JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Faculty of Law

CLINICAL PAPER - III

CASE ANALYSIS - State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Devender Singh

Submitted by:
Name: ADIBA KAHN
Roll No: 08
Student ID: 20183052
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) (VIII Semester) (Regular)
Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia

Submitted to: Dr. Asad Malik Professor, Faculty of Law,

Jamia Millia Islamia
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Clinical III professor –Dr. Asad Malik I would
like to thank him for his able guidance and support in completing this case analysis.

I also want to thank my family for their moral support and constant inspiration and for providing
me with all the facilities required and for sponsoring all the materials to my friends for their
constant support and cooperation

Finally, yet importantly, I would like to thank THE ALMIGHTY for showering his choicest
blessings upon us. THANKS TO All!

ADIBA KHAN

Student Id: 20183052

B. A. LL. B (Hons)

IX semester (Regular)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. 2

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE ........................................................................................ 4

3. MEMO OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 4

4. BRIEF OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION............................................................ 5

5. PROVISION APPLIED ........................................................................................................ 6

6. PROSECUTION WITNESSES .......................................................................................... 7

7. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED ................................................................................. 7

8. DEFENCE WITNESS ........................................................................................................ 7

9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................ 8

By the Prosecution .................................................................................................................... 8

By the Defence .......................................................................................................................... 8

10. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 8

11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10

 DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

Unique Case ID No.: 02406R0054962016

SC No. : 32/16 and 1694/2016
FIR No. : 1323/15
Under Section: 376/506 IPC
Police Station: Amar Colony, New Delhi.

Date of Institution: 01.03.2016

Judgment reserved for orders on: 23.10.2017

Date of pronouncement: 24.10.2017

Name of the Judge: Sanjiv Jain

Court Name: Additional Session Judge: Fast Track Court: Saket Court

Name of the Complainant: Prosectrix (name withheld to protect her identity)

Name of accused: Devender Singh

MEMO OF THE PARTIES

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

VERSUS
DEVENDER SINGH
S/o Late Kulwant Singh
R/o C20, DDA Flats,
Garhi, Main Market, East of Kailash,
New Delhi. ..............Accused

Complainant:
PROSECUTRIX (name withheld to protect her identity)
 CASE ANALYSIS OF “State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Devender Singh”

Date of Institution: 01.03.2016

Judgment reserved for orders on: 23.10.2017
Date of pronouncement: 24.10.2017

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -

SPECIAL. FAST TRACK COURT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.

BRIEF OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

On 22.12.2015, a DD was received by the police station of Amar Colony, New Delhi about a
quarrel near Sai Baba Temple. When the police reached (HC Shyam Sundar with Ct. Sanjay) there,
they spotted a quarrel. They spotted a prosecutrix who alleged that Mr Pappu, whom she has
known, runs a committee business. As she is also a member of the committee. At 1-2 p.m. she
when Mr Pappu’s Collection of 5000 rupees. She alleged that as she entered the house Mr Pappu
pulled her and committed sexual intercourse with her also committed unnatural sex with her and
threatened her. After coming downstairs, she called the police.
On her statement, a. case was registered and she was sent to AIIMS for her medical
examination. On examination, no physical injury was found on the prosecutor. The statement of
the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Crpc where she has admitted about the committee
run by the accused and his wife. She also said that the 2-3 times the accused has given the
committee money after that he did not. And when she to his house for the committee money the
accused molested her and raped her. The accused was medically examined and he was found
capable of performing sexual intercourse. However, no injury was found on his body.
Later on, after the investigation, the accused was sent for trial for the offence punishable under
section 376/377/506 IPC.
 PROVISION APPLIED

CHARGE
 The charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 376 and
506 IPC.

The accused has been charged with the offence of rape and criminal intimidation. As such, before
adverting to the merits of rival submissions, a reproduction of the definition of the offences
would be necessary and relevant.

SECTIONS

 Section 375 IPC defines rape. It reads as: “Rape­ A man is said to commit “rape” if he­
o penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a
woman or makes herm to do so with him or any other persons; or under the
circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-
First- against her will.
Explanation 2. - Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the women by
words, gestures or any form of verbal or no-verbal communication, communicates a
willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.

 Section 506 IPC provides that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall
be punished…. Criminal intimidation as defined u/s 503 IPC means that whoever
threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or
reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that
person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit
to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
 PROSECUTION WITNESSES

Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witness. The prosecution
in support of its case had examined witnesses.
 PW1 - Prosecutrix
 PW2 - ASI Shyam Sundar
 PW3 - Dr M Sandep (Conducted MLC)
 PW4 - ASI Suresh Chand
 PW5 - Husband of Prosecurix
 PW6 - Ms Manisha Khurana Kakkar (MM recorded statement u/s 164 Crpc)
 PW7 - Yogesh (taken accused to hospital)
 PW8 - HC Sanjay Singh
 PW9 - Saroj Bala (investigating officer)

STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED

After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded. He
denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He stated that his wife used to run the business
of committees. Prosecutrix was a member of four committees. She had come to his a house but
he told her that he did not have money and would arrange it for someone. He admitted that he was
medically examined. He stated that he had to pay Rs.78, 000/- to the prosecutrix, which he has
paid. The accused also stated that due to financial constraints, he could not pay the money in time,
and they got annoyed and falsely implicated him in this case.

DEFENCE WITNESS

DW1 – Ms Inderjeect Kaur (daughter ofaccused)

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

By the Prosecution
Ld Addl. PP on the contrary argued that the prosecutrix had gone to the house of the accused to
take payment of the committees. When she entered his house, he bolted the door from inside. He
then committed rape upon her. He also did unnatural sex with her. He threatened her not to make
noise lest he would tell her children about the incident. After coming downstairs, she called at 100
number. There was no delay in lodging the report. Her testimony is consistent with her complaint.
PP stated that the prosecutrix did not resist the accused since the accused had threatened her. As
regards the FSL report, Ld Addl. PP stated that semen was found on the salwar of the prosecutrix.

By the Defence
The counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused and his wife used to run the
committee business. The prosecutrix was a member of the committees. The accused had to pay
some amount to the prosecutrix. Due to financial constraints, he could not pay the amount in
respect of the committees. The counsel stated that at the relevant time, the construction work in
the house of the accused was in progress the call to the 100 number was regarding the quarrel only.
There were no allegations of the raper MLC does not show any injury on her person. The FSL
report does not incriminate the accused. In addition, the counsel defence stated that at the relevant
time, the daughter and the mother of the accused were in the house

ANALYSIS

The prsecutrix has proved her statement Ex. PW 1/A and stated the police took her to her house
where she cleaned her private parts, changed her clothes and handed over to the police. She
proved that her MLC Ex. PW 1/D and stated that she had stated the brief history of incident to the
doctor. In her statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW 1/C. She stated that she handed over a copy of her
complaint dated 23.08.2015 against the accused, a copy of a signed cheque and three pages of a
diary containing the details of an account of her committee vide memo Ex. PW 1/E.
On being cross-examined, the prosecutrix stated that the accused used to run the committee
business from his house. During the period from 2012 until the filing of the case, she had taken
Rs.2-2.5 lacs from him in instalments. She stated that the accused used to live with his mother and
children in the house. She stated that the dispute between them arose two years before the
complaint. After the dispute, she did not participate in any of the committees being run by the
accused nor there was any transaction between her and the accused.

She stated that the accused had agreed to sell DDA Flat bearing No. C-20 to her but it was already
mortgaged with some person at that time. She admitted that laborers were working on the roof of
the house of the accused. She stated that on that day, she waited for the accused for three hours
with Ramesh and thereafter Ramesh left. She stated that she did not receive any injury nor her
clothes got torn. She remained in the room for about half an hour and when she came out, the
labourers were coming and going.

She stated that she did not tell the incident to her husband and uncle Ramesh. She denied that she
concocted a false story against the accused to extort Rs. 7 lacs from him a bare perusal of the
testimony of the prosecutrix/PW1 and her husband/PW5 would show that they knew the accused
for about six years. His wife was into the business of committees.

The prosecutrix was a member of the committees being run by them. The accused had to pay some
amount to the prosecutrix against the committees. When the accused did not pay the amount in
time, a quarrel took place and the prosecutrix called the police at 100 number. In her medical
examination vide MLC Ex. PW 1/B, no history of physical injury or assault was alleged nor he
doctor observed any physical injury/bruises on the person of the prosecutrix.

In the statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW 1/C, she gave different version and stated that on 2-3 times,
the accused did not pay money against the committees and told her that he would give his house
against the committees The defence of the accused is that at the time of alleged incident, his
mother and daughter were in the house. His daughter had opened the door. He had tied the dog in
the rear room.
DW1, the daughter of the accused, has corroborated this fact and stated that between 1.00 p.m to
2.00 p.m., on 22.12.2015, she was present in the house with her father and grand mother situated
in a crowded area but surprisingly the prosecutrix did not raise alarm nor told the incident to
Ramesh who had gone with her to the house of the accused In the instant case, the call was
regarding the quarrel but PW2, who had gone to the spot on receipt of the call, has stated that they
had made enquiry from the local people but no one told them about the quarrel.

1. CONCLUSION
On an analysis of the evidence and material available on record, it appears that the dispute was
mainly over the payment of money against the committees but it was given the colour of rape The
things do not appear to have happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecutrix. The medical
and forensic evidence do not corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix. The defence of the
accused appears to be more plausible the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Hon’ble judge acquitted the accused Devender
Singh of the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 IPC giving him the benefit of doubt.
His bail bond is cancelled.