Driver awarded 10 yrs of RI for rape against waitress

A 33 year old driver from Hanuman Tekdi locality of Lokmanaya Nagar in Thane city who was found guilty of assault and rape of a waitress from a  bar has been convicted by the Sessions court here and sentenced to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment.

The Additional Sessions Judge MS S C Khalipe also fined the accused Ajay Ramavtar Chaurasiya, a sum of Rs. 15,000 collectively on different  accounts and also awarded him different jail terms for the offences for which he was convicted all the sentences to run concurrently.

The judge ordered the fine amount of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the victim as compensation.

In her judgment the judge observed that, ” In this incident the victim is injured. She was working as waitress in Bar during evening time. So she must  get the compensation for the trauma and injuries which she has sustained” The court is of the view that the following sentence of imprisonment and  fine and compensation out of fine and the compensation from District Legal Services Authority will be sufficient for the ends of justice.

The judge ordered, “The District Legal Services Authority is recommended to award compensation to the victim as per rules within one month from  the date of this order”

The prosecutor Vandana Jadhav told the court in her submission that the accused used to frequent the ladies bar at Upavan where the victim aged 28  worked. They knew each other.

The prosecution further told the court that on the intervening night of August 13 and 14, 2016 after the victim finished her duty and was returning  home in the night in her car the accused followed her in a two wheeler. Then he forced her to come with him to a hotel and confined her in a room and beat her with leather belt and forcibly raped her the court was told. At the hotel the victim resisted but the offender accomplished his task and when
the victim entered the bathroom and called up the police control room and sought help the accused escaped from the hotel. The police rushed in and rescued the victim and registered an offence under sections 376, 324,323, 354(D), 342 of Indian Penal Code.

Defence counsel Adv Darmyansingh Bist in his submission contested the entire case and told the court that the victim voluntarily moved with the  accused and drank liquor and kept physical relations with him and made a demand of Rs. 15,000 from him and this resulted in a dispute between the  two. She also threatened that she would file false complaint against him if he failed to pay her the money, and cited earlier incidences as to how she had
blackmailed other males. The counsel further submitted that the victim had filed false complaint against accused for extracting money.

In her order the judge noted, “The court is of the view that there are certain improvements in the evidence of prosecution which are discussed at the relevant time in the evidence of prosecutrix and Investigating Officer. Even those improvements are discarded and not taken into consideration the rest of evidence is stated by the victim while recording the FIR. FIR is Corroborated the evidence of prosecutrix in the FIR.
If we consider the facts which are stated in the FIR only those facts are proved by the prosecution.

It is true that she is improved her version to some extent, but even those improvement also appears to be believable and trustworthy and appears to be  natural or even those improvements are discarded the rest of the evidence of prosecutrix appears to be corroborated with her FIR.

The evidence of other witnesses are trustworthy, believable and natural. There is no reason to disbelieve them.
They are corroborated the evidence of prosecutrix.

The medical examination of the victim is corroborated on the point that there was evidence of sexual
assault. There were injuries on her shoulder, left arm, below lips, above lips, her eyes became red and swollen, her face was swollen it shows that the evidence of prosecutrix is reliable, believable and trustworthy on the point that she was beaten by the accused with belt and hands.

The contradiction on the point of timing of panchanama is insignificant and does not go to the root of the case The evidence of Investigating Officer  on this point is acceptable.

The court is of the view that if the prosecutrix had given consent for that she would not have phone the police
there would not have any beating or quarrel , there would not have injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. She would not have stated all these details in her FIR. FIR is lodged immediately after the incident at 5.30 a.m. It is natural, trustworthy and believable. therefore,I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence under section 375 of IPC that the accused has committed forceful rape upon the prosecutrix against her wish and therefore, offence of rape is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

I, therefore, come to the conclusion that accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 376, 323,
354(d), 342 of Indian Penal Code.

Considering the facts and circumstance of this case I do not found any mitigating circumstance. Being a driver and
poor is not a mitigating circumstance.

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *