NARESH TANWAR Vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Click here to view full judgement.
It is alleged that on 3rd September, 2006 at about 8.00 a.m. while the prosecutrix Sangeeta was procee- ding on foot to her aunt's house in Satbari, the petitioner approached in a car and took her along in his car by putting her under threat, to the Jungles of Gummat Wali Gali, Satbari and committed rape on her there. The prosecutrix remained with the petitioner upto 11.00 p.m. when she was left by him near her house.
(2.) The incident was not immediately reported to the police and it was only on 5th September, 2006 at about 8.35 a.m. that the brother of the prosecutrix reported the matter to the police and a DD entry No. 4-A dated 5th September, 2006 was recorded in that regard at P.P. Bhati Mines, P.S. Mehrauli. On the same day at about 8.10 p.m. vide DD No. 23 dated 5th September, 2006 P.S. Mehrauli the prosecutrix and her mother Smt. Saroj went to the police station Mehrauli, where Smt. Saroj reported that no rape was infact committed on her daughter and that somebody had made a false report in that regard in order to defame them. Subsequently, however, on a statement dated 7th September, 2006 of the prosecutrix a case FIR No. 630 of 2006 under Section 376/506, IPC was registered at Police Station Mehrauli, wherein the petitioner was named to be the person committing rape on her. Prosecutrix was taken to AIIMS for her examination where she was accompanied by her mother and one Varsha Jha, an office bearer of a Non-Governmental Organization. Making a note of history of the case, the doctor concerned made following endorsement on the MLC :
Alleged H/O having raped by Naresh 4 days back (Sunday) detailed history taken by Sangeeta. As described by Sangeeta, she came to know Naresh since last 2 months and both of them were having sexual intercourse off and on during this period.
On Sunday Naresh refused to marry Sangeeta and had forceful sexual intercourse as told by Sangeeta."
According to the school certificate the prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age on the date of alleged rape by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitio- ner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case which according to him is manifest from the fact that no report of the incident was made to the police and it was only after two days that the brother of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint in that regard. He points out that on the same very day, the mother of the prosecutrix contradicted the complaint by prose- cutrix's brother by stating before the police that no rape, as alleged, had actually been committed on Sangeeta and that the report in that regard recorded earlier was falsely made simply with a view to defame them.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.