthelatestjudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtitisclearthatthe statementunder161oftheCr.P.C.AndF.I.R.Aftertheauthordiescan betreatedasdyingdeclarationandisadmissibleinevidence.Inviewof the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the facts and circumstancesofthecase,aregovernedbythesaidprincipleandinview ofthesaidjudgmentEXH.283hasbeenheldtobedyingdeclaration.The citedjudgmentwasdecidedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthatcase hence,cannotbeappliedtothiscase.

(x)

ThejudgmentatserialNo.14alsoneeds anotewherein,ithas

been held that inference of guilt can be held by the Court but, it is permissibleonlyifthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasearefoundtobe incompatiblewiththeinnocenceoftheaccused.

Intheinstantcaseashasbeenelaboratelydiscussed,thiscourthas found that in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the inferenceoftheguiltofthefiveaccusedcansafelybedrawninviewof thepropoundedprincipleofthecitedjudgment.Thisjudgmenthelpsthe prosecutioncase.

(xi)

ThejudgmentofserialNo.41isaboutaprinciplethatifchanceof

471

orintervalforfabricationisavailableinthefactsofthecase,then,the ruleofresgestecannotbemadeapplicable.

Ashasalreadybeendiscussedatlengththatthedeceasedvictim hasfiledthecomplaintattheearliest.Therearesufficientexplanations given by the PW3, PW10 and PW20 all of whom had personal knowledgeoftheexercisetheyhadundertakenatthatnightofmoving pillartopostandthatratherinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethe F.I.R.needtobetermedtohavespontaneouslyfiledandthatthisCourt does not see any chance or interval for fabrication for the deceased victim.Ithasalreadybeenheldthatthedeceasedvictimisneitherfound to have been prompted or tutored by anyone and that the complaint EXH.283filed bythe deceasedvictimseemstobequitegenuineand unalloyedtruthhence,cansafelybedependedupon.Thequestionofnon applicabilityofSec.6oftheIndianEvidenceActistotallyoutofquestion inthefactsofthecaseonhand.

(xii) IllustrationJandKofSec.8oftheIndianEvidenceActalsoguide ustotakenoteofthecryofthedeceasedvictimanditisforthatreason alsotheF.I.R.Seemstobegenuineandwithoutanyfabrication.

Moreover,ashasbeenheldtimeandagainbythehigherCourtsthe F.I.R.Shouldbegivenaveryliberalconstructionandthatevenifthe namesoftheaccusedarenotmentionedintheF.I.R.Theinferencearisen fromthatfactwillvaryunderthecircumstancesofeachcaseandthatitis

472

forthatreasonalsonomeritisfoundwhatsoeverinthecasethatthe nameofallthefiveaccusedhavenotbeengiventhoughasamatterof factstheyhavebeengivenbythedeceasedvictim.

Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,whatneedstobenoticed is that the deceased victim of barbaric crime with her ravished body, movedhereandtherealongwithhereldersisterandPW10andPW20 thattooattheweehoursatabout4:00a.m.andyet,eventhereadinessof recordingtheF.I.R.Wasnotshownbytwodifferentagenciesisashame on the system and hence, it cannot be termed a fault on the part of deceasedvictim.

This Court humbly believes that prompt reporting of the occurrence with almost all vivid details rather renders an assurance regardingthecomplaintbeingtruthful,trustworthy,genuine,voluntary anddependable.

(xiii) CitationsofA12 :

Itwassubmittedthatabscondingitselfisnotsufficienttoprovethe guiltoftheaccused.

InthehumbleofthisCourttrueitisthatitisnotsufficientorit cannotbetreatedassolebasetoprovetheguiltoftheaccused,but,inthe facts and circumstances of the case, after having knowledge of the

473

complainthavingbeenfiled,theA12travelledandthereafter,hewasnot traceablefor14months,theattemptsmadebytheinvestigatingagencyto arresttheA12aresufficienttoholdthattheabscondanceoftheA12isa verystrongcircumstancewhichisgoingagainsttheA12.Itismoreso whentheprosecutioncasehasbeenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubteven againstthisaccused.

(xiv) ThecitationatSerialNo.5isontheprinciplethatthedeathinthe presentcasewasnotasaresultofinjuriesreceivedintheoccurrenceand that for the said reason the complaint cannot be treated as dying declaration.

UponperusalofEXH.283,oraldepositionofPW3,PW20,PW 25andPW39allofwhomhadopportunitytoobservethegloominess, depression, frustration, withdrawn modeofthedeceasedvictimwhich tookplaceaftertheoccurrenceitselfissufficienttoholdthatthedeceased victimhascommittedsuicidebecauseoftheinjuryandagonyshehasto undergo,hereitneedstobenotedthatinthecaseofdeceasedvictimthe injuries were physical as well as mental and that the gravity and seriousnessoftheinjuriesistoohighandthatitcannotbeignored.

EXH.571 the suicide note if read then, it is very clearly establishing that the deceased victim has committed suicide only on account of the injuries (obviously including mental) received by her whichwasnothingbutaresultandoutcomeoftheoccurrencetookplace

474

inherlifeandthatinviewofthisthejudgmentisindeedapplicabletothe prosecutioncase.

(xv) DefenceofalibiofA2andA3:

ThejudgmentcitedbythelearnedadvocateforA2andA3needsto beperusedinordertodecideastotheprincipleinthesaidjudgment wouldbeabletorenderanyassistancetoA2andA3toestablishtheir defence.

Inthecitationof1994SCC(Cri.)page261,theaccusedinthe citedcasehaveestablishedtheirpleaofalibibybringingonrecordtime keeper'srecordandbyexaminingtheofficeclerk.Furtherinthecited judgment, the participation of the accused in the occurrence was not provedbytheprosecutionandthechargewasnotbroughthomeagainst theaccusedinthecitedjudgmentandthatinthefactsandcircumstances ofthatcase,Hon'bleSupremeCourthadheldthatthepleaofalibiis availabletotheaccused,whichisbasedonthefactsofthecitedcaseand evidence.

In the instant case the facts and circumstances very clearly establishthepresence,participationandinvolvementoftheaccusedNo.2 and No.3 by very cogent, credible and reliable evidence and for that reason,thisjudgmentisnotapplicabletothefactsandcircumstancesof this case. Here, no record or document (though possible) has been

475

broughtbythedefense.

(xvi) Thecitedjudgmentreportedat1997Cri.L.J.Page362(SC)has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that plea of alibi is a defence wherein,strictproofisrequired,disbelievingthepleaofalibishouldbe basedonweighedandsturdyreasons.Oncetheprosecutionsucceedsin dischargingtheburdenitisincumbentupontheaccusedwhoadoptsthe plea of alibi to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibilityofhispresenceattheplaceofoccurrence.

In the humble opinion of this Court, in the case on hand, the prosecution,asheld,hasdischargeditsburdenhence,thepleaofalibi needsstrictproof.Forseveralreasons,asheld,thepleaofalibihasnotat all been proved by the defence. The accused have examined defence witnesseswhohavespeltoutinfavouroftheaccusedataverybelated stagewhichisafitcasetodoubttheirversions,theaffidavitscouldhave been secured immediately after the occurrence, had the defence been genuine,intherepresentationmadebytheaccused,themobiletelephone hasnotbeenplacedonrecord,oneofthebasetoprovethedefenceof alibiistheprintoutsofmobiletelephones,but,theCourtcannotforget thattheprintoutswouldmerelyshowthemovementofthesimcardand not the movement of an individual, the accused have not chosen to examinethemselvesasdefencewitnesses,theaccusedhavenotbrought onrecordanyindependentorreliableevidenceorrecordtoestablishthe plea of alibi, the distance betweenthe siteof occurrence andthesite wheretheaccusedadmittheirpresenceistoolittleandthatthepossibility

476

andprobabilityhasnotbeenruledoutthattheaccusedhavevisitedthe siteoftheoccurrence,evenafterknowledgetoboththeaccused,they haveremainedabscondingfor4daysforwhichthereisnoexplanation, thesefourdaysweresufficientfortheaccusedtosecuretheaffidavitsof thepersonswhomthedefencehasexaminedastheirdefencewitnesses, the accused could have secured trustworthy, dependable, creditworthy andclinchingdocumentaryevidencesfromwhichpleaofalibicanclearly beborneoutandthatthisisacasewheretheprosecutionhasprovedits case beyond reasonable doubtsandtherefore, theburden of providing strictproof wasontheaccusedwhohaveraisedthepleaofalibi.The pleaofalibiraisedbyA2andA3isnotatallbelievableone,clearly seems to be an after thought, this opinion of the Court is based on weighedandsturdyreasons,thebaseofthecaseisdyingdeclarationof thedeceasedvictimwhichdoesnotrequireanycorroborationwhichhas beenheldbythisCourttobetruthful,voluntaryandtrustworthyandthat it is a case wherein, the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its burdenandtherefore,theaccusedshouldhaveprovedtheirpleaofalibi astheirpositivedefencewithsuchanabsolutecertaintybywhichthe possibilityofthepresenceoftheaccusedattheplaceofoccurrencecan beexclusivelyexcludedbut,asdiscussedabove,thesameisnotbeing excludedandthatinthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thedefenceraised byA2andA3hasmiserablyfailedtoimprobabalizetheprosecutioncase putforthbytheprosecutionbeyondreasonabledoubt.

(xvii) Thejudgmentreportedat1981SC911isestablishingtheprinciple thatthedefencewitnessesshouldequallybebelievedwhileappreciating

477

their evidence and that the Court should over come the traditional approachofdisbelievingthedefencewitnesses.

Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseitisnotaquestionof disbelievingthedefencewitnessesbut,then,theconscienceofthisCourt isnotsatisfiedwiththedefenceversionandthedepositionofdefence witnesses.Thedefencewitnesseshavenotbeenfoundsatisfactory,have broughtacasewhichisclearlyanafterthoughtandunnaturalone,and thatwhentheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtpresence and participation of A2 and A3 in the crime, the defence has higher responsibilitytobedischargedtodealwiththesituationwitheffective evidence and the evidence which is excluding the possibility of the presenceoftheaccusedatthesiteofoffencebut,thesaidhassincenot been done, as discussed repeatedly, the defence witnesses have not inspired the confidence of this Court, they have not been found believable,trustworthyandcreditworthythedefencewitnesseshavebeen disbelievedandthatitisclarifiedthattheyhavenotbeendisbelievedby thisCourtforthereasonthattheyweredefencewitnesses.

(C)

Thecitationsreferredandrelieduponbytheprosecutionin

replytotheargumentsofthedefence:

(A)

AIR1996SupremeCourtpage1477wascitedbythelearnedSpl.

P.P.Tohighlighttheprinciplethatunlesspossibilityoftheaccusedgoing tothesiteoftheoffenceisruledout,thepleaofalibicannotbeaccepted.

478

HeadnoteDwasemphasizedbythelearnedSpl.P.P.,paragraph27has been perused by this Court more particularly, page No.1488 of the judgmentwherein,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasobservedthat,Itiswell establishedthatitisfortheaccusedtoprovethecaseofalibitothehiltto themaximumpossible.Theaforesaidevidenceofalibiledonbehalfof boththeappellantsdidnotmeetthistest.Itmusttherefore,beheldthat thedefencehasfailedtoestablishthepleaofalibiconcerningthepresent twoaccused.

Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseforthereasonsdiscussed atdifferentpartsofthisjudgmentandhereinabove,itisclearthatthe accusedhavenotestablishedandprovedtothesatisfactionofthisCourt thecaseofalibi,andthatthedistancebeingtoolittlebetweenthesiteof offenceandtheplacewheretheaccusedareclaimingtheirpresencetobe issuchahurdlingfactorbecauseofwhichthedefenceofpleaofalibi cannotandshallnotbeenbelievedandaccordinglyhasnotbeenbelieved bythisCourt.

(B)

AIR2001SC3031wherein,headnoteAhasbeenemphasizedto

submittheimportanceofdistancebetweentheplaceofoccurrenceand theplacewhereaccusedclaimedtobepresenttobelievethepleaofalibi.

Upon perusal of the judgment more particularly paragraph 2 it becomesclearthatHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatthepleaofalibi postulatesthephysicalimpossibilityofthepresenceoftheaccusedatthe

479

sceneofoffencebyreasonofhispresenceattheotherplaceandthatthe pleaofalibicansucceedonlyifitisshownthattheaccusedwassofar away from the place where the crime was committed that it is not probabletoremainpresent.Distancewouldbeamaterialfactorinthe matterofacceptabilityofthepleaofalibi.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as has already been discussed,thedistanceistoolittleandputtingitspecifically,thedistance issuchasmalldistancewherein,itispossiblefortheaccusedtovisitthe siteofoffenceandtocomebackagaintotheplacewheretheaccusedis claiminghispresence.InviewoftheprincipleslaiddownbytheHon'ble SupremeCourt,thepleaofalibiisnotanacceptablevaliddefenceatall moreparticularly,inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasewhenthe deceasedvictimhadgivenherdyingdeclarationandevenshehadalso mentionedtheculpabilityofboththeaccusedinthesuicidenoteagain andtherefore,consideringtheoverallscenariothepleaofalibiisone whichisnotacceptableanditcannotbesaidthattheaccusedhaveproved ittobeimpossibleforthemtoreachatthesiteofoccurrenceandtheir presencewheretheyclaim.

47.

CulpabilityquatheChargeExh.18:

ChargeU/s.66(1)(b)and85(1)(3)oftheBombayProhibitionAct, 1949:

480

Allthefiveaccusedhavebeenchargedbymylearnedpredecessor underboththeabovesectionsonthefactualmatrixthaton31/12/2003,to celebratethepartyofnewyear,alltheaccusedhaveassembledandallof themhaveconsumedEnglishLiquorintheAshokPalaceHotelatabout 22:00p.m.inroomNo.106.Toestablishtheguiltofthefiveaccusedqua, theabovereferredtwooffences,theprosecutionhasledsimilarkindof evidenceasfarasoralevidenceisconcerned,buttofortifyandproveits case qua the above charges, the prosecution has brought on record EXH.263, 241, 254 and 258 which are all respectively certificates of consumptionofalcoholbytheA1toA4opinedbytheF.S.L.onthe bloodspecimenofalltheaccusedhavingbeencollectedaftertheirarrest. NoreportwhatsoeverhasbeenreceivedasfarasA12isconcerned.

(A)

AsfarasA1isconcerned,hewasarrestedon01/01/2004itself

andthatonthatverydayat6:20p.m.hisbloodwascollectedwhichwas senttoF.S.L.foritsexamination.ThereportofthebloodofA1came and is on record vide EXH.263 wherein, it is proved that the concentrationofalcoholinthebloodofA1ismorethan.05%wv.No defensewhatsoeveru/s.66(2)hasbeenprovedorhasbeenbroughton recordbytheA1.ThefactiswithinthespecialknowledgeofA1.He has to raise his defence or else it shall haveto bepresumedthatthe accused has no defence to the allegation levelled against him. The prosecutionasfarasthecaseofA1isconcerned,hasdischargedburden ofproofthattheA1hasconsumedalcoholresultsintobeyondstatutory limitof.05%W.V.i.e..0510%throughEXH.263andthatinthefacts andcircumstancesofthecaseitstandsprovedthattheA1hasconsumed

481

liquor on that very day as has been charged in contravention of The BombayProhibitionAct,1949.Further,inthefactsandcircumstancesof thecase,theconsumptionofliquorbyA1standsprovedontherelevant date,timeandplaceandtherefore,theonusisshiftedonA1toprovehis defence.ItseemsthatthemedicalexaminationandBloodTestRules, 1959havebeenthoroughlyfollowed,hencestrongpresumptionofthe reportbeinggenuinefollows..InviewoftheabovediscussiontheA1is held guilty to have committed offence u/s.65(1)(b) of the Bombay ProhibitionAct.

Sec.85(1)(3)isonlyrelatedtotheingredientthatiftheaccusedis founddrunk,meaningthereby,onmerelybeingfounddrunk,theaccused canbeheldguilty,exceptthatheisholderofpermitunderthelaw,which hasbeenprovedbytheprosecutionbeyondreasonabledoubt..

The A1 has not submitted anything to establish that he is the holder of permit andthatasdiscussedabove,thedocumentEXH.263 clearlyestablishesthattheaccusedwasfounddrunk.

InviewoftheoralevidenceofPW3,PW10,PW20andPW43it becomesclearthattheaccusedwasfounddrunkatapublicplaceas, exceptthePW43otherprosecutionwitnesseshavesawhiminhiscar nearsolaPetrolPumpandthenafter,atthepolicestationbythePW43, thatbeingthesituationasfarasA1isconcerned,theprosecutionhas alsoprovedthatA1hascommittedoffenceu/s.85(1)(3)oftheBombay ProhibitionAct.Thus,incaseofA1theprosecutionhasprovedbeyond

482

reasonabledoubt,thattheA1hascommittedoffenceu/s.66(1)(b)and 85(1)(3)hence,theA1isaccordingly,heldguiltyforboththeabove sections.

(B)

PW34andPW36arerespectivelytwodifferentC.M.Os.atthe

relevant time working in the Civil Hospital and who have treated respectivelyA2andA3.Duringthecourseofcrossexaminationoneof the doctors has stated thattheinfluenceandeffect oftheintoxicating substancewouldremainfor24hours.Anotherwitnesshasstatedthatit wouldremainfor72hours.TheProsecutionhasnotproveditonrecord astoforhowmanydaysandforhowmanyhoursafterconsumptionof liquortheeffectinbloodwouldremainorthebloodreportwouldshow percentagei.e.theconcentrationofalcoholinbloodcanbefoundwhich comesasaresultofconsumptionofintoxicatingsubstance.Inabsenceof anypositiveproofbytheprosecution,thefactremainsthattheinfluence ofalcoholwhichcancomeintothealcoholexaminationwouldvaryfrom 24to72hours.But,inanycaseitdoesnotseemstobemorethan72 hoursashascomeonrecord.Now,sincetheA2andA3havebeen arrestedaftermidnightof4th January,whichisafter72hoursandsince their blood specimen was taken on 05/01/2004, it seems that the specimen blood of these accused was not taken before the end of 72 hours.

InthereportEXH.241andEXH.254respectivelyforA2andA3, the concentration of alcohol in blood is shown to be more than the statutorylevelofweightinvolumeandthatitisclearthatattherelevant

483

time they have consumed liquor but, then, the charge is related to consumptionofliquoron31/12/2003atabout22:00hours.Though,the factremainsthatinthediscussionforothersections,thisCourthasheld thatalltheaccusedhaveconsumedliquorontheinterveningnightatthe roomNo.106ofAshokPalacehotel,but,theBombayProhibitionAct beingaveryspecificlegislatureActandtherequisiteofproofisvery specificallyarticulatedandmoreparticularlyinviewofSec.66(2)ofthe BombayProhibitionAct,itisclearthatwhiletrialforconsumptionof anyintoxicant,iftheconsumptionofliquorisallegedinthatcase,the prosecutionhastoprovethattheconcentrationofalcoholinthebloodof accusedwasmorethan.05%inweightandvolume.Itisoncethatproof is given the onus shifts and that it is further clear that the medical examinationandbloodtestrules1989havealsobeenformedwhichhave tobefollowedstrictlyforproofofconsumptionofliquor.Ashasbeen discussedthattheburdenofproofisontheprosecutiontoprovethatthe accusedhaveconsumedliquor.Inabsenceofproofofconsumptionatthe relevantpoint,timeanddate,itneedstobeheldthattheprosecutionhas miserablyfailedtodischargeitsobligation.Toestablishincaseofthe remainingaccusedthattheyhaveconsumedliquoraschargedandthey weredrunk,theprosecutionhastobringonrecordapositiveevidenceas, the burden is obviously on prosecution. In case of A2 to A3 the prosecutionhasbroughttheproofbut,thesameissuchwhichdoesnot link the accused with the charge. In absence of this, applying strict interpretation, knowing the fact that the Court should not and cannot drawpresumptionu/s.114oftheIndianEvidenceAct,thestrictproofas hasbeenprovidedbytheActintheformofSec.66(2)oftheActhasnot

484

beenprovidedbytheprosecutionorinotherwordssincetheaccused werenotarrestedatleastupto72hoursoftheoccurrence,itdoesnot sound safe to held them guilty though,in caseofA2 andA3,their reportsshowthattheyhaveconsumedliquorbut,thentheconsumption ofliquorhastobelinkedwithdate,placeandtimementionedinthe chargewhichissincemissingithastoheheldthattheprosecutionhas failedtobringhometheguiltoftheremainingaccusedforthecharge underboththesectionsreferredhereinabove.Thesearethecases,where the presumption of the Court, the moral view of the Court is not permissible.TheproofhastobeaccordingtoSec.66(2)oftheActand thattheprosecutionhasnotbroughtonrecordtheeffectorinfluenceof consumptionwouldremaininbloodforhowmanyhours,whereas,the defencehasbroughtitveryclearlyonrecordthattheeffectwouldnot remain in any case for more than 72 hours and that considering the principles of Criminal Justice Delivery system and appreciation of evidenceincaseofthetwoopinionsoftheprosecutionwitnessesof24 hoursand72hours,thefactofeffectwouldremaininbloodfor24hours isleaninginfavouroftheaccused,thesameneedstobeacceptedand accordingly,thisCourtholdsthatthereportofalcoholexaminationisnot proved to be the report of the influence in the blood consumed on interveningnightascharged,thiscourtthinksitfitthatexcepttheA1 remainingaccusedneedtograntbenefitofdoubtasfarasthecharge underthesetwosectionsareconcerned.Itneedstobeclarifiedthatthe appreciationofevidencehasbeendoneinthisparagraphsolelywiththe purpose to decide the charge under these two sections and therefore, whiledecidingthesaidchargetheprincipleslaiddownintheBombay

485

Prohibition Act have to be taken into consideration, since the Court cannotdrawpresumptionu/s.114oftheIndianEvidenceAct,thesame hasnotbeendrawnasaresulttheA2toA4andA12havebecome entitledtothebenefitofdoubtforthechargeslevelledagainstthemunder theabovementionedtwosections.

NoreportofalcoholconsumptionofA12hasbeenreceivedand thereportofA4isbelowstatutorylimit,hence,theprosecutionneedsto betermedtohavemiserablyfailedtoprovethecasequaofTheBombay Prohibition Act,1949 against A4 and A12. Hence, both need to be grantedbenefitofdoubtinviewofforegoingdiscussionwithreferenceto A2andA3forthechargeunderTheBombayProhibitionAct,1949. HereitneedstobenotedthatagainsttheA1thereisnomaterial onrecordtoholdthattheA1hasdonethisoffenceforthesecondtime. Hence, it seems that the offence has been done for the first time. Secondly,consideringthefactthattheotheraccusedhaveindeeddone thisoffence,but,sinceisnotfittinginthetechnicalrequisiteoftheAct, theyneedtobegiventhebenefitofdoubt,hence,whileimposingthe sentence, this aspect needs to be considered. While concluding the discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the A1 has committed the offence punishable u/s.66(2)(b)and85(1)(3)ofTheBombayProhibitionActwhichisthe firstoffence.

TheA2toA4andA12needtobegrantedbenefitofdoubtqua

486

thechargeofTheBombayProhibitionAct,1949.

(C)

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing on

recordmoreparticularlyinthecomplaintofthedeceasedvictimwherein ithasbeenallegedthatthefiveaccusedoranyoneofthemhasusedany dangerousweaponandthatbeingthecaseSec.324willnotbeattractedto thefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.

(D)

ChargeU/s.323:

Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseinthedyingdeclaration itself,ithasbeenclarifiedbythedeceasedvictimthatshewascaused bodily injury, pain and thereby she was to cause hurt. The act and omission of the five accused of injuring the deceased, beating the deceased, biting the deceased and causing injury to her by nail bites, which has been noticed in EXH.80, the medical case paper of the deceasedvictimisclearlyestablishingthattherequisitesofSec.319of havingcausedhurttothedeceasedvictimstandsatisfied.Inviewofthe factsandcircumstancesofthecase,therequisiteu/s.323standsclearly satisfiedquaallthefiveaccused.Further,whentheaccusedhaveactedin furtherance of their common intention it goes without saying that the chargeu/s.323oftheIndianPenalCodestandsprovedagainstallthefive accusedandtheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt,thatthe fiveaccusedhavecommittedtheoffenceu/s.323oftheI.P.C.

487

(E)

Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode:

Ashasalreadybeendiscussedbythiscourtundertheheadingof jointliabilityandtheelementofprobabilityintheprosecutioncase,the factsandcircumstancesofthecase,oralanddocumentaryevidenceon record,whicharecleartoholdthatallthefiveaccusedhaveactedin furtheranceofcommonintentionofthemtocommitgangrapeonthe deceasedvictimontheinterveningnightbycallingherunderthefalse pretextofdancepartytocelebratetheNewYearitbeingthelastdayof theyear.Iftheprintoutsofallthefiveaccusedandtheprintoutofthe deceasedvictimareseentogether,itbecomesclearthattherewasapre arranged plan amongst the five accused and that they have acted in furtherance of the common intention they were sharing amongst each other.Theactofeachoftheaccused,isinthedirectionoffurtheringthe common intention which was know to rest of them. The facts and circumstancesclearlyrevealaprearrangedconcertanddesignamongst allthefiveaccused.Underthefactsandcircumstancesitisclearthatthe requisiteofSec.34isfullyapplicable,thecommonintentionwasbeing sharedbyallthefiveaccusedcanverywellnowbereadfromtheactual commissionofthecrime,theparticipationofeachaccusedinthewhole crime,andthatultimately,allthefiveaccusedarefoundtohaveacted andtohaveengagedindoingtheoffenceofgangrape.Inviewofthe foregoingdiscussion,theprincipleofjointliabilitycanbeinvokedinthe caseasthereisenoughmaterialisonrecordtoholdthatthefiveaccused are liable for the joint liability as envisaged u/s.34 of the Act. It is, therefore,clearthateachofthefiveaccusedisliableforeveryactand

488

omissionofeachoneoftheminthesamemannerasifitweredoneby himalone.

(F)

ChargeU/s.328oftheIndianPenalCode:

Ashasalreadybeenheldearlierallthefiveaccusedhaveactedin furtheranceoftheircommonintentionwhichwasaprearrangedconcert andthateachoneofthemhasseentoitthatthedeceasedvictimshould beputinastupefyingpositionandthatwiththatpurposetheroomatthe AshokPalacehotelwasbookedandthatultimately,attheinstanceofthe A4, the deceased victim was administered, stupefying intoxicating substanceinformofbeer.Theaggravatingfactoroftheactandomission isthattheA4hasevenbeatenandslappedthedeceasedvictimwitha viewtocompelhertoconsumetheintoxicatingsubstance.Itismorethan clear that the said was done with the sole intention to facilitate the offenceofgangrape.Itisclearthatwhilethedeceasedvictimwascalled uponbytheA3underthefalsepretextofaparty,allthefiveaccused were knowing that there is nothing like a party and that they are to celebrateinroomNo.106whereonebyoneallofthemhavecome.While seeingfromthefactsofthecase,itisemergingextremelyclearlythatall of them have entered one by one and firstly, A4 has compelled the deceasedvictimtoconsumetheintoxicatingsubstance,theadministration ofthesamewasonlytoseetoitthattheoffencewhichthefiveaccused weregoingtocommitmaybefacilitatedandthatthewholepleasureof the new year may be enjoyed without any hurdle from the deceased victim.TheA4though,didthisactwithsoleintentiontofacilitatethe

489

offence,but,whilereadingitunderSec.34andasthecommonintention ofallthefivecanverywellberead,thisisaclearcasewhichissatisfying therequisitesofSec.328oftheIndianPenalCodereadwithSec.34of I.P.C.Thiscourtisofthefirmopinionthatallthefiveaccusedneedtobe heldguiltyu/s.328r/w.Sec.34oftheI.P.C.

(G)

Sec.342oftheIndianPenalCode:

Ashasalreadybeenheldearlier,thefiveaccusedhaveactedin furtheranceofcommonintentioninaveryverypreplannedmanner.The A4andA3havejointlydesignedtotemptthedeceasedvictimtocome totheAshokPalacehotelinresponsetotheirinvitationforafakedance party.Alltheaccusedwerefullyknowingthatdancepartyhasnotbeen arranged. The role played by different accused has been discussed at length. Wherein the accused No.1 is the person who has acted or contributedbybringingthedeceasedvictiminhiscarandassuringto dropherbackaftertheoffence,theA4hasseentoitthattheaffectionof thedeceasedvictimforhimisencashedforthepleasureofthatnightfor all the five accused, the A3 has given an invitation to the deceased victimtocometothepartyunderthefalsepretextofpartyknowingfully wellthatsuchpartyhasnotbeenarrangedbyhim,theA2andA3were theownerofthehotelwhereinallthefiveaccusedwouldobviouslyfeel very very safe and assured for not being disturbed by anyone. After havingcalledthedeceasedvictimtheprogrammeofconsumptionofbeer wasalsoarrangedsolelywiththeintentiontofacilitatetheoffenceand thatrolehadbeenperformedbytheA4whohasgonetotheextentof

490

slapping and beating the deceased victim while she was refusing to consumemorebeer.AfterthedeceasedvictimhadarrivedattheAshok PalacehotelshewastakentoroomNo.106wherein,herconfinementcan beseenfromtheinjuriesonthepersonofA1.Ashascomeuponrecord theA1wasseenwithfreshinjuryofnailbitesetc.Andthatthesaid injuryisclearlyestablishingresistanceofferedbythedeceasedvictim. Suchinjuriescouldnotbeseenonthebodyoftheotheraccusedissimply for the reason that they have not been arrested immediately after the offenceandbythetimetheremainingaccusedwerearrestedtheyallmust completedthehealingprocessfortheinjuriesifmighthavesustainedby them while committing the offence. The injury on the person of the deceasedvictimisalsoaclearmirrorofshebeingconfinedandtheoffer ofresistance byher. Theinjuriesontheshoulderandonbackofthe deceasedvictimissuggestiveofthefactthatthedeceasedvictimhas triedherbesttogetridofthefiveaccused.Itcansafelybeinferredthat thefiveaccusedorsomeofthemhavepulledhertowardsthemandwhile pullingthekindofinjuryonshoulderispossible.Hence,applyingthe presumptionu/s.114oftheIndianEvidenceAct,itbecomesamplyclear that this is a clear case of the wrongful confinement of the deceased victim.Ashasbeendefinedu/s.340oftheIndianPenalCode,wrongful restraint to the deceasedvictim inthemannerasto prevent herfrom proceedingbeyondcertaincircumscribedlimitiswrongfulconfinement. Intheinstantcase,thedeceasedvictimwasbroughttoroomNo.106and thatsinceitwashotel,theroommusthavebeenclosedandthatitis nobody'scasethattheroomwasopen.Theinjuriesonthebodyofthe deceasedvictimandA1issuggestiveofthefactthatshewasconfinedin

491

theroomandmoreparticularlyonthedoublebedwheretheA4made hernaked,alltheaccusedoneafteranotherinpresenceofoneanother, have raped the deceased victim. Considering the above discussion requisiteofSec.342oftheIndianPenalCoder/w.Sec.34oftheI.P.C. Standsquarelysatisfiedanditisaclearcasewherealltheaccusedneed tobeheldguiltyforthechargeu/s.342oftheI.P.C.ThisCourttherefore, holds all the five accused guilty for the offence and charge levelled againstthemu/s.342r/w.Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860.

Innutshell,allthefiveaccusedareheldguiltyu/s.323,328,342, 376(2)(g)r/w.Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode..

48.

Culpabilityofthefiveaccused:

FromEXH.283thedyingdeclarationofthedeceasedvictimr/w. EXH.284 the offence declaratory report made only within 15 to 20 minutesbythesamepoliceofficerwhichisrevealingthefreshreflection astowhathasbeenstatedbythedeceasedvictimandwhathasbeen perceived by the writer of the PW43 the five accused are found implicated and having participated in the offence. In view of the foregoingdiscussion,theissueNos.1,2and3aretherefore,answered accordingly.

_____________________________

492

PartIV

49.

IssueNos.4,5and6: ThispartofthejudgmentisrelatedtotheA5to11whohavebeen

foundimplicatedinthecrimeduringtheinvestigationmotionedfromthe complaintEXH.283whichnowherementionsanyroleoftheseaccused. Theculpabilityoftheseaccusedneedstobedecideduponappreciating theevidencecollectedbytheinvestigatingagencyonly,astheirrolehas notbeenspelledbythedeceasedvictiminanyofherdyingdeclaration. Thetesthastobe:Whetherthefactprovedbytheprosecutionfellshort ofestablishingtheprosecutionversioncamethroughdevelopmentofthe investigationorisitsatisfactorilyprovingguiltofA5toA11beyond anyreasonabledoubt.

50.

AccusedNo.5SimabenHarishankarJaiswal,no.6Shreya

HarishankarJaiswalandno.10HarishankarGayaprasadJaiswal:

493

(a)

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the

MetropolitanMagistrate,CourtNo.2on15.02.2005. (b) VideExh.18,thechargehasbeenframedagainstalltheaccused

whereinthechargeagainstthesethreeaccusedistodestroytheevidence oftheseatcoveroftheMarutiZenCarandtherebyhavingcommittedthe offenceu/s.201readwithSection376(2)(g)readwithSection34ofthe IndianPenalCode. (c) Ld.Sp.P.P. Mr. A.P. Desai has tendered his written submissions

vide Exh.492 wherein in para54 and para55 he has tendered his argumentsquatheseaccused.Ithasbeensubmittedthattheaccusedhave destroyed the said seat coverof MarutiZenandthatthepanchnamas implicatingtheaccusedu/s.27oftheIndianEvidenceActareonrecord andthatevenifthepanchashaveturnedhostile,thepanchnamasarevery much on record, considering which all the three accused need to be penalizedaschargeagainstthemhasbeenprovedbeyondanyreasonable doubtbytheprosecution. (d) Ld.AdvocateMr.Sardarhasdefendedalltheseaccused.He,too,

has tendered his written submissions vide Exh.497(b) wherein mainly three points have been emphasized that, (i) the panchnamas prepared werefarceandmerelytoconcealthewrongcommittedbythepolice,(ii) theinvestigationisbiasanddefectiveandnotcreditworthyand(iii)after theaccusedno.1hascomplainedthroughhislawyerabouthisbeating, thearrestofthesethreeaccusedtookplaceandthatallthethreeaccused

494

havebeenfalselyinvolvedthoughhavenotcommittedanyoffenceand that the so called discoveries are to meet with the lacunas in the investigationandthatitisonlyafterfilingofthewritonrecordvide Exh.345thattheaccusedno.5and6werearrestedon23.01.2004. (e) Before discussing the evidence produced by the prosecution to

establishtheguiltofdestroyingtheevidencebytheseaccused,itneedsto benotedthattheaccusedno.5,6and10arerespectivelymother,sister andfatheroftheaccusedno.1. (f) Thispanchnamahasbeendrawnasdiscoverypanchnamawherein theprimarypanchnamahasbeenpreparedattheofficeofcrimebranchat Ahmedabad on 25.01.2004 at about 16:00 hrs. After the primary panchnamaascanbeseenfromthepanchnamaitself,theteamhasstarted fromGaikwadHaveliandthenafterRaikhadandsoon. PW14,ShriJogajiKasturjiVaghelahasgivenhisdepositionvide Exh.196.Thiswitnessisapanchno.1ofthepanchnamaExh.197.While perusingthecrossexaminationofthiswitness,itseemsthatthiswitness hasadmittedthathehadneverbeentotheCrimeBranchandtherefore, hehasnotseenGaikwadHaveliCrimeBranchandthatallhissignatures weretakenatKirannagar.Atthispointoftimetheaccusedno.5wasin thecustody. In the humble opinion of this Court, upon plain perusal of the PanchnamaExh.197:(PlaceofdestroyingtheA5)

495

panchnama itself, it is found clearly mentioned that videographer Mahendrasinghpoliceconstablebuckleno.1605andpolicephotographer NatvarlalParmar,policeconstablebuckleno.1948weretogetherwiththe team.Itistobenotedthatneitherthealbumnoranyphotographnorany CDhasbeenproducedonrecordnoranyattempthasbeenmadetoprove the said part of proceeding. In the light of this, it seems that the panchnamaissuchwhichdoesnotinspireconfidence. (g) Vide Exh.414 site report prepared by the FSL Officer on

25.01.2004between17:00hrs.to18:00hrs.isonrecord,whereinitis writtenthatthebucketwasfoundclean,itdidnotstink,theplacewas foundtobeplaceofdailyuseandthattheFSLOfficerhasadvisedfor doingphotographyofthesite. Itseemsthatthesaidhaseithernotbeendoneorithasnotbeen placedonrecord.Further,itcannotbeforgottenthatthepanchnamaitself isnotsubstantialevidence,butthepanchasaresubstantialevidence.Here isthepanchwitnesswhoseoralevidencedoesnotprovegenuinenessof Exh.197 panchnama. Hence, this panchnama cannot be treated as discoverypanchnamawhichcanbeusedagainsttheaccusedtoprovethat theevidencewasdestroyedbytheseaccused. (h) VidedispatchletterbytheInvestigatingOfficerwrittentoFSLon

recordvideExh.321itemnos.5,6and7havebeenshowntobetheitems relatedtoExh.197panchnamaalongwithotherpanchnama. Exh.336isthereportoftheFSLwhereinthereportforparcelB

496

sampleno.5,parcelB1sampleno.6andparcelB2sampleno.7allthe three are related to Exh.197 panchnama qua the accused no.5. Upon perusaloftheanalysisreport,itbecomesamplyclearthatonallthese threearticlesneitherbloodnorsemenwasfound. (i) Vide Exh.338 a report of Physics Department has also been

tenderedsignedbytheScientificOfficeroftheFSLwhereinalsothereis nothingonrecordtoinvolvetheaccusedno.5inthecrime. InthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,Exh.197panchnamadoesnot inspireconfidence.Nowitnesswhatsoeverhasbeenexaminedtoprove thattheaccusedno.5hasdestroyedtheevidenceasalleged.EventheFSL reportdoesnotlinktheaccusedwiththechargeagainsther.Considering alltheabovediscussion,itseemsthatthispanchnamacannotbebelieved asdiscoverypanchnamaandthatthispanchnamadoesnotlinkA5with thecrime. (j) This panchnama is the panchnama to seize one TATA Sumo having RTO Registration No.GJ1AP.1267 on the ground that the accusedno.10cametoShahibaugpolicestationintheSumoandthrough theduplicatekeyopenedMarutiZenhavingRTOregistrationno.GJ1 HB1267andhasplannedtoseetoitthattheaccusedno.5and6take awayallthematerialslyingintheseizedMarutiZenfromtheShahibaug policestationandaccusedno.5and6carryawaythesaidmuddamalin theTATASumowhichhasbeenseizedbythispanchnama. PanchnamaExh.204:(SeizureofTata)

497

This panchnama has been attempted to be proved by PW16, PravinbhaiDahyabhaiPatelwhoisshowntobethepanchno.2inthe presentpanchnama.Ascanbeseenfromperusalofthispanchnamaitself, nothing has been discovered from this TATA Sumo and no signs of anything could be observed while drawing the panchnama. There is nothingonrecordmoresoanywitnesstoproveandtoindicatethatthis TATA Sumo was used to carry away the muddamal seized from the seizedcarlyinginShahibaugPoliceStationbytheaccusedno.5and6at KirannagarbyuseofthisTATASumo. Thispanchwitnesshasbeendeclaredhostilebytheprosecution duringthecourseofcrossexamination.Thiswitnesshassaidthathehas notgoneanywhere,hehasnotseenanything,hissignaturewastakenat theTaxiStandandinhispresencenobodyhassignedandthathehasnot seentheTATASumo,buthehassignedatthepolicestation. Upon perusal of the panchnama Exh.204, the place of the panchnama is Kirannagar, in view of the deposition of prosecution witnessno.16whenitseemsthatthepanchhasnevergonetotheplace showninthepanchnama,thepanchnamadoesnotstandprovedtobe genuine.VideExh.334theFSLreportisonrecordwhereintheTATA Sumohasbeenshowntobeatitemno.1.AshasbeenopinedbytheFSL, neitherbloodnorsemenhasbeenfoundfromthisTATASumo. Eventhispanchnamadoesnotproveanycaseoftheprosecution quatheaccusedno.5,6and10andnothingisonrecordbywhichitcan

498

beheldtohavebeenprovedthattheaccusedno.5and6havecarriedthe muddamal and that the accused no.10 has opened up the Maruti Zen seized by the police on 01.01.2004 by use of any key and more particularlybyuseoftheduplicatekey. Noeyewitnesshasbeenexamined.Thepolicestationisopened forallthe24hrs.ItisanadmittedpositionthattheMarutiZenseized fromtheaccusedno.1waslyinginthecompoundofShahibaugPolice Station.Itisnotatallprobablethattwowomenandonemancancomein anothercari.e.TATASumo,openuptheseizedMarutiZenandcantake awaythemuddamalfromitandtwowomenalongwiththedriverwould runawaytakingthemuddamalfromtheMarutiZenwhichislyinginthe policestationitselfandwhichwasseizedinthefashionthatitcanbe openedupbyevenduplicatekey.Thispanchnamaalsodoesnothelpthe prosecutiontoprovethechargeagainsttheaccusedno.5,6and10to havedestroyedanyevidence. (k) Thispanchnamaisdrawnon23.01.2004between12:00noonto 12:30 and this panchnama has been exhibited upon admission by the defense.Uponperusalofthispanchnama,itbecomesamplyclearthat thispanchnamaistostatethephysicalstateoftheaccusedno.5and6 respectively mother and sister of the accused no.1, but even this panchnamaalsodoesnotproveanyguiltoftheaccusedno.5and6orjoin themtothecrimealleged. PanchnamaExh.165:(ArrestPanchnamaofA5andA6)

499

(l)

PanchnamaExh.220:(ofDuplicateZenKeys) Thispanchnamaisdated06.02.2004whereinaduplicatekeyof

MarutiZenhasbeendiscoveredfromtheaccusedno.10,ashehasshown hisreadinesswhileinthecustodytoshowtheduplicatekeyoftheMaruti Zen,seizedon01.01.2004,havingRTOregistrationno.GJ1HB1267. Thispanchnamaisthediscoverypanchnamaandattemptedtobeshown tobethepanchnamau/s.27oftheIndianEvidenceAct. PW22, Pravinbhai Jivrabhai Padhiyar has been examined vide Exh.219whoisthepanchno.2ofthispanchnama. Uponperusalofthepanchnama,itbecomescrystalclearthatthe policehaveusedonlyonevehiclei.e.policejeepashasbeenmentioned anditseemsthatincludingtheaccusedno.10whowasinthecustody,the wholeteamwentinthesaidvehicle. Intheexaminationinchiefitself,thepanchwitnessisunableto identify the accused no.10. During the course of crossexamination, primarypanchnamaisadmittedtohavebeenmadeatlaterstageatthe residenceoftheaccusedno.10.Thisaspectattacksonsanctityofthis primarypanchnama. Accordingtothepanchnama,theteamhasstartedfromtheoffice of ACP, 6Vibhag at Dariyapur Darwaja. During thecourse of cross examination the panch witness has stated that the team started from Dariyapurpolicestation.Further,duringthecourseofcrossexamination, itseemsthatthepanchwitnessistellingabouttwovehicleshavingbeen

500

usedtocarrytheteamatthesiteandtheaccusedno.10wasinthevehicle whichwasahead.Thediscrepancyinthecontentsofthepanchnamaand intheoralevidenceofthiswitnessraisesaquestionmarkagainstthe prosecutioncasequatheaccusedno.10. Moreover,inthehumbleopinionofthisCourt,thediscoveryofthe duplicatekeyofMarutiZenownedbytheaccusedno.10canhardlybe termedtobediscoverybecausethereisnooralevidenceonrecord,no witness is forthcoming even from the police station to state that the accused no.10 was seen opening the seized Maruti Zen lying in the ShahibagPoliceStationbytheduplicatekeyfromhiscustody. In view of the abovediscussion,eventhispanchnamadoesnot provideanyhelptotheprosecutioncaseanditisabsolutelyunabletolink thepresentaccusedwiththecrime.Atthisjuncture,thoughvideExh.340 FSLreportrelatedtothiskeywhichisshowntohavebeendiscovered fromtheaccusedno.10hasbeenplacedonrecord,butitishardlyofany usesinceintheFSLopinion,thiskeyisshowntobeoftheseizedMaruti Zen, but then nobody disputes that fact. The only point which the prosecutionneedstoproveisthattheduplicatekeyoftheseizedMaruti Zen(lyinginShahibaugPoliceStation)hasbeenusedbytheaccused no.10withanintentiontodestroytheevidenceand/orwithanintention to see to it that he facilitates the accused no.5 and 6 to take out the muddamallyinginthesaidseizedMarutiZentoenabletheaccusedno.5 and6totakeawayanddestroythesame. Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,thereisabsolutelynothingon

501

recordbywhichtheaccusedno.5,6and10canbeheldguiltybeyondany reasonable doubt and to have destroyed any evidence to screen the accusedno.1to4,12and13. (m) In the charge Exh.18, the charge has even been framed of

destroyingtheseatcoverofthecar,butthereisneitheranypanchnama noranyevidencetoestablishthesaidfact.Itseemsthattheprosecution hasnotspelledoutasinglewordquathischarge.Inviewoftheabove,it becomes amply clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused no.5, 6 and 10 and they have been merelyropedin,sincetheyarerelativesoftheaccusedno.1andthatthere isnomaterialwhatsoevertoinvolveallthethreeaccused. (n) PanchnamaExh.314showingseizureof'kada': Thispanchnamaisattemptedtobeprovedbytheoralevidenceof PW49,theInvestigatingOfficer. To prove this panchnama, even the panch witness who can be termedtobeanauthorofthepanchnama,hasnotbeenexamined. Thispanchnamas,infact,needsnodiscussion,butsincethewhole recordhasbeenperusedandonlythispanchnamaislefttobediscussed quaA10,thisCourtthoughtitfittoevendiscussthispanchnama. Ld.AdvocateMr.Sardaroftheaccusedno.10hassubmittedthat therecoveryofthe'kada'hasbeenmadeonlyafterinvestigationofthe criminal case being Ist C.R.No.23/2004 of Naranpura Police Station

502

(resultedintoanothersessioncasetriedbeforethiscourtinvolvingthe fiveaccused)wasassignedtoPW49on15.01.2004.Hehashighlighted thatthe'kada'whichhasbeenshowninExh.62panchnamaonthearmof thedeceasedvictimhasbeentakenoutbyPW49andhasusedinthe caseonhandthroughdiscoverytofalselyinvolveA10. Well,thereisnoevidencetothiseffect,butuponseeingtheoverall weakevidenceonrecordquatheseaccused,itcanbesaidthateventhis panchnamaExh.314doeslinkA10withthecrime. Itcannotbeforgottenthatthepanchnamaisthekindofevidence which is not substantial evidence and that it can only be used to corroboratetheoralevidencewhichcanbereliedupon.Incaseonhand, asfarastheinvolvementoftheseaccusedno.5,6and10isconcerned, there is absolutely no credit worthy oral evidence put forth by the prosecutionandthatthereisabsolutelynothingonrecordtoestablishthat thesethreeaccusedhavedestroyedanyevidenceashasbeenalleged. Neitheranydocumentaryevidencenoranyoralevidencehasbeen placedonrecordtolinktheseaccusedwiththecrime.Further,italsohas toberememberedthatitclearlyemergesfromtherecordofthiscasethat itisthedoubtandconjectureofthePW49,thethenInvestigatingOfficer whichhasresultedintothearrestoftheaccusedno.5,6and10,butthe cardinalprincipleofcriminaljurisprudencecannotgooutofsightthatthe doubtandconjecturehowsoeverstrong,cannotreplacetheimportanceof evidence.Therearenumerousdoubtswhichhaveemergedagainstthe prosecution case as far as accused no.5, 6 and 10 are concerned, the

503

benefitofitshouldgototheaccused. Thereisnothingonrecordbywhichitcanevenbeimaginedthat theaccusedno.5,6and10hadcommonintentionalongwiththeaccused no.1to4and12inwhicheventualitythequestionofapplyingSection34 quatheseaccusedareconcerned,seemstobetoofarfetchandthatitdoes notsoundprudenttobelievetheinvolvementofthesethreeaccusedin thecrimeashasbeenalleged. Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussionandtheoverallrecord,facts andcircumstancesofthecase,itseemsthattheaccusedno.5,6and10 are entitled to the benefit of doubt emerged on record against their involvement. (o) It is astonishing that though the Maruti Zen was seized on 01.01.2004,nopanchnamawhatsoeverofthemateriallyinginsidethe MarutiZenhasbeendrawnbytheconcernedInvestigatingOfficerwhich hascreatedinawayvacuum. Thecaseoftheprosecutionquaaccusedno.5,6and10isthat,that theycameinashofferdrivenTATASumocarandaccusedno.10has openedtheMarutiZenwithaduplicatekeyandaccusedno.5and6have collectedthemateriallyinginsideMarutiZennamelynicker,purseand sandaloftheprosecutrixandhavecarrieditawayintheTATASumo. PW3, sister of the prosecutrix has deposed that on 03.01.2004

whentheseizedMarutiZenwasseized,nothingwasfound.

504

On 01.01.2004 whenalongwith theprosecutrix her sister,their friends and the policemen on duty and the concerned Investigating OfficerwereallpresentintheShahibaugPoliceStationitself,themillion dollar question is that howisit probable andpossiblethattheseized MarutiZenbythepoliceandlyingintheShahibaughPoliceStationcan beopenedupandthematerialcanbetakenawaybytheaccusedwho came in another vehicle i.e. TATA Sumo and no noise is made and nobodypresentinthepolicestationhaslearntit.Thisisnotpossibleand hence,foundabsolutelyimaginaryandimprobablewhichleadstogrant benefitofdoubttoallthesethreeaccused. (p) As far as Section 34 is concerned, the common intention

could not be found from the facts and circumstances, oral and documentary evidence, qua these accused, produced before the Court. Whiletheprincipaloffenceofgangrapewasbeingcommittedbythefive accused,itcannotbesaidtohavebeenintheknowledgeofthepresent accusedno.5,6and10.

(q)

Relationshipofthethreeaccusedwiththeaccusedno.1hasalso

beenfocusedbutmerelyrelationshipwiththeaccusedno.1wouldnot attract Section 201 of the I.P.C. It is necessary that the accused had knowledgeorhadreasontobelievethattheoffencehasbeencommitted, whocausedcertainevidencetodisappearwithintentiontoscreentheA1 fromthelegalpunishment. (r) Thearrestanddrawingthepanchnamasseemstobequiteformal,

505

monotonousandabsolutelyunabletolinktheaccused. (s) Lastly vide ex.370, a letter written by the prosecution witness

no.49 to the Manager, Tata Tele Services along with the print out of phoneno.8047767mentionedinalettertobenumberoftheA10ison record.Itishowevernecessarytonotedownthattheprintoutalongwith theforwardingletterofthe15pagesisthecompilationhavingnolinking caliber to link the A10 and that there is no mention of the phone no.8047767tobeoftheA10henceitisclearthateventhroughthis documentary evidence theprosecution hasnotproved itscasebeyond reasonabledoubt. Prosecutionwitnessno.48statesthathehasopenedtheMarutizen carseizeditbutnotsealed.Whileansweringq.no.16/17raisedbythe court,hehasrepliedthathetookawaykeyofthecarfromthePSOand didnotlockcarhimself,thedooratdriversidewasopenedbyhim.He didnotknowabouttheotherthreedoorsanddickey.Withthissituation, itdoesnotsoundsafetoholdthatA5,6,10areimplicatedascharged when even there is no mention about the keys of the seized car, no muddamalpavtiandnopanchnamaofthekeyofthecarhasbeendrawn.

51.

FromoralevidenceofInvestigatingOfficer:

Prosecutionwitnessno.48shouldhaveheldidentificationparade forthearticlestogetthesameidentifiedbythedeceasedvictimwhich couldhaveattachedcredibilitytothewholeprocess.

506

52.

Inoralevidenceofprosecutionwitnessno.49(onpage57)ithas

beenadmittedthaton6.2.04thediscoverypanchnamaofduplicatekeyof theseizedmarutizenhasbeendrawnasthewitnesshaslearntfromthe A10astheduplicatekeyiskeptinthehouse. This knowledge of the investigating officer nullifies the genuinenessofthepanchnamaasitdoesnottallywiththespiritofS.27 oftheIndianEvidenceAct.

53.

Onpage74/75theprosecutionwitnessno.49hasadmittedthat

thereisnoevidenceofanyonehastakenawaypurse,sandal,driving license,wristwatchwithsilverchain,silverring,underwear,before 14.1.04fromtheseizedmarutizenbuteventhisdoesnotprovethesame tohavebeentakenawaybyA5,6&10thattooafterfourteendaysof arrestofA1.

54.

Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,theredoesnotseemany

evidenceagainsttheA5,6&10tolinkthemwitheithertheprinciple offence,commonintentionordestroyingtheevidencetoscreenthefive accused.Asaresultallthethreeaccusedareentitledtothebenefitof doubtsquatheirculpabilityintheoffenceschargedagainstthemhence thefinaloutcomeasmentionedintheoperativepartattheend.

55.

Accusedno.7,8&9.

507

(a)

Theaccusedno.7&8havebeenarrestedon23.1.04,theirdateof

committalis15.2.05byLearnedMetropolitanMagistrateCourtno.2.The accused no.7 & 8 respectively are father and brother inlaw of the accusedno.2&3. Videex.18thecharge,theaccusedno.7&8havebeencharged undersection201readwith376(2)(g)readwithsection34oftheIndian PenalCodeonthegroundthattheaccusedhavedestroyedtheevidence likebedsheet,mattressesetc.withaviewtoscreentheaccusedno.1to4, 12&13fromthelegalpunishmentandthatinthealternativetheaccused haveactedinfurtheranceofthecommonintentionarrivedamongallthe accused. (b) Ld.Sp.PublicProsecutorMr.A.P.Desaihasmainlysubmittedvide

hiswrittensubmission,takenonrecordvideex.492,moreparticularlyin para54to56,thattheprosecutionhasproveditscasebeyondreasonable doubtagainstboththeseaccusedanditcannotbetakenlightly. Hehasorallyemphasizedthatthepanchnamasandrecoverymade inpursuancetothestatementmadebytheaccusedundersection27ofthe IndianEvidenceActissuchapieceofevidencewhichdoesnotrequire supportofanyindependentwitness.Hehasemphasizedonthejudgment reportedat2002(1)G.L.R.Page702inthematterofVinugiriMotigiriv. TheStateofGujaratemphasizingonpara24tosubmitthatevenifthe panchwitnessesdonotsupportthesayoftheprosecutionbutwhenthe police officer gives evidence in the court that certain articles have recoveredbyhimonthestrengthofthestatementmadebytheaccused,it

508

isopentothecourttobelievetheversiontobecorrect. (c) Ld.AdvocateMr.H.M.DhruvfortheA7&A8hastenderedhis

writtensubmissionintuneofhisoralsubmission.Hehasemphasizedthe aspectoffalseinvolvementoftheseaccused,onacaseofnoevidence againsttheseaccused,defective,biasinvestigationtofalselyimplicatethe accused,thepanchnamahavingnotsatisfiedtherequisitesu/s27ofthe IndianEvidenceActandarenotworthytobebelieved. (d) Letusseesoastothechargeleveledagainstthesetwoaccusedhas

beenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtbytheprosecutionornot. Uponperusalofthematerialconcernedwiththesetwoaccused, followingfactsandfindingshavebeennoted. (e) Vide ex.209 a panchnama has been drawn on 25.1.04 between

11.40A.M.to14.30P.M.Thispanchnamaisthepanchnamawherein uponthestatementmadebytheaccusedno.8,thepanchnamahasbeen drawnofthesitewherethemattresses,bedsheets,blanketetc.havebeen destroyed. Uponscanningofthepanchnama,itseemsthattheaccusedno.8 has stated before thepanchas thatfrom theroomof theHotelAshok Palacewheretherapewascommitted,certainthingsweretakenawayand havebeendestroyedandthattheaccusedisdesiroustoshowthesaid place. The team comprising of panchas, accused, FSL officers, police photographer, police videographer respectively the police constable

509

Natubhai buckle no.1948 and head constable Mahendrasinh buckle no.1605havegonetothesiteintwodifferentvehiclesalongwiththe investigatingofficer.Whileonthewaytheaccusedhasshownthestand (place of hawking) of the hawker from whom he has purchased the keroseneinaplastictin.Thesaidhawkerisnotedinthepanchnamato havenotbeenhawkingatthatpointoftime. (f) Thecanalwhereintheplastictininwhichthekerosenewastaken

bytheaccusedno.8whichthenwasthrownawayinthecanalcouldnot betracedout. (g) Upon further perusing the panchnama, the accused is shown to

havebeenstatingthatonebedsheet,oneblanket,onehandkerchiefand pillowcovershavebeentakenaway,concealedattheManibhadraflats andon14.1.04thesaidweretakenawayinthesantrocarhavingRTO registrationno.GJ.1.HD.6672fromBapunagarandoneRaju&Madanlal wereaccompanying. (h) ThesaidRajuandtheaccusedno.8haveburntthecarriedaway

thingsinonepotlaatthisplace. As has been mentioned in the panchnama photography & videographywasdone. (i) This panchnama has been proved through prosecution witness

no.19RajubhaiIshwarbhaiKaharwhohasdeposedatex.208aspanch no.1oftheex.209panchnama.

510

Thiswitnesshasnotidentifiedtheaccusedno.8ashavingshown thesiteoftheoffencei.e.Ofdestroyingorburningtheevidencetaken fromtheroomoftheAshokpalacehotelwheretherapewascommitted whichisthegistoftheallegationsagainsttheseaccused. Thiswitnesshasdeposedthathedoesnotrememberthenameof thepersonwhohasshowntheresiduals. Hedoesnotknowwhathadhappenedatcrimebranch(theprimary panchnamawasdrawnthere)thebriskbatsandsoilwereseizedbutwho hasshownthesaidresidualisnotknowntothewitness.Theplotwhere panchnamawasdrawnisanopenplot.Thereisaroomofthewatchman andthereisalsochulaforcooking. Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,neitherRajunorMaganlalhave beenfoundout,thehawkersellingthekerosenehasbeenfoundout,the videography or photography have not been produced on record, even policephotographerandpolicevideographerhavenotbeenexaminedas witness,theactofdestroyingi.e.Burningthebedsheets,pillowcovers, quaint covers, blankets etc. has been done on 14.1.04 but then the panchnamahasbeendrawnon25.1.04hencethescopeoftheresidualof ashbeingavailablefromopenplotalsoneedstobeconsidered. (j) Nowitnesshasbeenexaminedtoestablishthatallthesaiditems

weretakenoutfromtheroomno.106or205oftheAshokPalaceHotel andconcealedatandthenhasbeencarriedtotheopenplotManibhadraat Nikolvillagebytheaccusedno.7andothersandhasbeenburntthereby

511

useofkerosene. (k) Ex.312isthepanchnamaoftherecoveryofthesantrocarhaving

RTO registration no.GJ.1.HD.6672 owned and shown by the accused no.8asthecarhavingbeenusedintheoffence. Videex.321,thedispatchnote,itseemsthattheresidualsofthe burntthingshavebeensenttoFSLhasbeenmarkedasAnnexureAto A3includingthecontrolmaterial.Beforewediscussthisaspectandthe FSLreportofthis,itisnecessarytodiscussastowithwhattheresiduals werecompared. (l) Ex.313 is the panchnama drawn on 25.1.04 which is for the

recovery of a blanket from room no.102 of the Ashok Palace hotel. Accordingtoprosecutionthisistheblanketofdoublebedfromroom no.102andisanidenticalcontrolblanketwhichwasintheroomno.106 whereoffencehasbeencommitted. Panch no.1 Shri Bharatbhai Laxmanbhai has been examined as prosecution witness no.17 vide ex.209 who has been declared to be hostile. (m) Itneedstobenotedthatablanketofroomno.102seemstohave

beentakenascontrolsamplebutMr.AshishOliversonofSamuelOliver, the marketing executive of the Ashok palace from whom the control blanket was recovered has not been examined as a witness by the prosecutiontoprovethatsimilarkindoforidenticalblanketwasusedin

512

roomno.102.TheprosecutionhassubmittedthewitnessMr.Olivertobe nottraceablepanchwitness.Inviewofthepropoundedprinciplesofthe criminaljusticedeliverysystemsurmisesandconjuncturehavenovalue. Furtherthepanchnamashouldbeprovedbysubstantialoralevidenceof its author and that when the panch is hostile, the oral evidence of investigating officer cannot prove that the blanket given from room no.102wasanidenticalorcontrolblanketwhichwaskeptonthefateful nightof31.12.03inroomno.106.WithoutexaminingMr.AshishOliver aswitnessthebestevidenceruledoesnotgetsatisfied,consideringthe abovediscussion,thispanchdoesnotestablishanyincriminatingmaterial againsttheaccusedno.8. (n) Ex.321isthedispatchnoteoftheresidualcollectedfromopenplot

atvillageNikolownedbytheaccusedno.7andothers. Ex.336istheFSLreportaboutalltheresidualwhereinithasbeen opinedthatsemenorbloodwasnotfoundonthisresiduals. Vide ex.338 opinion of the physics department about physical propertyoftheresidualhasbeenbroughtonrecordbyburningacontrol blanket in the FSL laboratory and comparing the control samples residuals with the residualseizedfromtheopenplotbutasdiscussed abovetheprosecutionhasnotwhenprovedthatthecontrolblanketand the burnt blanket were identical that too of the blanket kept in room no.106, this opinion is taking the prosecution case a step ahead to establishculpabilityoftheA7&A8.

513

(o)

Ex.413istheFSLsitereportwhilethevisitatopenplotofthe

Nikol village wherein it has been specifically reported that the photographsofthesiteoftheoffencehasbeentakenbutasdiscussed above,nophotographwhatsoeverhavebeenproducedonrecord.Even nonehasbeenexaminedtobringthephotographonrecord. (p) Ex.415isalsoasitereportoftheFSLmentioningthereinthata

pieceof1ft.x1ft.wassuggestedtobecutandtakenouttheblanketof roomno.102whichwasofpolyesteryarntypeblanketwrittentherein AlaskaGoldMinkblanket. There is nothing on record to prove that this very print of the blanketwasusedontheinterveningnightof31.12.03&1.1.04atroom no.106. (q) Vide ex.334 the FSL report is on record wherein it has been

specifically opined that vide parcel no.1 the car recovered from the accusedno.8,ownedbytheaccusedno.8hasnoincriminatingmaterial withinitneitherthebloodnorthesemenhasbeenfoundinthesame. (r) Videex.202,anarrestpanchnamaofaccusedno.7,8&9hasbeen

prepared on the date of their arrest on 23.1.04 wherein it is clearly mentionedthatnoincriminatingmaterialhasbeenrecoveredfromanyof theaccused. (s) Asfarasaccusedno.7isconcernedexceptex.202thepanchnama

andtheprintout,noevidencewhatsoeverisonrecordtoestablishthat

514

theaccusedhasinanywaydestroyedanykindofevidencetoscreenany oftheaccused. (t) AprintoutofIdeaphoneno.9824066729videex.386&387ison

recordwhichhasbeenemphasizedtobematerialtoimplicatetheaccused no.7.Thedepositionofprosecutionwitnessno.15whoispanchno.1of the ex.202 panchnama is obviously of no use since nothing has been recovered. Ascanbeseenfromex.387onpage1,nameofaccusedno.7is writtenwhereasonpage3,thenameoftheaccusedno.3iswrittenhence theseprintoutsdoesnotconnecttheaccusedno.7. Inadditiontotheabove,itneedsanotethatex.386isaforwarding letterfromtheIdeaCellularLtd.Butthereisnomentionastohowmany pageshavebeensentbyIdeaCellulartotheNaranpurapolicestation.In anycase,thisdocumentaryevidencedoesnotbringonrecordaniotaof incriminatingevidenceagainsttheaccusedno.7. (u) In the humble opinion of the court considering all the above

evidencesbroughtonrecordbytheprosecutingagencynothingcanbe concludedagainsttheaccusedno.7&8ratherlotmanydoubtsemerges on record, no independent witness to prove the implication and participationoftheaccusedisonrecordhencethebenefitemergeson record shall have to be given to the accused no.7 and 8 in view of propoundedprinciplesofcriminaljusticedeliverysystem.

515

(v)

Theoralevidenceledbytheprosecutionalsoneedsappreciationto

decideastotheguiltoftheA7&A8standprovedornot. Prosecutionwitnessno.48PSIShriSharmahastestifiedonpage 58ofhisoralevidencethathehasnottakenstatementofanyperson aboutthefactthatthereweretwokeysoftheseizedcarwhichheadmits tohavebeenstatingforthefirsttimeinthecourt. Prosecutionwitnessno.49hasstatedonpage77ofhisdeposition thathedidnotgetanyevidenceofhavingdestroyedanyevidencefrom roomno.106&roomno.205rangingfrom1.1.04to7.1.04.Healsoadds thathehasnotdoneanyinvestigationonthesaidlineandupto20.1.04 suchinvestigationwasnotdone. Onpage78,itbecomesclearthatthecontrolsampleoftheblanket obtainedfromroomno.102wasnotcomparedwiththeblanketofroom no.106. Prosecutionwitnessno.49atpage90admitsthatthereareroomsat thesitewherepanchnamaExh.209wasdrawn. InthepanchnamaEXH.209,thereismentionofthesiteafterwhich panchnamaEXH.312andstatementofMadanlalJaiswalwasrecorded wherethementionofthesitecomes. Onpage91,ithasbeenadmittedthatnostepsweretakentokeep thesiteasitwasandthatthesitewasopenedfromallthesides.

516

Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,theabovepartofdeposition raisesdoubtaboutthegenuinenessofthe certainpartofinvestigation processwhichhasdirectlinkwithestablishingguiltoftheseaccusedand that the prior knowledge of police can clearly be seen which is challengingcredibilityofthepanchnama.Further,whenthesitewasnot protected and when was opened from all the four sides any material collectedafternumberofdaysfromthesitecannotbelinkedwiththe accusedasitsoundsunsafe. EXH.352to354arethearrestmemos.Ithasbeenadmittedbythe prosecutionwitnessno.49thatthenameoftherelativewhowasinformed aboutarrestisnotmentioned.Eventhisaspectisgrantingbenefittothe accusedandthattheinvestigatingagencyhasevennotinvestigatedabout destroyinganyevidencefromroomno.106&205oftheHotel,nocaseis madeoutagainstA7&A8beyondreasonabledoubtwhichisrequisite ofthecriminaltrial. Inthesameway,whentwokeysoftheseizedcarhasnotbeen brought on record, even the panchnama under section 27 for the productionofduplicatekeycomesundercloud. Atthecostofrepetition,itneedstoberecordedthatA5toA11 are not mentioned in the dying declaration and therefore as a safety measurecaseagainstthemneedstobedecidedbytheevidencewhichis directandtheevidencewhichprovidescorroborationtothesaidevidence whichisobviouslyabsentinthecase.

517

(w)

Accused no.9 is facing charge under section 212 of the Indian

PenalCodeonthegroundthathehasharboredorconcealedaccusedno.2 and3thoughheknewthemtobetheoffenders,withtheintentionof screeningthemfromlegalpunishment. ExceptEXH.202,thearrestpanchnamawhereintheaccusedno.9 hasbeenshowntohavebeenarrestedfromtheresidenceofaccusedno.7 on23.1.04atabout2.00O'clock.Secondly,anallegedprintoutofthe mobiletelephoneofA9hasbeenbroughtonrecordinwhich,nolinking evidencehasbeenshown.Beyondthis,thereisnothingonrecordagainst theA9.Itisratherclearthatnoincriminatingfactsemergeagainstthis accusedandnoincriminatingmaterialwasavailablefromthisaccused. Theprosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablishanymaterialonrecord topointouttothiscourtthattheaccusedno.9hasconcealed,harboredthe accusedno.2&3hence,questionofhisknowledgeofA2andA3tobe theoffenderisoutofquestion. (x) Uponperusalofex.368aletterbytheInvestigatingofficertothe

AT&TLtdareplyseemstohavebeenreceivedfromtheIdeaCellular whereinithasbeenclarifiedforphonenumber9824089701belongsto Shri Ashok M. Patel of Anand. Firstly there is nothing on record by which it can be held that the print out of around 1 to 16 pages red encircled attached to the said forwarding letter is the incriminating material against the A9. Printout page no.9 to 16 is for the number shown as that of Ashok M. Patel (A9) but as discussed above these papersarenotsufficienttoproveguiltofA9norithasbeensosubmitted bytheprosecution.

518

Itisamplyclearonrecordthattheprosecutionismiserablyfailed toexamineevenasinglewitnessfromthefamilymemberoftheaccused no.9orfromtheneighboursoftheaccusedno.9orfromanyofthecircle toestablishthattheaccusedno.2and3wereharboredorconcealedbythe accusedno.9.

56.

Ld. Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.A.P.Desai has submitted that in

viewofthepanchnamaontherecord,theaccusedno.2and3wereat residential premises of Anand and that this aspect proved the charge undersection212beyondreasonabledoubtquatheA9but,whenthere isnomaterialonrecord,theguiltoftheA9doesnotstandproved. ItisthereforeheldthattheguiltofA9doesnotstandproved.The suspicionhoweverstrongcannottakeplaceofproofhencetheA9is entitledtobenefitofdoubt.

57.

Asfarastheaccusedno.7,8&9areconcerned,theprosecution

caseistoocleartoallegeagainstallthethreeaccusedtohaveactedand enter into the scenario after the gang rape was committed on the interveningnightof31.12.03&1.1.04andthereforetheallegationofthe commonintentioncannothaveanyroom.

58.
(a)

Accusedno.11Dr.YogeshMahendrabhaiJadav.

Videex.18,chargeagainstthisaccusedhasbeenframed,videpara

519

5, under section 219 & 201 read with section 34 & 376(2)(g) of the IndianPenalCode. Thecaseagainsttheaccusedno.11cameupwhiletheinvestigation wasgoingonandafterthefirstchargesheetfiledon25.3.04whereinthis accusedhasbeenshownaswitnessno.74. Thechargeisthatthaton1.1.04theaccusedno.11beingpublic servant,knowingthattheaccusedno.1to4and12&13havegangraped thedeceasedvictimagainstherwish,thisaccusedwithanintentionof savingallthesaidoffendersfromlegalpunishmentpreparedtheinjury certificateinthemannerbywhichcommissionofoffenceofgangrapebe disappearedandhasthuscorruptlymadeareportinformoftheinjury certificateandmedicalcasepaperofthedeceasedprosecutrix(onrecord vide ex.281) which is contrary to law is in furtherance of common intentionandconspiracyhatchedbytheaccusedno.1to412&13. Alongwith prosecutionwitnessno.1,otherwitnesseshavebeen examinedbytheprosecutiontoprovethecasebeyondreasonabledoubt againsttheaccusedalongwithproductionofthedocumentaryevidence toprovetheguiltoftheaccusedno.11beyondreasonabledoubt. (b) Videex.492,Ld.PublicProsecutorhassubmittedquathisaccused

thatthechargeagainsttheaccusedisfortheoffencesundersections219 &201readwithsection34andreadwithsection376(2)(g)oftheIndian PenalCode.Ithasbeenempatheticallysubmittedthatuponcomparing theinjury certificate ex.281issuedbythiswitnessandex.62thepost

520

mortemnote,thereislotmanydiscrepanciesinadditiontothefactthat thoughthedeceasedprosecutrixwasexaminedon1.1.04,thecertificate ex.281 has been issued only on 12.1.04. The oral evidence of Dr. Merchantprosecutionwitnessno.2atex.60andex.62postmortemnote ofthedeceasedvictimclearlysuggestthatthepubichairofthedeceased victim were found of 1.2cms.inlengthbytheteamof postmortem doctorsasagainstthementioninthecertificateissuedbythisaccusedof pubichairshaved.Hadthepubichairshavedon1.1.04,itcouldnotbe foundof1.2 cms.inlengthwithinthespanofsevendaysonly.This accusedhasthoughobtainedvaginalswab&urethralswabhasreported that no spermatozoa are seen. He has intentionally destroyed vaginal swab(referencepara50to53ofex.492).Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutor Mr.A.P.Desaihasalsomadehisoralsubmissionquathisaccusedwherein bycitingthedepositionofprosecutionwitnessno.1andthedocumentary evidencewhichthiscourtshallreferhereinbelowhassubmittedthatthe prosecutionhasprovedthechargeinpara5ofex.18againsttheaccused beyondallreasonabledoubtandthattheaccusedno.11beingapublic servantandthattoobeingadoctoroughtnottohaveindulgedinthe affairsheisfoundindulged. (c) HeardtheLd.AdvocateMr.N.R.Shahfortheaccusedno.11.Vide

ex.527 the written submissionhas beengiven.He hasemphasized on threeaspectswhilemakinghisoralsubmissiontomagnifyhissubmission whichweremainlyonthebelowmentionedthreecounts. (d) The sanctionto prosecutetheaccusedasrequiredundersection

197oftheCriminalProcedureCodeisinvalid,defectiveandbadinlaw.

521

Theaccusedshouldbeacquittedveryplainlyonthesaidcount. (e) The prosecution has not proved the charge against the accused

no.11beyondreasonabledoubttheaccusedneedstobegrantedbenefit ofdoubt. (f) no.11. To substantiate the argument on invalid sanction, Ld. Advocate Mr.N.R.Shahhasinvitedtheattentionofthiscourttoex.75 whichis writtensubmissiontomyLd.Prepredecessorandanapplicationunder ex.49. He has relied upon numerous documentary evidence mainly focusingonjudgmentof Hon'bletheSupremeCourtinthematterof StateofKeralaV/s.Ameerjanreportedat2007SAR(Cri)Page845SC. (g) Ld. Advocate Mr.N.R.Shah has focused on the following The investigation was malafide, to falsely involve the accused

judgmentsofHon'bletheSupremeCourtasunder. (h) 2007SAR(Criminal)845SCinthematterofStateofKarnataka

v.AmeerJan. In the cited judgment thesanctionorderwasheldtobeinvalid showingnonapplicationofmindonthepartoftheauthoritywasonthe groundthatthereportsentbyInspectorGeneralWhichwasthebasefor grantingsanctionwasnotproducedonrecord. Inthecaseonthehandsthatisnotso,rathervideEXH.59the

522

opinionaswellasletterareplacedonrecord. (i) 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4059 SC in the matter of

MansukhlalVithaldasChauhanv.StateofGujarat. Inthisjudgment,thesanctionorderwasholdtobemechanicalas thesamewassentinobedienceofthemandamusissuedbytheHon'ble HighCourt. In the case on the hands the mind of the sanctioning authority seemstohavebeennotonlyindependentlyappliedbuthasbeenaided evenbythecommitteeoffourexpertsofthesubjectandthattheredoes notfoundanyexternalforceinfluencingthesanctioningauthorityinthe case. (ii) 1988CriminalLawJournal1122AllahabadinthematterofHar

BharoseyLalv.StateofU.P. Ithasbeenheldinthecitedjudgmentthatsanctioningauthority mustobjectivelyapplieditsmindandexaminemeritsofthecasebefore accordingthesanctionasitisnotanidleformalitybutasolemnduty. Incaseonhandsashasbeenrepeatedlydiscussed,theobjective applicationofmindclearlyrevealswhenthesanctioningauthorityhas passed its decision on thejoint opinion ofthemembersoftheexpert committeefromthemedicalfieldalongwiththeletterex.419whereinthe investigating agency is seeking sanction in the circumstances and evidence describedindetailformingallthefactualmatrixconstituting

523

theallegationsagainsttheaccusedno.11. (iii) AIR(36)1949Madras710inthematterofInreI.V.SubbaRao.

(iv) AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council, 82 in the matter of Gokulchand DwarkadasMorarkav.TheKing. Itisholdthatthesanctionmustbeinrespectofoffencescharged and the fact should be referred toonthefaceof sanctionorelsethe sanctionwouldbeinvalid. Ex.54,thesanctionletterinthecaseonthehandsclearlyreveals thefactofthecaseandthatonthataspectthereisnothingonrecordto holdthesanctioninvalid. (v) AIR(1955)Calcutta,430inthematterofInduBhusanChatterjee

v.TheState. (vi) AIR(1954)SC637inthematterofMadanMohanSinghv.State

ofU.P. Here head note C has been emphasized to submit that facts on whichproposedprosecutionisbasedmustbeprovedtohavebeenput beforethesanctioningauthority. Asdiscussedhereinaboveex.419theletterdated12.5.04isvery clearlyandingreatdetailsputtingupallthefactsonwhichproposed prosecutionisbasedandthatonthiscountalsothereisnothingtohold

524

thatthesanctionwasbad. (vii) AIR(1958)MadhyaPradesh,pageno.2inthematterofStatev. Hiranand. Theobjectofthesanctionmentionedinthecitedjudgmentisto safeguardagainstthevexatiousproceedingsandthattheapplicationof mindofthesanctioningauthorityisimperative. Inthecase,theapplicationofmindofthesanctioningauthorityis veryapparentasdiscussed. (viii) CriminalLawJournal(1994)753MadrasHC inthematterof Periyasamy v. Inspector, Vigilance and AntiCorruption Department, Tiruchirappalli Inthecitedcase,thesanctionwasheldtobeinvalidforhavingnot assignedreasonsforsatisfactionarrivedatbythesanctioningauthority. Inthecaseonthehandsex.54thesanctionletteritselfistooclear andtooreasonedordertoestablishthatthesanctioningauthorityderived thesatisfactionfromthereferredfourdocumentaryevidencereadbyhim andplacedbeforehimhenceinthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,thisis satisfyingtherequisites.

59.

The above referred judgments are mainly propounding

followingprincipleswerehighlightedtosubmittheobjectofsanctionis thattheconcernedpublicservantcanbegrantedtheprotectionunderthe

525

Act by refusing to accord the sanction, application of mind of the sanctioning authority is imperative, sanction under section 197(1) of Criminal Procedure Code is condition precedent for launching prosecutionagainstpublicservant,materialfactwhichisconstitutingthe offencechargedshouldbeplacedbeforethesanctioningauthority.

60.

Theprosecutionwitnessno.1isasanctioningauthoritywho

hasgrantedsanctionvideex.54theletterofsanctiontoprosecutethe accusedno.11.Thiswitnesshasbeenassailedonnumerousaspectslike the statement of Dr.Saumil, Dr.Nidhi, Dr.Parul, Dr.Rohit, Dr.Satapara werenotproducedbeforethesanctioningauthority,theotherstatements including theexplanationtenderedbytheaccusedno.11hasnotbeen placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction was granted on accountofpressurizetacticsadoptedbytheinvestigatingagencyascan beseenfromdifferentcorrespondencebytheinvestigatingagency,the sanctioning authority has neither called the accused no.11 nor any memberofthecommitteeformedofthefourdoctorsnorhasdiscussed withtheinvestigatingofficer.Theprosecutionwitnessno.1hasadmitted thatnodocumentaryevidencewasproducedtoestablishtheparticipation of criminal conspiracy by other accused, the certificate issued by the accused no.11 at ex.281 was as per record of the hospital, a new notificationonthedutiesoftheCMOhasbeenissuedafterthecase.He hashoweverfairlyadmittedthathedidnotknowabouttheeducational qualificationandservicerecordofaccusedno.11andthattheaccused no.11hasgiventhecertificatebasingupontherecordofthehospital.

526

61.

Intheopinionofthiscourt,thepiousobjectofgrantofthe

sanctionistopreventapublicservanttobeunnecessarilyharassedfrom vexatious litigation and to decide whether it is a fit case to provide umbrellaofsection197ofCriminalProcedureCodetotheconcerned publicservantornot? The cited judgments cannot have any application to the present case for the reasons assigned under the note of the said judgments. Moreover, in the present case as can be seen from the letter of the sanctionatex.54andashasbeendeposedbythesanctioningauthority,it isclearthatthesanctioningauthorityhasdecidedonthebasisoffour letters,aletterdated5.4.04atex.417,aletterdated28.4.04atex.419,a letterdated12.5.04atex.57andaletterdated6.7.04annexedtherewith thereportofthecommitteeofthedoctorsandhasbeenwrittenon28.6.04 butreceivedon6.7.04bythesanctioningauthorityatex.59.

62.

Ex.54istheletterofsanctiondated8.11.04.Onperusingthis

letter,itbecomesclearthatthesanctioningauthorityhasarrivedatthe decisionofaccordingsanctiontoprosecutetheaccusedno.11uponthe saidfourletters.Theprosecutionwitnessno.1hasdeposedinthetuneof theletterofthesanctionandthereportofthecommitteeascanbeseen fromtherecord.Thegistoftheallegationsagainsttheaccusedno.11has been mentioned in the sanction letter wherein it has been specifically contendedthattheaccusedno.11hasexaminedthedeceasedprosecutrix on 1.1.04 and then after has issued the certificate by preparing insufficientrecordwithaviewtosavetheaccusedofthegangrapefrom

527

thelegalpunishment.

63.

Ex.417istheletterofintimationofarrest,ex.419istheletter

seekingsanctiontofilechargesheetagainsttheaccusedno.11,Ex.57is theletter dated12.5.04 byInvestigatingOfficer statingthereinallthe detail facts about the case providing four mentioned documents explaining inability to provide copies of the statements as the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet has not been filed, additionallymentioningthereinthediscrepancybetweenthepostmortem report and the certificate issued by the accused no.11. Ex.59 is the opinion of the committee of four doctors first among whom was In chargeHead,ForensicMedicineDepartment,secondisInchargeHeadof GynecologyDepartment,thirdisDepartmentalDeputyDirector&fourth isMedicalSuperintendentofthecivilhospital.Outofthefourexperts, threearefromthecivilhospitalwheretheaccusedno.11wasworkingas CausalityMedicalOfficerwhereasDr.MithawalaistheDeputyDirector of the Health Department. Ex.59 is a forwarding letter wherein Dr.Mithawalahascontendedthatthereiscontradictionanddiscrepancies intheinjurycertificateatex.281andpostmortemnoteatex.62quapubic hairofthedeceasedvictim.Thedescriptionoftheinjuryhasalsobeen opinedtobecontradictorybythemembersofthecommitteeandthatit hasbeenultimatelyopinedintheletterthatitisbettertoletthelawtake itsowncourse.Alongwiththisforwardingletter,aminutesandopinion of the committee constituted of above referred Dr.Mithawala from Government,Dr.Deshmukh,Mr.LeuvaandMr.Shahfromcivilhospital arrivedatwhentheymeton28.6.04intheofficeofSuperintendentCivil

528

Hospitaltoexaminethecaseofdeceasedvictimfromtherecordofher case can be seen. It seemsthatafter havingstudiedtheFIR, ex.281 certificateissuedbyaccusedno.11,thepostmortemreportreportingthe lengthofthepubichairtobe1.2cms.againstthereportoftheaccused no.11 to have written pubic hair shaved and upon noting that the growthofthehaircanbe0.4mms.inadayandhenceinsevendays,it cannotbe1.2cms.(itcanbe0.28cms.)andhavingnotedthatthereis differencebetweentheinjuriesnotedintheinjurycertificateissuedby theaccusedno.11andtheinjuriesinthepostmortemnote,thesanction soughtforwasgranted. To decide intention of A11, the trial was necessary hence the sanction was necessary. Intention cannot be decided by sanctioning authority,itisnotcourtoradjudicatingauthority. Inthecasewhenthedifferenceinthereportingofthepubichairof the deceased victimis 1.2cms.And0.28mms.whichisobviously differenceofaboutfourtimes,theprosecutionwitnessno.1isheldto haveactedinfairandprudentmannerinaccordingsanction.Itisserious onthefaceofit(whichwasthepositionwhensanctionwasaccorded) thatA11iscertifyingthepubichairtobeshavedwhichcanbeatthe most0.28mms.Ontheseventhdayisinsteadfoundtobe1.2cms. All the requisites of valid, bonafide, legal and proper sanction stands fully satisfied. The prosecution witness no.1 was even careful enoughtosecureopinionoffourexpertsofthefieldandhasnotonly believedtheinvestigatingagencyorpostmortemnote.

529

64.

Theprosecutionwitnessno.1hasveryclearlystatedthathe

hasthoroughlybasedhisopiniononthesefourdocuments.Inthehumble opinionofthiscourt,theprosecutionwitnessno.1hasthoroughlyapplied hismindashehastakenguidanceandopinionofthefourexpertsand seniorpersonsofthefieldstobasehisopinionastosanctionshouldbe givenornot?Theprosecutionwitnessno.1haseveryreasontobelieve that and subsequently to opine that there is primary substance in the allegationand that it is notacaseofunnecessarilyharassment tothe accusedno.11.Inviewofthepropoundedprinciplesaquestionofvalid sanctionistobeprovedbytheprosecutionwhichtheprosecutionhas proved to the satisfaction of this court by examining the sanctioning authoritybyproducingtherelevantdocumentsandmoreparticularlyby producinganopinionofthecommitteeoffourseniordoctors. ThepointraisedbytheLd.AdvocateMr.N.R.Shahofthepressure tacticsinthecommunicationbytheInvestigatingOfficerdoesnothave anymeritsasthedecisionofthesanctionwastakenon8.11.04which wassoughtinthemonthofApril.Thereisnoneedoflookingatthe inquestpanchnamadiscussingwiththeInvestigatingOfficer,callingto andhearingtheaccusedno.11asthematerialconstituting theoffence wasplacedinthehandofthesanctioningauthority.Thereisevenno needofcallinganddiscussingwithanyofthefourdoctorscommittee memberssincetheyhaveclearlyopinedthatletthelawtakeitsown coursehencetheredoesnotseemanylightinthissubmissionaswell.

530

Thepointthatthearrestoftheaccusedno.11on27.3.04wasfor thereasonthaton25.3.04seniorpoliceofficershadsomequarrelwith thedoctorsatthecivilhospitaltoodoesnothaveanysubstanceasthe quarrelwasnotwiththeaccusedno.11hencenoquestionofenmitywith theaccusedno.11. ThepointthatnoGynecologistwasconsultedasadmittedduring thecourseofthecrossexaminationdoesnothelpasinthecommitteeof expertsHeadofGynecologyDepartmentwasparticipating.Onthepage4 ofthedeposition,ithasbeenempatheticallyclarifiedbythesanctioning authority that the important thing for him was difference and discrepanciesbetweenthepostmortemreportandtheinjurycertificate issued by the accused no.11 hence even this point does not come to rescuetheA11quathepointofsanctionbeingbadandillegal. Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thiscourtisoftheopinionthat whatismaterialiswhetherthematerialdocumentsandfactswhichwere constituting the offence charged were placed before the sanctioning authorityornot?Andthatwhetherthesanctioningauthorityhasapplied itsmindornot?Hereitseemsthatnotonlythesanctioningauthorityhas applieditsmindbuthastakenanadditionalcautiontobaseitsopinionon thewritten opinion tenderedbythefour expertsofthefieldwhichis perfect application of mind and thus the imperative element of applicationofmindstandsverymuchsatisfied. Theletterofsanctionex.54whilereadingwiththedepositionof the prosecution witness no.1 and upon perusal of the material placed

531

before the sanctioning authority whichhas beenbrought onrecord, it becomesclearthatthesanctioningauthorityhasaccordedasanctionto prosecute the A11 appreciating the entire record against the accused along with the opinion of the four experts of the field. The sanction grantedbytheauthorityseemstobeabsolutelyvalid,legalandwithfull applicationofmindwhereinalltherequisitesofavalid,legalandproper sanctionstandssatisfiedandthattheobjectofthesanctionissensitively takencareofbyforminganopinionofgrantingsanctionbasingonthe reporttenderedbythecommitteeoffourpersons.

65.

Ithastobeclarifiedherethatwhentheinvestigatingagency

haswritten thatthe statementcannotbepartedwith,sincethecharge sheet is yet to be filed has justification with it. Further it does not adverselyaffectasevenex.57hadfourdocumentaryevidencewhichtoo wereplacedbeforethesanctioningauthority. In the humble opinion of this court, application of mind means unbiased application of mind the open ness of mind. The sanction grantedwasafterobtainingtheopinionofthecommitteeoffourexperts ofthemedicalfieldandthatitwasnotgrantedabruptly.Notonlythatbut thesanctioningauthoritydoesnotseemtohavebeenpressurizedbythe communicationfromtheinvestigatingagency. Asapartingnotequathepointofsanctionraisedbytheaccused no.11,itseemsfittingtorecordthatevenafterdepositionofprosecution witnessno.1,myLd.Predecessorhasdealtwithanapplication,tendered

532

bytheaccusedno.11,belowex.49.Thiscourthasonlytoseeastoonthe dateofsanction,thesanctioningauthorityhasapplieditsmind,thefact constitutingtheallegedoffenceisplacedbeforethesanctioningauthority hasbeentakencareofasdiscussedabove.Alltheabovereferredthings havebeendoneascanbeseenfromthedocumentaryevidenceonrecord whilediscussingthepointofsanction,thedefectiveinvestigationorstyle ofthestatementcannotbeconsidered.Thepointstobeconsideredhave beenconsideredintheabovereferreddiscussionhencethiscourtholds thattherewasavalid,lawfulandpropersanctionwiththeapplicationof mindofprosecutionwitnessno.1andthatinviewofwhichthiscourthad jurisdictiontotrytheaccusedno.11andthatthesanctionwasneither mechanicalnorimproper.Itwasneitherbiasednoroverpoweredbyany element

66.

Thiscourthumblybutfirmlybelievesthatanysanctioning

authoritywithcommonprudenceandasareasonablesuperiorhavinga viewtoexamineastothepublicservantbeprotectedorbelefttofacethe chargesheetwouldhaveactedinthemannerasthesanctioningauthority hasactedbyissuingsanctionlettervideex.54.

67.

Before concluding on this aspect, one more submission

needs to be noted that though the sanction was not granted by the sanctioningauthoritytoprosecutetheaccusedno.11undersection219of IndianPenalCode,myLd.Predecessorhasframedthechargeandthat beingsoasfarasthechargeundersection219isconcerned,itneedsto betreatedwithoutsanction.

533

Itisknowntooneandallthatnocourtisboundbythelimitslaid inthechargesheettoframethecharge.Thecourtneednottoobtain sanction. The prosecuting agency needs to obtain sanction. Once the sanctionisobtainedevenifthereisnomentionofsomesectionifthe factualmatrixdemandsthechargeunderthesamesectionthensucha chargecanbeframedhencethechargeex.18quaaccusedno.11under section219doesnotsufferfromanyinfirmity.Thesubmissiononthis countisthereforecannotbeaccepted.

68.
(A)

Followingareadmittedposition: Thataccusedno.11Dr.YogeshMahendrabhaiJadavwasC.M.O.

Atcivilhospitalon1.1.04. (B) no.11. (C) A11. (D) Thisaccusedno.11wrotehistoryofoccurrenceaswastoldtohim Theinjurycertificateex.281waspreparedandsignedbyaccused The deceased victim was first of all examined by this accused

no.11fromthecasepapersofthedeceasedvictimmainlypreparedbythe

bythedeceasedvictim. (E) Accusedno.11isthepublicservantwhocannotberemovedfrom

hisserviceswithoutsanctionoftheStateGovernment.

534

(F)

Sanctionwasgrantedbytheprosecutionwitnessno.1andison

recordvideex.54forwhichtheprosecutionwitnessno.1haspower. Itwouldbeappropriatetodecideaswhethertheaccusedno.11has doneanyintentionalconcealmentornot?Itcanonlybelearntafterthe investigation.

69.
no.11:

Appreciationofevidencequachargesagainsttheaccused

Theaccusedno.11hasbeentriedforthechargesundersection219, 201readwithsection376(2)(g)readwithsection34oftheIndianPenal Code.Videex.492,thewrittensubmissiontenderedbytheLd.Sp.Public ProsecutorMr.Desai,ithasmainlybeensubmitted(frompara50to53) thattheaccusedno.11hasbeenchargedforfalselyshowingthepubic hairasshaved,oldhymentearandbyshowinginsufficientinjuriesinthe injury certificate of the deceased victim vide ex.281. It has been emphasized that in ex.281 pubic hair have been shown to have been shavedasagainstthatthepostmortemreportonrecordex.62showsin columnno.15thatpubichairareblackincolourandofabout1.2cms.in length.Theopiniontenderedbytheexpertonrecordvideex.59andin viewoftheoralevidenceofprosecutionwitnessno.2thegrowthofhair ofhumanbeingcanbeperday0.4mmwhichinsevendayscanbe0.28 cms.Itisurgedthatinviewofthisdiscrepancies,theintentionofthe accusedno.11ofscreeningtheprincipalaccusedstandproved.

535

Ld. Advocate Mr.Desai suggests that in post mortem ex.62 an externalgenitalshowsswellingofboththelabialfolds,theorificeofthe vaginaanduterusanteriorareswollenandedematous.Theaccusedno.11 hasnotshownthisexternalinjuriesontheprivatepartofthedeceased victim. Thehymentearisshownasoldhymentearbytheaccusedno.11as againstpostmortemreportex.62thehymentearat8o'clock&11o'clock withsurroundingoedema. Vaginal swab and urethral swab were obtained by the accused no.11 and it has been falsely and corruptively reported that no spermatozoaareseen.ThevaginalswabwasnotsenttoFSLandwere destroyed.

70.

Ld.AdvocateMr.N.R.Shahhasgivenhiswrittensubmission

intuneofwhichhehasmadehisoralsubmission.Theattentionofthe courtwasdrawntopageno.10to36and54to80ofex.527,thewritten submissionoftheaccusedwhereinithasbeenmainlysubmittedthatthe depositionofprosecutionwitnessno.2,3,35to40,44,48,49&50have supportedthedefenseasthroughthesewitnesses,whichclarifies that ex.281certificatehasbeenissuedbytheaccusedno.11intheusualmode and fashion and practice being adopted in the civil hospital. The observationnotedinex.281bytheA11issupportedbytheobservation ofGynecologistDr.ParulBhargavthatvaginalswabandurethralswab were never obtained by A11 but being done at the Gynecologist

536

Departmentandbothofithavebeentestedatthepathologydepartment ofB.J.MedicalCollegeandtherewasnopracticeofsendingthesameto theFSL.Theinjuriesinex.281andex.62arenotatmuchvariationasthe bitemarkhasbeenshownbytheaccusedno.11asoneinjurywhichhas beenshownatex.62postmortemreportastwoinjuries.Ashasbeen admittedbyprosecutionwitnessno.2,thepubichairwerepluckedand werefoundofcmsoflengthwhichcomesto5mmandinthiscaseif therootportionofthepubichairinsidetheskinisconsideredthenthe observationofpubichairshavedistrueaspubichairshavedisnottobe meantaspubichaircleanshaved.Itonlymeantthatoneisunableto combthepubichairandcutitforthepurpose.Ithasbeenmainlyurged thattheaccusedno.11shouldbeacquittedandchargeagainsthimhasnot beenproved.

71.

Having perused thematerial andhavinggonethrough the

oral evidence of the referred witnesses, following facts emerged very clearlyonrecord. (1) Theaccusedno.11hasexaminedthedeceasedvictimon1.1.04at

about12.15P.M. (2) (3) Thedeceasedvictimdiedon7.1.04. Postmortemwascarriedoutonherdeadbodyandpostmortem

reportex.62isonrecord. (4) Ex.281istheinjurycertificateadmittedlyissuedbytheaccused

537

no.11. (5) Therearediscrepanciesquamentionsofinjuryinthepostmortem

reportandtheinjurycertificateex.281issuedbytheaccusedno.11. (6) Theglaringdiscrepanciesofaboutfourtimes (0.28cms.&1.2

cms.)arealsorelatedtolengthofpubichaironher.Inviewofex.59and oralevidenceofPW2thegrowthofthehaircanbe0.4mmeveryday.It ishoweveropinedtobebasedonrace,sex,ageandgeneticinheritance. Thelengthinthepostmortemnoteisnotedtobeabout1.2cms.Now sinceinsteadof0.28cms.whenthepubichairarenotedtobeof1.2cms. after seven days of the occurrence, the investigating agency have implicatetheaccusedno.11andultimatelyafterobtainingsanction,the chargesheetwasalsofiled. During the course of the oral evidence of prosecution witness no.49, it has come up on record that in the statement of prosecution witnessno.2andDr.Jariwalathelengthofthepubichairwasrecordedin the statement before the investigating officer to be cms. The prosecutionwitnessno.49mentionedthatboththewitnesseshavespoken thelengthtobe1.2cms.andnotcms.butthefactremainsthatinthe statementbeforehim,ithasbeennotedascms. Heretwodifferentversionshavecomeontherecord,oneisthe pubichairtobe1.2cmsandanothertobecms.Betweentheboth, cms.sincegoesinfavouroftheaccusedthesaidneedstobeconsidered aswhentwofactualaspectcomesonewhichiscapabletograntbenefit

538

ofdoubttotheaccusedno.11shouldbeconsidered. Itismoresowhenthepubichairwhichhasbeenadmittedbythe prosecutionwitnessno.2tohavepluckedfromthedeadbodyhasneither beenprocuredbytheinvestigatingagencynorhasbeenpreservedbythe witness. There is even no videography or photography of the said post mortem.Moreovertheobservationofthepubichairtobeshavedhasalso beennotedbytheGynecologistDr.ParulBhargavwhichisintuneofthe observationnotedbytheA11. Considering the above discussion the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt thattheaccusedno.11either issueda falsecertificateorhassentcertificatecorruptlytoscreentheoffendersof thegangrapehavingbeencommittedonthedeceasedvictim.

72.
(1)

Followingpointsalsoneedsanotetoadjudgetheculpability

ifanyoftheA11. Inthepostmortemteethmarkinjurieshavebeenshowndifferently

thanithasbeenshowninex.281certificateissuedbytheaccusedno.11 but the certificate by A11doshowtheinjuriesonthepersonof the deceasedvictim. (2) Accusedno.11hasnotedallegedhistoryofrape,inadditiontothe

notethat:patientisconsciousandhistorygivenbypatientherself,hehas

539

alsowrittenthatonexaminationthepatientisconsciousandcooperative, the complaint given by the deceased victim of pain over breast and privatepartburninghavealsobeennoted,about7injuriesofrightand leftbreastofteethmark,bitemarkoverleftcheekandlowerlip,nail scratchoverbackofneck,bruiseoverleftthighetc.havebeentaken downalongwithnotingotherthingsandtakingsamplesofbloodand salivaforFSLwhichwashandedovertopolice. On the certificate ex.281, it has been clearly mentioned that certifiedfromavailablehospitalrecords.Theaccusedno.11hasalso furthernotedonexamination:oldhymentearandtwofingeradmissible. Itneedsaspecialnotethatentirehistoryoftheoccurrencerightfrom 10.30P.M.of31.12.03totheincidenthavingstartedafter12.30A.M.of 1.1.04hasbeentakennoteof,thenameoftheaccused,theplaceofthe occurrencethemodeofcommittingthecrimeetc.havebeenwrittenby theaccusedno.11. (3) Theprosecutionwitnessno.3theeldersisterofthedeceasedvictim

fairlyconcedesthatshehadnogrievancefortheaccusedno.11.Sheis onlyemphasizingthatthetreatmentwasdelayed. Inthehumbleopinionofthiscourt,iftheoverallimpactofthe roleplayedbytheaccusedno.11isseeninatrueprospective,thenit appears that the accused no.11 has not acted or omitted to act in the mannerbywhichtheingredientsofsection201and219oftheIndian PenalCodecanbeprovedquatheaccusedno.11.

540

73.

Section201oftheIndianPenalCodeisapplicableif,the

accusedhasgivenfalseinformationtoscreentheoffender. Thereisnothingonrecordtosaythattheaccusedno.11hasgiven anykindoffalseinformationbecauseifex.281isperusedalongwiththe medicalcasepaperofthedeceasedvictimthenitbecomesclearthateach wordinthecertificateex.281iswrittenfromtheavailablerecordofthe hospital. Secondly,thedeceasedvictimwasadmittedinthehospitalandthat theaccusedno.11hasreferredhertotheGynecologistunitwhereina Gynecologisthasexaminedthedeceasedvictim.Theaccusedno.11is less qualified than the other doctors who have played the role in the treatmentofthedeceasedvictimatthegynaecdepartment.Theaccused no.11 is a Causality Medical Officer having degree of M.B.B.S. As againstthattheothertreatingdoctorswerepossessedofmasterdegreein gynecology.

74.

Theintentionoftheaccusedno.11/men'sreaoftheaccused

no.11isthegistofthisoffence.Thereisabsolutelynothingonrecordto showthattheaccusedno.11hasgivenanyfalseinformationandthathe has acted or omitted to act to screen the offender. It is an admitted positionthatthemainroleplayedbytheaccusedno.11ison1.1.04from 12.15untilthedeceasedvictimbecameindoorpatient.Thereisnothing on record to establish that the accused no.11 was even knowing the accusedofthegangrapecommittedonthedeceasedvictimthenhowit

541

canbebelievedthathewouldactoromittoscreenthem. It is true that the accused no.11 could have acted with more seriousness&bettersensitivity.Afterhavinglearntthatitisacaseof gangrape,theaccusedno.11oughttohaveapproachthewholeissuewith moresincerityandmoresensitivity.Theapproachoftheaccusedno.11 seemstobecasualapproach,usualroutineapproachofthesegmentofthe peoples enterprise festooned with red tape. There is undoubtedly deficiencyintheserviceanditwasnotuptothemarkasitshouldbein therealmofpublichealthservices.ThecolleaguesPW34to40and44 haveveryclearlyandloudlybroughtonrecordthattheapproachadopted byaccusedno.11wasquiteusualandregular.Theothersideofthecoin is:ithasalsotobetakeninthenotethatthelistofthepatientsexamined bytheaccusedno.11onthatdayisalengthylistandthatitisquite possible that out of the over pressure of thework, the accused no.11 couldnotattendthedeceasedvictimassheshouldhavebeenattended.In theopinionofthiscourt,thedeceasedvictimoughttohavereferredtothe Psychiatric ward and should have been kept for observation for long perioduntilhercomplaintofpainandburningsolvesbutnoneofthese hasbeendone.Thebrightpartoftheaccusedno.11isthatitishewho has reminded the police for theAlcohol yadifor the deceasedvictim which has indeed helped the prosecution to prove its case. This submissionseemsgenuineasinthepreviouspoliceyadithisaspectis missingbutitcameinseparateyadiwhichisonlythedeceasedvictim was stinging of Alcohol because A11 has so advised. Further the accused no.11 has referred the deceased victim to the Gynecologist

542

departmentwhichpapersaretallyingwiththefindingofA11hencein viewofallabove,theredoesnotseemaniotaofmen'sreaonthepartof theaccusedno.11asalleged. Trueitisthattheaccusedno.11hasshownveryseriouskindof negligenceindealingwiththecaseofdeceasedvictimbutitishardening tocallitanoffenceforapparentmissingelementofmen'srea.

75.

Ashascomeuponrecord,thevaginalswabisbeingtaken

bytheM.D.Gynecologistwhereasthesameisbeingtested&examined atthePathologyofB.J.MedicalCollegeatcivilhospital.Itistherefore clearthattheaccusedno.11hasabsolutelynorolewhatsoeveringiving thereportoftheexaminationtotheeffectthatgoneccaie&spermatozoa were not found and hencehe cannotbeheldliablefor thesaid. It is different that merely the said report cannot book acquittal for the principal accused of the gang rape when the case is based on dying declaration.

76.

Anotherchargeisundersection219whereinalsoitisclear

that if the public servant has made any report corruptly in judicial proceedingscontrarytolawthesameformstheoffenceundersection 219.IntheIndianPenalCode,thewordcorruptlyhasnotbeendefined, whilereferringGarner'sBlacksLawDictionary8thEditiononpage371, Corruptly indicates a wrongful desire for pecuniary gain or other advantage,thereportmadethroughthemeansofcorruptionorbribery.

543

Inthecasethereisabsolutelynothingonrecordtoestablishthis element.Theprosecutionhasnotexaminedasinglewitnesstoprovethis elementsoastoprovebywhichmeanstheaccusedno.11hasprepared report/injurycertificateofthedeceasedvictimex.281. Furtherasourcommonprudencecommandsif,onewouldperused thehistoryofthedeceasedvictimandtheinjuriesonherbody,itseems thatthesearesufficientmaterialtosupporttheprosecutioncaseandthe pubichairshaved, oldhymentear,twofingersadmissiblearenotthe materialtoscreentheoffenderinthelightofthepresenttrendadoptedby thehighercourtsinrapecases. Casualnessinapproach,workinginslipshotmanner,notdevoting ontheduty,lackofsincerityandtheapproachofThisisnotmyjob havegonesodeepinourpublicservicesthatitmakesthepersonsitting inpublicauthorityattimestoobeofdeafyearsandironheartswithlack ofanyvibrationbutthemilliondollarquestionisshouldwereplaceour age old criminal justice delivery system of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This court humbly but firmly believes that the deceased victim was also prey of such common but unintentional negligence, carelessness, casual andslip shotmanner in rendering the publicservicesbutmerelythatdoesnotconcludethattheaccusedno.11 hadmen'sreaorhasissuedcertificateex.281onaccountofcorruptionor bribeastherehasnumerousdoubtsashurdlestoconcludeso.

77.

Prosecutionwitnessno.34to39and44aredifferentdoctors

544

who have worked as CMO in the civil hospital and have examined differentaccused.Theprosecutionwitnessno.40isDr.Sataparawhowas in charge assistant police surgeon in the civil hospital at the time of occurrence.Alltheabovewitnesseshavestatedabouttheusualprocedure beingadoptedinthecivilhospitalincaseofmedicolegalcaseofthe victimoftherape. (A) Afterissuanceoftwocasepapersfromthewindowofthecase

writer,thedataentryinthecomputerandthenapatientgoestoCMO,the CMOthenwritesthehistoryoftheoccurrencegivenbythepatientandif foundnecessary,thepatientwouldbereferredtotheconcernedexpert afteradmittingthepatientasindoorpatientandthenafterthedepartment, wherethepatienthasbeenreferred,wouldrecordthetimeandwould carryoutnecessaryexamination. (B) PrimaryexaminationisdonebytheCMO.Thenafterthevictimof

therapeissenttotheGynecologistdepartmentwhereherinjuriesand otherfactsarebeingnoted. Upto30.4.04(priortotheoccurrence)issuanceofthenotification onrecordasex.279thevaginalswabofthevictimoftherapewasnever takenbytheCMObutwasbeingtakenbytheGynecologydepartment whichusedtosentittothePathologydepartmentfortest.Theteststobe carriedoutatthelaboratoryofthecivilhospitalitself. (C) Itisonlyaftertheoccurrenceincaseofrapeofvictim,thevaginal

swabandurethralswabarebeingtakenbytheCMOandarebeingsentto

545

FSL.Thispracticewasintroducedonlyafterex.279.Nocirculartillthen the practice was that the vaginal swab would be taken by the Gynecologist. (D) Rightfromthepatientisprimarilyexaminedtilldischargefromthe

hospitalallthemedicalcasepaperswouldbesenttotheofficeofpolice surgeonandthentheCMOwhohasdoneprimaryexaminationwould issuetheinjurycertificateofthevictimfromtherecordofthehospitalfor whichpurposetheCMOswereallotteddutyonceinafortnightatthe officeofthepolicesurgeonwherethewholecompilationofthemedical casepaperswouldremain. (E) Theinjurycertificateisalwaysbeingpreparedfromtherecordof

the hospital and the certificate does not necessarily contain the informationorthereportbeingcarriedoutbytheconcernedCMObutit wouldbefromrecord. (F) The police would send a yadi mentioning therein the samples

requiredbythepoliceforthepurposeofinvestigation.

78.

Theprosecutionwitnessno.40theinchargepolicesurgeon

of the civil hospital has deposed in addition to all the above referred depositionthat: (a) On 18.3.04 vide the panchnama the medical case papers of the

deceasedvictimhavebeenrecoveredbytheInvestigatingOfficerwhich weretakenasmuddamalarticleno.73to79(muddamalarticleno.73is

546

ex.80andmuddamalarticleno.79isex.286). (b) Theinjurycertificateofthedeceasedvictimisinthehandwriting

oftheaccusedno.11andissignedbytheaccusedno.11. (c) TheCMOwouldseriallyexaminedthepatientsexceptincaseof

emergencyandtheCMOwhogivesEPRnumberwouldissuetheinjury certificate. (d) Intheyadiex.274thevaginalswabofthedeceasedprosecutrixhas

notbeensoughtfor. (e) Ex.275istheyadiforthereportofalcoholconsumptionincaseof

deceasedvictimwhichwastosendtoFSLdirectly. (f) Inex.268whicharemedicalcasepapersofthedeceasedvictim

Dr.ParulBhargavtoohasreportedaspubichairshaved. (g) Accused no.11 hasissuedtheinjury certificate forthedeceased

victimwhichisonrecordvideex.281whereintherecordofcausality ward,gynecologistwardandpathologywardhavebeenincluded. Alltheinjuriesfromtherecordofthehospitalhavebeenshownin ex.281certificateandthatallthereportsofthedifferentexaminations shown in ex.281 certificate have not been carried out by the accused no.11. (h) Dr.ParulBhargavoftheGynecologistwardandDr.Nidhiofthe

547

Pathologywardhavebeencontinuedinthejob. (i) Until issuance of ex.279 circular and until 30.4.04 in case of

medicolegalcases,CMOwerenotusedtotakevaginalswab. (j) Fromtherecordofthehospitalforthepatientsexaminedbythe

accused no.11 on 1.1.04, it has been deposed by prosecution witness no.40thatonthesaiddate,differentpatientshavebeenexaminedbyA 11whereinonepatientwasexaminedat12.00noon,thedeceasedvictim at 12.15 P.M. then after onproperexaminationon12.27P.M.,12.28 P.M.,12.30P.M.,12.43P.M.,01.00P.M.01.10P.M.(Thisinformation wasfromthelistoftheOPDregisterof1.1.04)Thedeceasedvictimwas attendedonlyfortwelveminuteswhichistooshortforconsideringthe historysampletakingetc. TheabovepointshelpsthedefenseasitshowsthattheA11has donehisofficeworkinregularmanner.

79.

The prosecution witness no.3 is the elder sister of the

deceasedvictimwhodeposedandrecordedatpage60thatshehasno complaintagainsttheaccusedno.11buttheaccusedno.11hastoseethat hisdutywasnotperformedwellonthatday. Onpage58shehasdeposedthatshehasnotcomplainedbefore any authority about dissatisfaction in the matter of treatment to the deceasedvictim.

548

Onpage54,theaccusedno.11hasexaminedthedeceasedvictim twiceandinoneoftheoccasion,hewasalsoaccompaniedbyonelady doctor.Shehasalsostatedthatshedoesnotknownamesofanyother doctor. She has very specifically statedthatright from themoment the deceased victim was taken to the civil hospital she has continuously remainedwiththedeceasedvictiminthecivilhospital.Shehasstated beforethepoliceaboutwhatsoeverhashappenedatthecivilhospitaland atpolicestation. Thecentralpointofthedepositionofthiswitness,whoisinaway thewitnesstothetreatmentofferedbytheaccusedno.11tothedeceased victim is that that at leastaccusedno.11has examinedthe deceased victimwhichmaybenotinthesatisfactorymannerbutasfarasother doctorsofthecivilhospitalareconcerned,thiswitnesshasveryclearly statedabouthavingnotatallexaminedthedeceasedvictim. Thewitnessstatesthatthedeceasedvictimwasexaminedbythe accusedno.11atabout3.30whichdoesnottallywiththerecord.Further itisanadmittedpositionthatthedutyhoursoftheaccusedno.11onthe saiddatewere8A.M.to2.00P.M.towhichthiswitnesshasshownher ignorance. ThiswitnessmakesitclearthattheA11hadnoguiltyconscious.

80.

The prosecution witness no.2 is the post mortem doctor

549

Dr.SaumilP.Merchantwhoisoneofthepaneldoctorfromthepanelof fourdoctorswhichhasperformedthepostmortemonthedeadbodyof thedeceasedvictim. Thedepositionandmoreparticularlythereplyatquestion695,698 &699 clearsthatthepubichairwhichhasbeenreportedinthepost mortemreportatex.62tobe1.2cms.havethoughbeencollectedbut havebeendestroyed. Thiscourthumblyopinesthatsincethesaidpubichairwasnot handedovertothepolice,theaccusedno.11hasbeendeprivedofthe opportunityandthatsincethesaidhairisnotpreservedandhasbeen admittedlydestroyed,thesaidpointcannotbemadethebasetobring homeguiltoftheaccusedno.11asthatraisesdoubt. Inviewofquestion710,itseemsthatthoughinthepostmortem reportthepubichairisshowntobeaboutofthelengthof1.2cms.Inthe statementbeforethepolice,ithasbeenwrittentobecms.thisthough thewitnessdeniesbutinviewofthefactthattherearetwosituations ariseontherecordwhichneedsnoteof. Inviewofquestion715,719&720,itbecomesclearthatincaseof deadperson,thepubichairhastobepluckedbutincaseofliveperson,it hastobecombedandthencutwhichcomesinthecomb. Inviewofthissituation,itbecomesclearthatthepubichairwas plucked during the course of the post mortem whereas when accused no.11examinedthevictim,shewasaliveandthereforethepubichairhas

550

tobeofthelengthwhichcanbecombedandthencut.Sinceaccused no.11haswrittenpubichairshaveditseemsthatthisisakindofremark forwhichthedoubthasaroseagainsttheaccusedno.11buttheninview ofthereplyatquestion710,thispointdoesnotbecomeavitalclueto linktheA11tothecrime.Theaccusedno.11wasdutyboundtotake necessarycaretotakenotethatthepubichairweretooshortandaccused no.11wasunabletocombitandcutitwhichshouldhaveclarifiedthe wholesituationbutasdiscussedtheA11onaccountofrushorhiscasual approachdidnotseemstohavenoteindetail. In view of question 721, the post mortem which was done on 7.1.04,thereportofitwasgivenon13.1.04andwhenthereportgivenat belatedstagedoesnotbecomethepointtodoubtagainstPW2andwhen eveninviewofthedepositionofprosecutionwitnessno.40,itbecomes amplyclearthattheprocedureadoptedatthecivilhospitaladministration isonceinthefortnight,theCMOisbeinggivendutytopreparetheinjury certificateandthatthedeceasedvictimwasexaminedon1.1.04forwhich thecertificatehasbeengivenon12.1.04itsinceseemstobewithina fortnight hence the allegation of the delay in issuance of injury certificatedoesnotprovethecaseagainstA11andthereforedoesnot inherentlyexistanymen'sreainthesaidomissionbytheA11. Inviewofquestion730&734,itbecomesclearthattheinjuries mentioned in column no.15 of ex.62 post mortem report, are internal injuries. Intheopinionofthiscourthadthedeceasedvictimbeenproperly

551

treatedinthecivilhospitalitselftheninthatcaseperhapsthisinjuries would not have aggregated but cured. (This aspect supports the depositionofprosecutionwitnessno.3thatnopropertreatmentwasatall offered in the Gynecological department after the deceased victim becameanindoorpatient). Upon viewing ex.80 & ex.268 the medical case papers of the deceasedvictim,itbecomesamplyclearthatthetreatmentofferedtothe deceasedvictimwasnotwithahumantouchandthatshewastreatedas ifonlyasimplepatientofordinaryfeverandthatthetreatmentwhich suchvictimdeservesofgangrapewasnotatallbeenofferedwhichcan clearlyberevealedfromthisdocumentaryevidence. Question 78, 741 & 742 makes it clear that the description of injuries from doctor to doctor would differ and that the deep seated injurieswouldbevisibleafter24hoursonly. Hereitneedstobenotedthatthedeceasedvictimcameforthe treatmentbeforeaccusedno.11whichwasfirstlyaprimaryexamination and secondly 24 hours have not beencompleted.24hourshave been completedwhilethedeceasedvictimwasintheGynecologistdepartment ofthecivilhospital.Uponperusaloftherecorditself,itseemsthatafter 24hoursshehasneverbeenreexaminedandhercryforpainandburning inherprivateparthasnotbeenattendedbyonlyprescribingthepain killertablets.Thisalsoagainshowsaveryseriouskindofnegligenceon thepartofGynecologicaldepartmentofthecivilhospital.

552

Theprosecutionwitnessno.49istheinvestigatingofficer.Inview ofthedepositionatpage194ofthiswitness,itbecomesclearthatthis witnesswhohasdonethevitalpartoftheinvestigationquatheaccused no.11hasnotbotheredtoseizetheregisterwhereinthereareremarksor noteofDr.Parulhavingexaminedthedeceasedvictimandhavingnoted herobservationorhavingnotedthefactthatthedeceasedvictimwas examinedbyDr.ParulBhargav.Thiswitnesshascategoricallyadmitted thathedoesnotknowastotherewasanyentrybyDr.ParulBhargavwas ofhavingexaminedthedeceasedvictimornot. Thisaspectnotonlyshowsnegligenceoftheinvestigationbutit furtheraddsthatthedeceasedvictimashasbeencomplainedofbyher elder sister, the prosecution witness no.3 was not at all treated by Gynecologicaldepartmentevenbyprescribingantibiotic. Thiswitnesshasadmittedthathehasnotinvestigatedorinitiated any action against the doctor who has taken vaginal swab and has analyzedit. Thiswitnesshasadmittedthatthereportofthevaginalswabofthe deceasedwaspreparedbyDr.Nidhi.ButitneedsnotethatDr.Nidhiis neithershownaswitnessnoranyinvestigationhasbeencarriedoutqua herbytheinvestigatingofficerwhichissupportingtothesubmissionof A11thatA11cannotbeheldguiltyforwhichthedoerremainsdotless.

81.

Thedepositionofprosecutionwitnessno.49andprosecution

witness no.45 (the investigating officer who have charge sheeted the

553

accused no.11) are if seen together, it becomes clear that neither the investigationwascarriedoutnorthechargesheetwasfiledagainstthe accusedno.11onaccountoftheincidentwhichtookplaceon25.3.04in the civil hospital by Shri Keshavkumar & Shri Vishvakarma, the IPS officers with reference to which complaint under section 332 of the IndianPenalCodewasfiledbythedoctorondutyofthecivilhospitalon recordatex.380.Further,theprocessofaccordingsanctiondoesnotseem tohaveanyconnectionwiththiscomplainthencethissubmissionfails.

82.
(A)

Documentaryevidence: Ex.268themedicalcasepaperofthedeceasedvictimifseenat

internalpage8,thenitcanbeseenthatthepaperof2.1.04of3.30P.M. isablankpaperexcepthistoryofrapenothinghasbeenwrittenonthe paper.Thisisthetimewhendeceasedvictimwasdischargedfromthe hospitalinwhichneitheranymedicineshavebeenprescribednoranylast check up has been mentioned as having been done, she was never examinedbyDr.N.A.Shah,theheadoftheunit,theseriousnessofthe wholecasewasnotatalllookedintobytheconcerneddoctorsatthe Gynecologicaldepartment.Itfurtherseemsthatiftheinjuriesofcolumn no.15atex.62isseen,thenitcanbeeasilyinferredthathadthetreatment beenappropriate?Hadthedeceasedvictimwouldhavebeenproperly takencareof?Theninthatcaseinternalinjurieswouldnothavebeen foundasnoted. (B) Page10ofex.268showsthatthehistoryhasnotbeenwrittenin

554

this paper, only general examination like blood pressure, pulse or temperature which are usually taken by thestaff nurse has only been writtenasdone. Thiswhilereadingwithdepositionofprosecutionwitnessno.3it becomes clear that only the primary examination was done by the accusedno.11andthenafternoneofthegynaecexpertshaveattendedthe deceasedvictimatthecivilhospitalforinternalexaminationwhichwas mustinthecase. Ithastobenotedthatonlyoneadditionalinjuryhasbeennoted andthatisbitemarkoverlefthandaboveelbowofthedeceasedvictim butthisisagainanexternalinjuryandthattoowhichcanbeseenbythe neckedeyebutthedeceasedhadburningintheprivatepartandpainin thebreastbutnothinghasbeendonefortheseproblems. Thisaspectisveryclearlysuggestivethattheinternalexamination hasneverbeendonethoughthedeceasedvictimhadhistoryofgangrape. Afterthedeceasedvictimbecameanindoorpatientsheseemsto havebeenexaminedat7P.M.on1.1.04,at7.00A.M.of2.1.04andas article79suggeststhenat2.00P.M.Butitseemsthattheseexaminations wereonlypaperexaminationandnotreatmenthasbeenofferedtothe deceasedvictim. (C) Ex.274istheyadisentbytheShahibaugpolicestationwherein

therewerecertainpointsforwhichthepolicehasaskedforthereport. Pointno.1isrelatedtowhethertherapehasbeencommitted?Pointno.5

555

whetherthevictimwaspregnant?Pointno.6wasrelatedtoexamination ofherpubichair.Pointno.7wasrelatedtosemeninvaginawhichcan obviouslydonebyvaginalswabandpointno.10isrelatedtomedicalage. Thesefivepointshavenotatallbeenseriouslyattendedtobytheaccused no.11 nor have been mentioned in the injury certificate issuedbythe accusedno.11. Thisaspectissuggestiveofacasualapproachhavingbeentaken bytheaccusedno.11. (D) Ex.275istheyadibytheShahibaugpolicestationforexamination

ofconsumptionofalcoholforthedeceasedvictim. Ashas beenrightlysubmittedbyLd.Advocatefor theaccused no.11,thisseemstobeapositiveindulgenceshownbytheaccusedno.11 asCMOanditseemsthatafterhavingsmeltthedeceasedvictim,hehad suggestedthepolicemanwhothenbroughtthisex.275anotheryadiand tothatextenttheaccusedno.11hasperformedhisdutywhichisalso suggestiveofguiltlessattitudeofA11. (E) Ex.378isthebunchofninecaseswhicharepastcasesthatisprior

totheoccurrenceofthecasetookplace.Itseemsthatbythepractice adoptedatthecivilhospitalthevaginalswabandtheurethralswabwere nottakenbytheCMO,itisonlyafterthecirculardated30.4.04thatis ex.279thepracticehasbeenadopted.Thiscanalsobeseenbyex.279and the language used in the said circular wherein the subject itself is suggestivethatthecircularisrelatedtothemedicalexaminationofthe

556

rapevictimandthatthesubmissionmadebyLd.Advocateoftheaccused no.11thattakingvaginalswabwasneveradutyofCMOuntil30.4.04 seems to be absolutely right. On this count also the A11 deserves benefit. (F) Ex.422istheorderbywhichtheaccusedno.11hasbeenreleased

onbail.Para5thereinsuggeststhattheLd.Predecessorofthiscourtwho hasdecidedthebailapplicationoftheaccusedno.11hasobservedthat therewasastatementinthecompilationgiventohimtotheeffectthat practiceisthesamplesarebeingsentbytheclinicaldepartmentandare beingexaminedbythepathologydepartment.Thisstatementseemstobe of the associate professor and that perusing upon this statement, the accusedno.11wasreleasedonbailwhichisoneoftheothergrounds. (G) The accused no.11 has submitted that a committee by the

governmentwasmadewhereinDr.Mithawalawaspresidingofficerbut forwhoseopinion thatasagainsttwodoctorsofthecivilhospital,the opinionofthefourdoctorsseemstobecontradictoryandthatthegrowth ofthehairwouldbe0.4mms.perday,theA11wouldnothavebeen implicated. Thediscrepancybetweenthetwohasbeendiscussedtobeof4.28 timesmorehenceitisclearthatthesubmissionlacksworth. (H) Onthatday,theaccusedno.11hasexaminedseveralpatients,some

of them were in critical situation and his duty was in causality ward consideringthisimportantpointtheomissiondoesnotnecessarilybring

557

intopicturemen'sreaoftheaccusedno.11toscreentheoffenderorto createfalseevidenceortodestroytheevidence. (I) Duringthecourseofthefurtherstatement,accusedno.11hasvery

clearlyandcategoricallystatedthattheinjuriesnotedatthecivilhospital were injuries which can caused during the course of the sexual intercourse is further strengthening lack of mens rea the prime requisitetobringhometheguiltagainsttheA11. (J) ThepointraisedatthefurtherstatementthatDr.Krupabenthe

witness spoke lie on account of PNDT case against him seems to be absolutelybaselessasinthefacts&circumstancesofthecase,itseems thatthedeceasedvictimwassincenotproperlytreatedatcivilhospitalon thatveryeveningshehadtosearchanotherdoctorfortheburningand paininherprivatepartandthereforeitbecomesextremelyprobableand suiting to the principle of natural consequences that deceased victim along with her sister and mother must have gone in search of some anotherdoctor. (K) Thepresenceofalcoholinthebloodofdeceasedvictimwasfound

whichisonaccountoftheindulgenceshownbytheaccusedno.11which alsoisapointerthattherewasabsolutelynomen'sreawhichisthevital ingredienttoholdtheaccusedno.11guiltyundersection201&219for whichchargeshavebeenframedvideex.18againsttheaccusedno.11. (L) Thevaginalswabbeingwetpreparationhastobedestroyedand

thatitwasbeingexaminedatthelaboratoryofcivilhospitalseemstobe

558

quitevalidandpenetrableexplanationbytheA11andthatthisalsoisa pointeroflackofmen'sreaquatheaccusedno.11. (M) Theaccusedno.11hasstatedinthefurtherstatementthathehas sentthecertificateonthebasisoftheopinionofeventheexpertthatis from Gynecological department seems to be quite justified more particularly upon perusal of ex.281 the medical case paper of the deceasedvictimitstandsfortified. (N) Ithasbeenexplainedinthefurtherstatementthatpubichairofthe

deceasedvictimwereshavedmeansitweresuchthatitcannotbetaken forsamplealsoseemstobeacceptableoneinthefactsofthecase. Thiscourtopinesthattheaccusedno.11wasexpectedtobevery accurateandveryperfectinhisobservationandinnotingdownitasthe pubichairarefoundinsuchaconditionwhichcannotbecombedandcut forsamplewhichhedidnotdo.

83.

In the humble opinion of this court, there is no concrete,

credible,cogentandreliableevidenceagainsttheaccusedno.11bywhich itcanbeheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtall theingredientsmoreparticularlyavitalingredientofmen'srearequired tobringhometheguiltoftheaccusedno.11quasection201&219ofthe Indian penal code. In view of the charge that the vaginal swab was destroyedbytheaccusedno.11inabsenceofmensrea,inviewofthe above referred oral evidence, documentary evidence and the further statement,thisdoesnotseemtobeanintentionalactoromissiononthe

559

partoftheaccusedno.11andthatitisinnocaseappearstohavebeen donetohelptheaccusedofthegangrape. Thequestionofcommonintentiondoesnotstandprovedinany manner.Thereisabsolutelynoevidenceofwhatsoevernaturetoestablish thattheaccusedno.11hasactedinfurtheranceofcommonintentionof accusedno.1to4,12&13andthathehasinanywayparticipatedinthe conspiracymadebythesaidaccused.Trueitisthattheaccusedno.11isa publicservantbutthereisnothingontherecordtoholdthattheaccused no.11hasdoneanyactandomissionwhichisprovingtherequisiteof section 219 & section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This being the situation,itisoutofquestiontodealwiththechargeundersection34and section376(2)(g)oftheIndianPenalCode.

84.

Thiscourtfirmlybelievesthatthewholeteamofthecivil

hospital has not treated the deceased victim as she should have been treated.Uponthehistoryitselfwhenitwasextremelyclearthatitisa caseofthegangrapethewholesituationshouldhavebeentackledby extrasensitivityandcarebytheteamofthedoctorsbutnothinghasbeen done. The deceased of the gang rape requires human treatment, a treatmentwhichwouldpsychologicalrestituteherwhichhasnotbeen done,onlythesampleshavebeencollected. This documentary evidence read with the oral evidence of the prosecutionwitnessno.40andlookingtothefacts&circumstancesofthe caseandviewingtheoverallphysicalpositionofthedeceasedvictimand

560

moreparticularlytakingnoteofinternalandexternalinjurieshavingbeen notedinthepostmortemreportincolumnno.15and17whicharethe outcomeoftheviolenceagainstherbytheprincipalaccused,itisthe clearcaseofextremecasualapproachandslipshortmannertreatment whichisnotreatment. Themorepainfulpartcanstillberevealedfromtheex.268,the medicalcasepaperwhichisclearlyreflectionofseriousnegligenceofthe Gynecological department of the civil hospital. Though the deceased victimwasadmittedasindoorpatientbutinfactnonehasattendedher. Thewholetreatmentisnothingbutanexampleofclassicdrudgery.The treatment at the gynaec department also is absolutely lacking human touch,devotiontoduty,professionalliability,ethicalsenseandsincerity should have been undertaken by the doctors. More particularly while treatingthevictimofgangrape,merelycopyingdownthehistorynoted atprimaryexaminationwillnotbesufficient,somethingmorehastobe done.Herrestorationtothenormalstageisalsoanabundantdutyofthe eachmemberoftheteamofthedoctorsconcernedandconnectedtothe wholeincident.Theoralevidenceofprosecutionwitnessno.3onthis aspectaboutthenegligence,carelessness,delayinattendingthedeceased victim,notatallattendingthedeceasedvictimareallsuggestiveofthat. Infact,outofthewholeteamtheaccusedno.11hasatleastreasonably performed though not satisfactorily, though obviously with the casual approach,thoughisawayexhibitinglackofsincerityinthedutythough theaccusedno.11isonlyMBBSandwasCMO,ontheotherhandatthe Gynecological department, the doctors were possessing expertise

561

knowledgehavenotuseditatallorelsetheycouldhavereferredherto thePsychiatricdepartmentandmoretreatmentcouldhavebeengivenat thecivilhospitaluntilthedeceasedvictimcures.

85.

Lastlyalltheabovediscussiontakesustoholdthatseveral

reasonabledoubtsarelyinginthewaytobringhometheguiltofthe accusedno.11quasection201&219oftheIndianPenalCode.That beingthesituation,thereasonabledoubtsariseontherecordshouldgrant benefitofdoubttotheaccusedno.11.Thatbeingso,thiscourtisinclined tograntbenefitofdoubttotheaccusedno.11whichissoundsuitableto thecardinalprinciplesofcriminaljusticedeliverysysteminadditionto theprinciplethattheintentandtheactbothmustconcurtoconstitutethe crime.Asaresulttheoperativeparaofthejudgment.

86.

CommonparagraphforA5toA11: TheevidenceputforthbytheProsecutionissufferingfrombasic

weakness,noovertacthasbeenestablishedofaccusedno.5to11.From theprovedfact,thecommonintentionofalltheseaccusedalongwiththe remainingfiveaccusedcannotbegatheredinanymannerhencethisdoes notsoundtobeafitcasetoinvoketheprincipleofjointliabilitywhenno credible evidence of any common intention, plan or meeting of mind amongalltheaccusedhasbeenputforthbytheprosecutionwhichcan provideavitalcluebetweentheact,omissionandoutcomequatheabove referred group of accused. This court is inclined to hold that the prosecution hasfailed toestablishthatalltheaccusedweresharinga

562

commonintentionandtheaccusedno.5to11haveactedoromittedtoact in furtherance of their common intention hence this court is of the opinionthattheallegationquasection34isnotsustainableagainstA5to A11.Atthecostofrepetition,itneedstobeopinedthatthecaseagainst accusedno.5to11seemstohavebeenemergedduringprogressofthe investigationbutitisclearlywithoutanysubstantialevidencetofortify theallegationagainstthem. Theaccusedno.7&8thougharethecloserelativeofaccusedno.2 and3andaccusedno.9isthoughabusinessmateoftheaccusedno.4& accusedno.7,itcannotbeconcludedthattheallegationsleveledagainst aretrue. Thefurtherstatementofallthisaccusedtooisnothingbutaloud cryoftheirbeinginnocentandfalseimplicationofthem. VideEXH.370theprintoutofA10seemstohavebeenbroughton record.Nothingincriminatinghasbeenshowninthisprintout. VideEXH.368acorrespondenceandprintoutrelatedtothemobile telephoneNo.9824089701ofA9hasbeenbroughtonrecordbut,thereis absolutely no incriminating material to prove the guilt of the A9 to concealorharbourtheA2andA3. TheoralevidencebyPW41andPW42,PW26andPW50are relevant prosecution witnesses for all these group of accused. The evaluation of theabove witnesses hasbeendoneatparagraph 31and paragraph 32 of the judgment.Suffice itto sayhere thatnoneofthe

563

prosecutionwitnesseshaveprovedtheguiltoftheA5toA11.PW26 (hostile) and PW27 are also the witnesses who according to the prosecutionhaveprovedtheguiltofA5toA10but,PW26ishostile andPW27hasnottestifiedanyincriminatingmaterial.Eventhemension of one Ranjit and Kanji Patel comes in their statement before the investigating officer, but, they have not been called as prosecution witnesses hence, it is clear that none of the witness has supported prosecutionwitnessesandasdiscussedbelowtheheadingoflacunasof the investigation it does not sound safe to believe the investigating officerwhohastestifiedthestatementofthesewitnessesbeforehimand haveresiledthenafter. In view of this, alltheseaccusedneedtobegranted benefitof doubtevenwithreferencetothesetwodocuments. Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,theissueNos.4,5and6are answeredinnegative.

PARTV

87.

CONCLUSION:

564

Fromtheabovediscussedoralevidence,circumstantialevidence, documentaryevidence,factsandcircumstancesofthecase,theguiltof thefiveaccusedhasbeenbroughthomebeyondreasonabledoubtsand hasbeenprovedbyadducingdirect,reliable,unimpeachable,clinching, convincingproofstoprovetheguiltofthefiveaccused.Thefollowing factsbefore,atthetimeandafteroccurrencehavebeenprovedtohave happened beyond reasonable doubt. The following tabulated clearly emergedfromtheprosecutioncase:
Date Time Place Involvementof Allthefiveaccused ConcernedEXH. SpecialNotes

Priorto Whenever Delhi, 31/12/03 themobile Ajmer and callshave Ahmedabad beenmade whichcan beseen from printouts

Printout of all the Thisalsogetsconfirmed five accused and fromtheprintoutofthe thedeceasedvictim deceasedvictim

31/12/03 Anytime By Road A2,A3A4andA12 before of from Delhi Ahmedabad 8:45a.m. to 31/12/03 viaJaipur 31/12/03 8:45a.m. HotelAshok Allthefiveaccused Palace Ahmedabad 31/12/03 Througho Ahmedabad A4andA3 uttheday 31/12/03 Noon Ashok Allthefiveaccused

EXH.233 31.

Though hostile, has 8:30a.m.on31/12/03.

Deposition of PW stated that A4 came at

Occupancy Chart A4andA12arrivedat andHotelRegister hotel, remaining three accused came to meet them EXH.283 & the A4madeseveralphone mobileprintout callstocontinuehisgrip onthedeceasedvictim When deceased victim

565

PalaceHotel Ahmedabad 31/12/03 10:30p.m. Shahibaugh Allthefiveaccused.The EXH.283 Under Bridge 31/12/03 About Ashok Room A1, A4, A12 directly, Allthefiveaccused A1isthemain others

wasincompanyofPW 3athotel and A1wentinhisZenCar topickupthedeceased victimfromShahibaugh UnderBridge EXH.283, EXH.80 First round of beer andothers startedinRoomNo.106

10:50p.m. Palace hotel No.106 31/12/03 About12 Ashok B.R. Frms (Bhat) 01/01/04 After about 00:10a.m onwards 01/01/04 About On the way A1,A4andA12 B.R. Farmstothe Hotel 01/01/04 About 00:40a.m. A4direct 00:40a.m. to At B.R. Allthefiveaccused

All went to the B.R. Farms

midnight Palace to A2andA3indirectly

Circumstances

Onaccountofcoldand

Farms

from history of A since no sign of party, 1, A4, A12 and they returned to hotel deceasedvictim. AshokPalace Circumstance from They were returning to the history given thehotelbycar beforedoctorbyA 1, A4, A12 and deceasedvictim. Printout of A4's Fromthemobilelineof mobile phone and A4, deceased victim deposition of PW talked to PW3 on 3, history of telephone deceased victim beforeA11

01/01/04

After about onwards

Room No.106, Palacehotel

Allthefiveaccused

EXH.283

and In the beginning, were alone in Room

EXH.80 r/w. the deceasedvictimandA4 circumstance emerged from the No.106 when second

12:50a.m. Ashok

566

history of all the roundofbeerbegan,the fiveaccused deceased victim was persuaded to consume beer 01/01/04 After Room A4andA1wereinthe EXH.283andother A4called forbeerand room,otherswent down, documents A4 told to remove the deceased victim, beaten the deceased victim. A1 was present, A4, by forceremovedtheclothes andintercoursedwiththe deceasedvictim A3wastelephoned,who came and in presence of A4, raped the deceased victim,A12awaitingfor his turn was called upstairs, he came and rapedinpresenceofA4 and A3, all the three have injured on the breast, shoulder, back, then came A2 who has also raped the deceased victiminthesameroom 01/01/04 After Room All the five accused's EXH.283 (last Fortheabovediscussed paragraph of EXH.283, all the four cannot be read in numerical about1:00 No.106, a.m.upto Ashok presenceandparticipation paragraph) and reason, in the last in the gang rape stand otherdocuments A4 has slapped and pressurizedthedeceased victim to consume liquor the stupefying substance to facilitate thegangrape. A1 brought Royal Challenge (historyofA4) about1:00 No.106, upto3:45 Ashok to4:00 a.m.

Palacehotel clothes, on denial by

3:50a.m. Palacehotel proved.

567

From about 1:00 a.m. to about3:45to4:00a.m.at any time, the round of beer, beating, biting, injuring the accused, forcing her by nail bites and intercoursingher againstherconsent,went onbythefiveaccused. 01/01/04 About 3:45to

manner but, has to be readinthespiritofthe complaint which involves all the five accsued and should be readwithEXH.284and historynarratedtoA11 bythedeceasedvictim.

The hotel A4, A1 and A12 The facts and IntheZenCar,A1and Ashok directly and others circumstancesmore deceasedvictimleftthe indirectly particularly, from hotel thehistorygivenby A12 r/w. Telephoneprintout of the A1, A4 wherein, they ReaddepositionofPW 3 and Frequent phone calls PW3 According to PW3 she has called upon PW10 and PW20, so it becameateamofPW3, PW10, PW20, deceasedvictimandA1 EXH.283 The deceased victim was lying down on the bench, becoming ready depositionofPW3 between A1, A4 and calledPW3

4:00a.m. Palace

01/01/04 01/01/04

About About

HotelAshok TelephonebyA4toPW Printout 3 Sola On the way A1,A4,A12andPW3 Printout

4:00a.m. Palace 4:20a.m. at 01/01/04 About to5:00 a.m.

Onwards PetrolPump Sola Police A1 Sola Police Station, Telephone to Control Room 01/01/04 About Shahibaugh Allthefiveaccused Station 5:00a.m. Police 4:30a.m. Chawky,

568

tofilethecomplaint 01/01/04 About Shahibaugh Allthefiveaccused Station 01/01/04 About Shahibaugh Allthefiveaccused Station EXH.284 8:05a.m. Police EXH.283 Before recorded. Offence Was declaratory prepared Report u/s.157 Cr.P.C. (presumption of Indian Evidence Act available asdiscussed) 01/01/04 About Ashok Allthefiveaccused Panchnama EXH.298 Allthefiveaccused Deceased victim herself hasshownthevenueof theoffence 01/01/04 About Civil Ahmedabad EXH.80, EXH.268 The history of the andEXH.281 occurrence narrated by thedeceasedvictimwas takendownbytheA11 formallyprovedbyPW 40 01/01/04 About p.m. p.m. 02/01/04 Upto p.m. 02/01/04 Eveningat Maternity about5:00 home of to5:30 p.m. PW39 Allthefiveaccused Oral evidence of On account of burning PW39 in the private part and other injuries, the deceasedvictimwentto the maternity home of Civil Ahmedabad Allthefiveaccused EXH.80, EXH.268 Examined by Gynaec andEXH.281 AllthefiveAccused Dr. Parul Bhargav and PathologistDr.Nidhi EXH.80, EXH.268 Discharge from the andEXH.281 Hospital Hospital Civil Allthefiveaccused EXH.80, EXH.268 Deceased andEXH.281 victim after2:00 Hospital 01/01/04 From2:00 Civil Onwards Ahmedabad about4:00 Hospital admittedinthehospital 12:15p.m. Hospital 11:30a.m. PalaceHotel PW43 7:45a.m. Police complaintEXH.283was

569

the

private

gynaecologist who had prescribed anti biotics (forthefirsttime) 03/01/04 to 07/01/04 Allthe time Residenceof Allthefiveaccused thedeceased victim Deposition of PW Both the sibblings have 25andPW3,PW mentioned in their oral 20 and EXH.94 evidence that the statement before deceasedwasmoodless, the N.C.W. On wascryingallthewhile, 17/01/04 was frustrated, withdrawn, depressed, deemlighted, wraping her face with dupatta etc.(totallytallyingwith the deposition of PW 39) 07/01/04 Morning Residenceof All the five accused EXH.571 ths Thedeceasedmusthave upto thedeceased (mental background of suicidenote. thedeceasedvictimfrom whose moving) eyes the occurrence must not be completed all her routines of the natural call,mustnothavetaken breakfast,mustbeinthe same mood of depression, withdrawn andhumiliated 07/01/04 About onwards Residenceof Allthefiveonthemental victim victim PW3, parents of the deceasedvictimandone Hasmukhbhai went to the office of learned advocate Mr. Amin to seekadviceforthecase ofthedeceasedvictim 07/01/04 About Residenceof Allthefiveonthemental OnlyPW25andasmall childsonofthePW3 10:40a.m. thedeceased screen of the deceased 10:00a.m. thedeceased screen of the deceased 10:00a.m. victim

570

victim

victim

viz.Yashwereathome andthedeceasedvictim was also at home, the PW25 went out of the house for the battery problemofhiscar

07/01/04

About onwards

Residenceof Allthefive victim Residenceof Allthefive victim

EXH.571

The PW25 returned home,inquiredaboutthe deceased victim who thenfoundherdead

10:40a.m. thedeceased

07/01/04

About

Dr. Jaimin came to the residence of the deceased victim on the callofPW25,declared the deceased to be lifeless but, advised to takehertothehospital

11:00a.m. thedeceased

07/01/04

About

From victim's residence to Life Care Hospital

Allthefiveaccused

Deceased victim was takentoI.C.U.Wardof Life Care Hospital, declaredasdead

11:30a.m. deceased

88.

Asaresult,inviewoftheabovereasoning,itseemsjust,

proper,inaccordancewiththeCriminalJusticeDeliverySystemtohold theA1,A2,A3,A4andA12areguiltyandtograntbenefitofdoubt totheA5toA11andhencethefollowingfinalorder: ORDER

571

(A)

TheA1ShriSugamaliasMontyS/o.HarishankarJaiswal,theA2

ShriAshokaliasMadanS/o.PannalalJaiswal,theA3ShriChandanS/o. PannalalJaiswal,theA4ShriSajalS/o.SureshkumarJainandtheA12 ShriDharmendraaliasKaranaliasMontuS/o.MahendrakumarJainare herebyheldguiltyandareherebyconvictedfortheoffencespunishable u/s.323,328,342,376(2)(g)r/w.Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode. (B) TheA1SugamaliasMontyS/o.HarishankarJaiswalishereby

heldguiltyandisherebyconvictedu/s.66(1)(b)andSec.85(1)(3)ofthe BombayProhibitionAct,1949. A2, A3, A4 and A12 respectively Ashok alias Madan S/o. PannalalJaiswal,ChandanS/o.PannalalJaiswal,SajalS/o.Sureshkumar JainandDharmendraaliasKaranaliasMontuS/o.MahendrakumarJain aregrantedbenefitofdoubtagainstthechargeu/s.66(1)(b)and85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and are acquitted qua the said chargesbygrantingthembenefitofdoubt. (C) A1,A2,A3,A4andA12areherebygrantedbenefitofdoubt

quachargeu/s.324oftheIndianPenalCode. (D) A5 Smt. Simaben W/o. Harishankar Jaiswal, A6 Shreya

HarishankarJaiswal,A7ShriPannalalBaijnathJaiswal,A8ShriAnand RupchandJaiswalandA10ShriHarishankarGayaprasadJaiswalhave beenacquittedquathechargeagainstthematEXH.18arisingfromC.R.

572

No.I2/04oftheShahibaughPoliceStation,u/s.201r/w.Sec.376(2)(g) r/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code by granting them benefit of reasonabledoubts. (E) A9 Ashok S/o. Maganbhai Patel is hereby acquitted qua the

chargeagainsthimu/s.212oftheIndianPenalCodearisingfromC.R. No.I2/2004ofShahibaughPoliceStationbygrantinghimbenefitof reasonabledoubts. (F) A11 Dr.YogeshMahendrabhaiJadavisherebyacquittedquathe

chargeagainsthimu/s.219,201readwithSection34readwithSection 376(2)(g)ofIndianPenalCodebygrantinghimbenefitofreasonable doubts. Learned A.P.P. and learned advocates for the five accused are herebydirectedtoargueoutonquantumofsentencetobegiventothe fiveaccused. PronouncedintheopenCourttodayonthis20thdayofJune,2008.

Dr.JyotsnaYagnik
Addl.SessionsJudge,

573

CourtNo.13.

FURTHERORDER:

Heard learned Spl. P.P. Mr. A.P. Desai for the State, learned advocate Mr. H.M. Dhruva for A2 and A3, learned advocate Mr. PanchalforA4,learnedadvocateMr.K.J.ShethnafortheA12.Since the learned advocate for the A1 is not present before the Court, the accusedhimselfhasbeenheardonthequantumofpunishment. (1) ThelearnedSpl.P.P.Mr.Desaihassubmittedthatthequantumof

punishmentisthoughlefttotheconscienceanddiscretionoftheCourt, heonlywishestodrawtheattentionoftheCourtthattheoffenceofrape

574

isaveryseriousoffenceandleavesapermanentscarandsocialstigma not only for the victim but, to her family members as well. He has emphasizedthatintheinstantcase,thedeceasedvictimhadpassedaway and that it is a fit case wherein, maximum punishment should be imposed. HehasrelieduponthejudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt reportedat2008(1)SCCpage234inthematterbetweentheStateof MadhyaPradeshV/s.BabulaltosubmitthatashasbeenheldbyHon'ble SupremeCourt,offencesagainstawomanrequireexemplarytreatmentas lookingtothesocialimpactofthecrimelikerape,ithastobedealtwith sternlyandseverely. (2) TheA1hasbeenheardbythisCourtwhohassubmittedthatsince

heistheonlysonofhisparentsandthatthereisnonetolookafterthem, hebeimposedminimumpunishment. (3) ThelearnedadvocateMr.H.M.DhruvafortheA2andA3has

focusedthattheaccusedareyoung,consideringtheirrelationshipwith the deceased victim andthefactum that the report of the D.N.A.has exoneratedboththeaccused,thisisafitcasewherein,lessthanminimum sentenceshouldbeimposedandthatthisneedstobetreatedasaspecial caseas,thereareenoughadequatereasons. HavingrelieduponthejudgmentreportedatA.I.R.CriminalLaw Journal,1479inthematterofPromodMahtoandothersV/s.Stateof Bihar, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the facts and

575

circumstancesofthecaseandhasguidedthatincasethatthereisno specialcircumstancestocallforimpositionofmaximumsentenceoflife imprisonment,thesaidshouldbeavoided.Hehasurgedtoimposeless than minimum sentence treating this to be a fit case upon its factual matrix. (4) ThelearnedadvocateMr.PanchalfortheA4hassubmittedthat

theStatutehasempoweredthisCourttoimposeevenlessthan10years imprisonment. Considering the fact that the deceased victim had soft relationshipandashasbeenadmittedbytheprosecutionthatthesaid relationshipwascontinuingfor1yearsbeforeshedied,perusingthe SMSandothermaterialplacedonrecord,thisisafitcasewherein,the maximumpunishmentshouldnotbeimposed,rather,thisisafitcase wherein,whateverperiodhasbeenundergonebytheaccusedshouldbe treatedassufficient. Hehasfurthersubmittedthatinthiscase,thevictimwasnota minorandthatshecameallalongandaloneatnightwhichconductofher needsaveryspecialconsideration. Lastly,hehasfocusedthefactthattheaccusedNo.4isahighly qualifiedperson,hisfatherisaknownindustrialist,heishaving2minor childrenandthatonaccountofthefactthattheaccusedisanundertrial prisoner for more than 4years,whosewifehas developedsuicidal tendency,hehasurgedthatthisCourtmayuseitdiscretionas,thisisnot acasewherein,thereisanylikelihoodofrepetitionoftheoffence.Hetoo hasurgedfortheperiodundergoneinthejailtobetreatedastheperiod

576

ofpunishment. LearnedadvocateMr.Shethnahassubmittedapurshisputtingup certainfactsonrecordwhichhasbeentakenonrecordvideEXH.587.He hasalsomadehisoralsubmissions,bothofwhichareintuneofeach other,itistherefore,dealtwithtogether.IthasbeensubmittedthattheA 12ishavingeducationalqualificationofaM.A.EconomicsandDiploma inExportTrade,A2isonlya30yearsboywhoisunmarried,hisspecial agonythathewouldbelookingveryawkwardbeforehissisterwhois noneelsebut,thewifeofA4,needsaveryspecialconsideration,his parents are sick and infirm andthatthere is noneto takecareof his parentsandthatconsideringthespecialfactthattheA2isalsounwell,it isnecessarytoimposetheminimumsentence. Having carefully considered the rival submissions and having thoroughlyappreciatedthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,following pointshaveemergedfortheconsiderationofthisCourttodecideabout thequantumofthesentence: (a) Thedeceasedvictimtoowasanunmarried,youngandaspiringgirl

of only 24 years who was subjected to gang rape, as a result she committedsuicide. (b) MeritsofD.N.A.Report,relation,ageoftheaccused,difficulties

ofthedependantsoftheaccusedareunabletocarveoutaspecialcase whichneedsanyconsiderationbythisCourt.Lookingtothefactsand circumstances of this case, it is felt that this is a fit case wherein,

577

maximum punishment would be advisable for the reasons that punishmentfortherapecannotbedependantuponsocialstatus,monetary statusoreducationalqualificationoftheaccused. (c) It is a question of violation of right to life, human rights and

treatingawomanwithviolencewhichrequirestobecarvedwithiron hands. (d) Remembering the philosophy that rape does not cause physical

injuriesalonebut,moreindeliblyleavesascaronthemostcherished possessionofawomanherhonour,reputation,dignityandchastityas well. (e) Growing international jurisprudence on human right, right to

privacy,righttoliveandguaranteeofequalitiesguidethisCourtthatthe offencecommittedcannotbetakenlightly.Lastly,itneedstobenoted thatthisCourtfairlybelievesthattheintensedesireofthesocietyfor justicecanonlybereflectedbyproperandstringentpunishmentwhich wouldsendeffectiveandrightmessagetothesocietyasawhole. Considering the foregoing points emerged, this Court is of the humble opinion that the submissions made before this Court by A1 himself, by learned advocate for the A2, A3 and A4 and learned advocatefortheA12donotholdthefield.Consideringtheoverallfacts and circumstances of the case, this Court, before signing out, put on recorditsappreciationforallthelearnedadvocatesonrecordforhaving rendered excellent services in the larger interest of administration of

578

justice.Followingfinalfurtherorderispassed. FURTHERORDER (A) TheA1SugamaliasMontyS/o.HarishankarJaiswalishereby

heldguiltyandconvictedfortheoffencesu/s.66(1)(b)oftheBombay Prohibition Act to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000/ fine and for Sec.85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949,toundergo1monthsrigorousimprisonmentandRs.200/fineand incaseofdefault,10dayssimpleimprisonmentonboththecounts. (B) TheA1SugamaliasMontyS/o.HarishankarJaiswalandtheA2,

A3, A4 and A12 respectively Ashok alias Mandan S/o. Pannalal Jaiswal,ChandanS/o.PannalalJaiswal,SajalS/o.SureshkumarJainand Dharmendra alias Karan alias Montu S/o. Mahendrakumar Jain are herebyheldguiltyandconvictedfortheoffencespunishableu/s.323r/w. Sec.34andtoundergo1yearsrigorousimprisonmentandpayafineof Rs.1,000/ each and in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonmenteach,u/s.328r/w.Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode,allthe above accused are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentof10yearsandpayafineofRs.10,000/andindefault,to furtherundergo3monthssimpleimprisonment,forthechargeu/s.342 r/w.Sec.34oftheIndianPenalCode,thesaidaccusedareconvictedand sentencedtoundergo1yearsrigorousimprisonmentandpayafineof Rs.1,000/ and in default thereto further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment,forthechargeofgangrapeu/s.376(2)(g)r/w.Sec.34of theIndianPenalCode,thefiveaccusedare sentencedtoundergolife

579

imprisonmentandpayafineofRs.15,000/eachandindefault,tofurther undergosimpleimprisonmentfor3monthseach. (C) (i) VideEXH.52certainmuddamaalhavebeenbroughtonrecord. ThemuddamaalarticlesatserialNo.28to31,33to38,49to52,

58,63to66and67to69shallbedestroyedaftertheappealperiodis over. The Sim Card mentioned in the list of mudamaal shall also be destroyedaftertheappealperiodisover. (ii) trial. (iii) ThemuddamaalarticlesatserialNo.27,32,59,60,61and62have ThemuddamaalarticlesatserialNo.1to26,39,40,41to48,70

and71shallbepreservedbytheNazirofthisCourttilltheA13goesfor

alreadybeenreturnedonbondforwhich,nofurtherorderisnecessitated exceptthatitshallnotbetransferredtoanypersoninanymannertillthe appealperiodisover. (iv) The muddamaal articles at serial No.53 to 57 and 72 shall be

returned to the person from whom it has been received during the investigation, after the appeal period is over on usual terms and conditionstoreturnsuchmuddamaal. (v) The investigating officer shall take photographs of all these

muddamaalmentionedhereinaboveinsubpoint(D)whoshalltakethe photographsandkeepthesameintherecord.

580

(vi)

InthesubsequentmuddamaallistvideEXH.52,twoitemshave

beenshown,wherefromitemNo.2shallbepreservedintherecord,the SimCardwhichisshowninitemNo.1shallbedestroyedafterappeal periodisover.Asfarasthemobilephonesareconcerned,thesaidbe returnedto theapplicantsonbond,theinvestigatingofficershalltake photographsandpreservethesameintherecord.Themobiletelephone instrumentswhichhavebeengivenonbondshallnotbetransferredin anymannertoanyoneuntiltheappealperiodisover. TheNazirisdirectedtokeeptheentirerecordofthiscasewhich maybeusefulwhileA13wouldbetried. Allthesentencesforeachaccusedshallrunconcurrentlyandthe timespentbytherespectiveaccusedinjudicialcustodyshallbegivenset of. DictatedandpronouncedintheopenCourttodayonthis20thday ofJune,2008.

Dr.JyotsnaYagnik
Addl.SessionsJudge, CourtNo.13.