“Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they wield on the general public or the specific class to which they belong owe a duty and have to be more responsible they are expected to know and perceive the meaning of authority and law with experience and knowledge”
A fast track court has convicted a sub-judge, Rajesh Kumar Abrol for raping and cheating a woman, in the pretext of providing her legal support in 2018. However, the quantum of the sentence will be heard separately on 23-10-2021.
Presiding officer of the Fast Track Court Jammu-Khalil Choudhary observed that the conclusion that emerges from the discussion is that all the evidence on record unerringly point toward the guilt of the accused. “There is complete chain of events and facts to indicate that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and all the circumstances brought on record and established are consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence,” Khalil Choudhary said while holding a sub-judge Rakesh Kumar Abrol guilty of raping and cheating a woman. He added that it appears to be a squarely liable for commission of rape with the victim. Thus, he is convicted for the offenses under section 420 and 376 (2) (K) RPC.
Brief facts of the prosecution story unfolds that on 12-01-2018, complainant laid a written report before police station Janipur, Jammu, to the extent that she hails from district Ramban and is presently putting up at Toll Post Nagrota Jammu with her minor daughter.
“She was contesting a case and in this regard she met the accused, who promised her legal support and sought domestic support from her. For seeking legal support, the accused dissolved her marriage with her husband by getting divorce deed which was notarized and the accused told one of his PSO to be the witness to it, the prosecution said. After some time, the woman’s parents desisted her to work with Abrol as they wanted to take her to their home.
As and when the accused got knowledge that she is going to leave his home, he requested her not to leave his home and filled “Maang” with Babuti and told her that she is his wife now, as he is residing alone since last seven years and has parted with his wife, reads the court order.
“The accused planned to have “Saptapadi” with her and he solemnized marriage with her in his house at Roop Nagar in presence of PSO Ashok Jamwal, his friend Darshan Gupta and one Pandit belonging from Doda called by (Abrol).”
As per the prosecution, after one year of marriage with Abrol, the woman came to know that he had betrayed her by marrying her while being married to his second wife namely Neetu Bala as he had already divorced his first wife named Surbhi.
“During the framing of charge, on 09-06-2018, the court of Ld 3rd Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) Jammu passed a detailed order on charge and accordingly charge was framed against the accused for the offenses under section 420, 376 RPC,” reads the order, adding that it can be said that the prosecutrix has given her consent for sexual intercourse under the misconception of fact, so that the accused is required to be charged for the offences of rape, punishable under section 376 RPC.
The court observed, “Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they wield on the general public or the specific class to which they belong owe a duty and have to be more responsible they are expected to know and perceive the meaning of authority and law with experience and knowledge. It is reasonable to hold that they would be careful in their lives, the reasonable man’s test would always take into consideration the maker.”
“It is settled legal position that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by this court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement,” Court observed, adding that the court must act with the sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the criminal case and not in isolation and the court is required to adjudicate whether the accused committed offence of rape on the victim or not.
The case in essence hinges on the sole testimony of the victim. After shifting and scanning the testimony of the victim for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether predominant consideration can be given to the same so as to form a base for conviction, the answer has to be in affirmative. There is no requirement of looking for corroborations. Minor Contradictions, which is a normal feature in such a type of case, ought to be overlooked too when the direct evidence of unimpeachable character inspiring confidence is available.
“On thoughtful consideration of testimony of the prosecutrix, in the context of law as refereed above it shall be safe to hold that her statement inspires confidence so as to be accepted even in absence of corroborations,” court observed.
While talking to The Typewriter, prosecutrix expressed thanks to the court for rendering justice to her. “It was not easy for me to fight against a judge but since the intention was to get him punished to set an example, I had to take stand against him”, said the procecutrix. She said that going against the tide is not easy but at the same is not impossible.
“For me he was only an accused who had committed rape on a helpless woman and his being cruel towards the same gave me strength to fight against the accused and to be the victim’s counsel which all though was not easy to be. Today, I am satisfied to the core that the learned court has come to the rescue of a poor woman who has huge faith on its working,” said Advocate Deepika, counsel for the prosecutrix.