RAI SANDEEP @ DEEPU versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1153 · Decided: 07-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 1153 
RAI SANDEEP @ DEEPU 
v. 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal Nos 2486 of 2009 etc.) 
AUGUST 7, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Evidence of prosecutrix- Two 
accused-appellants convicted and sentenced by courts below 
- Held: Apart from a total variation in the version of the 
prosecutrix as stated in the complaint, and as deposed before 
A 
B 
c 
the court, the other two eye-witnesses, who were her niece and 
0 
nephew, did not support the story of the prosecution - Further, 
there is a total somersault in her cross-examination - There 
are prevaricating statements of the prosecutrix herself Jn the 
implication of the accused to the alleged offence of gang rape 
- There are material variations as regards the identification 
of the accused persons as well as the manner in which the 
occurrence took place - The recoveries failed to tally with the 
statements made - FSL report did not co-relate the version 
alleged - In the absence of any other supporting evidence 
and corroboration, it will be unsafe to sustain the conviction 
and sentence imposed on the appellants merely on the basis 
of the solitary version of the chief-examination of the 
prosecutrix - Prosecution has miserably failed to establish 
the guilt of gang rape falling uls. 376 (2) (g), against the 
appellants - They are, therefore, acquittep. 
EVIDENCE: 
Evidence of prosecutrix in a case of alleged gang rape 
-Characteristic of 'sterling witness' - Explained. 
1153 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were prosecuted for committing rape 
of PW-4 (the prosecutrix), a married woman aged bout 34 
years. The case of the prosecution was that in the night 
of 15.8.2001, at about 1.30 a.m., the prosecutrix was raped 
by the two accused-appellants. The trial court convicted 
B both of them u/s 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to 
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each. The High Court 
upheld the conviction and the sentence. 
It was contended for the appellant in Crl. A. No.2486 
of 2009 that the offence was alleged to have been 
C committed at 1.30 a.m. on 15.8.2001, whereas the FIR was 
lodged at 2.20 p.m.; and that there were many 
contradictions in the versions of the prosecutrix as 
mentioned in the FIR and her deposition in the court as 
also in the version of the prosecutrix vis-a-vis evidence 
D of PWs 10 and 11, the niece and nephew, respectively, 
of the prosecutrix and inmates of the house. For the other 
appellant, it was further contended that he was not 
named in the FIR and was roped in due to the statement 
of the co-accused. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There are various contradictions and 
inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution as 
projected in the FIR and the oral and medical evidence .. 
F In the FIR, it was stated that on the night of 15.08.2001 at 
about 1.30 a.m., the prosecutrix heard knocking of the 
door and when she opened the door, the accused forcibly 
entered the house and after pushing her nephew (PW-11) 
and niece (PW-10) inside a room and bolting it from 
G outside, committed rape on her one after another. But in 
the chief-examination of the so called 'sterling witness' 
of the prosecution, namely, the prosecutrix, she stated 
that when the persons, who knocked at the door, were 
enquired they claimed that they were from the crime 
H 
RAI SANDEEP @ DEEPU v. STATE OF NCT OF 1155 
DELHI 
branc~, which was not mentioned in the FIR. She further 
A 
dep'osed that they made a statement that they had come 
there to commit theft and th'at they snatched the chain 
which she was wearing and also the' watch from PW-11. 
While in the complaint, the accused were alleged to have 
st~althily taken the gold chain and wrist watch which 
B 
were lying near the T.V. It was further alleged that the 
appellant in Crl. A. No. 2486 of 2009 was having a knife 
in his hand which statement was not found in the 
complaint. The police stated to have apprehended the 
appellants at the instance of P~-11 who knew the , c 
appellant in Crl. A. No. 2486 of 2009 even prior to the 
incident, that PW-11 also revealed his name to the 
prosecutrlx and that, therefore, she was able to name him 
in the complaint. When the seized gold chain and watch 
were shown to her in the couft, she made it clear that that 
0 
was ·n.ot the chain which she was wearing and that it did 
not belong to her and that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.