20-year rigorous imprisonment for three who gang-raped teen

NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, a court held three men guilty of gang rape, even as the survivor stated that she had known one of the accused from before and even had sex with him.
Though the defence of the accused termed the woman’s testimony contradictory, the court observed it could not be presumed that even on the date of the incident of gang rape, sex was consensual, especially because DNA of not one, but three men was found on the survivor.
The three accused were sentenced to 20-year rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 25,000 each. Additional sessions judge Shail Jain also observed that minor discrepancies in the survivor’s statement that were not fatal to the case, should not be given undue weightage.
According to the prosecution, the woman was abducted at 11 pm on May 31, 2013 when she had gone to a toilet outside her house. The three accused — Anwar, Anish and Sandeep — then drove to a godown with the woman and took turns to rape her. The woman, who was 17 at the time of the incident, had deposed that while Anwar had pulled her, Sandeep and Anish were already inside the car.
After raping her, the accused threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone they would either kill her or kidnap her elder sister. She was left near her house at 5am the next day. When she reached home, she narrated her ordeal to her mother.
Appearing for Anwar and Sandeep, senior counsel K K Manan stressed on the “material contradictions” in the survivor’s testimony. According to him, if there were two contradictory views, then the one favouring the accused ought to be accepted.
Relying on the woman’s statement given during cross-examination — during which she spoke about going with Anwar willingly — Manan argued that the prosecution’s theory was “highly doubtful” and the benefit of such a doubt should go to the accused.
Additional public prosecutor Subhash Chauhan, however, pointed out that there were differences in statement with respect to minor details during her cross-examination, which happened almost four months after her examination-in-chief.
The court, however, differed on the point of abduction after it came on record that the victim’s mother had called on Anwar’s phone to talk to her daughter. The court also commented on the woman’s statement about her friendship with Anwar. “It cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had admitted to have consensual sex with Anwar on the date of incident,” the court said. In addition, the forensic results showed the involvement of all the three accused in the crime.
The court directed that the total fine imposed on the accused be given to the survivor as compensation.