sps rathore-ruchika trial court judgement
Post on 30-May-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
1/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
1
IN THE COURT OF JASBIR SINGH SIDHU
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: CHANDIGARH.
Challan No : 3/17-11-2000, 12T/19-4-2006RBT191/17-11-2009
Date of Decision : 21-12-2009Computer I.D. No:36014R0025452000
State (CBI)
Vs.
S. P.S. Rathore, IPS, Director General of Police, Haryana, Resident of House No.469, Sector 6, Panchkula.
FIR No. RC. SI 1 2000 S 0001 dated 3-1-2000U/S 354/509 of IPC
PS : Panchkula, Haryana.
Present: Sh. C. S. Sharma, PP, assisted by Sh. R. B. Sharma, PP for the CBI.Ms. Anju Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.Accused on bail with counsel Ms. Abha Rathore.
JUDGMENT
1. The above named accused has been sent up by the Dy. Inspector
General of Police, CBI/New Delhi, to face trial for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 354, 509 of IPC.
2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that in pursuance of the order dated 21-
8-1999 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1694/97 filed by Smt. Madhu Prakash
wife ofSh. Anand Prakash, R/O House No. 210, Sector 6, Panchkula and
upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 14-12-
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
2/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
2
1999, FIR No. 516 dated 29-12-1999 u/s 354/509 of IPC was registered at
police station, Panchkula, Haryana. The FIR was registered on the basis of
a memorandum dated 16-8-1990 submitted by Ms. Ruchika, daughter of
Sh. S. C. Girhotra, R/O House No. 363, Sector 6, Panchkula and others,
addressed to the Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Haryana. It was alleged that on 12-8-1990 at
about 12:00 noon, Sh. SPS Rathore, President, Haryana Lawn Tennis
Association molested Ms. Ruchika in the office of the lawn tennis and after
securing her presence on the pretext of discussions on arrangements for
extra facilities to promote Ruchika's promising career in law tennis. It was
revealed in the investigation that during the year 1989-91, accused SPS
Rathore was on deputation to Bhakhra Beas Management Board(BBMB)
as Director (Vigilance and Security). During the year 1988-89, Sh. SPS
Rathore formed the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA) and got the
same registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana on 29-
11-1988 vide Registration No. 903 of 1988-89 with its address as 469,
Sector 6, Panchkula. The office of the association was established in the
garage of House No.469, Sector 6, Panchkula, an under construction
building owned by SH. SPS Rathore. S/Shri T. /Thomas, Kuldeep Singh
and Paltoo Mehto were engaged as the lawn tennis Coach, Manager and
Ball Picker respectively in the said association. The garage of the under
construction building was divided into three portions and the front portion
of the same was being used as the office of the HLTA. Sh. T. Thomas,
Coach and Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager were using the other two portions
for residential purpose. All the three portions were interconnected with
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
3/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
3
doors. HLTA had enrolled 60-70 member players comprising young boys
and girls who were mostly residents of sector 6 and officers colony,
Panchkula and they were being imparted training in tennis courts by Sh. T.
Thomas, Coach. The member players were enrolled on payment of
monthly subscriptions. Ms. Ruchika, aged about 15 years, Daughter of Sh.
S.C. Girhotra r/o house no. 363, Sector 6, Panchkula and a student of
Sacred Heart School, Sector 26, Chandigarh and Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu
aged 15 years Daughter of Sh. Anand Parkash, R/O House No.210, Sector
6, Panchkula also got themselves enrolled as members of the association
by paying the requisite fee and joined coaching in lawn tennis. Ms Ruchika
and Ms. Reemu were friends and both usually went together for practice.
The other members who played lawn tennis included Munish Arora, Vipul
Channa and Pushpinder etc. Accused SPS Rathore used to visit the lawn
tennis court in the evening. Ms. Ruchika was to go to Canada for a few
months as decided by her father and she had informed about the same to
the accused. On 11-8-1990 at about 12:00 noon accused SPS Rathore
visited the house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra and told him that he should not send
Ms. Ruchika abroad as she was a very promising player and that accused
would arrange special coaching for her. Accused SPS Rathore also asked
Sh. S.C. Girhotra to send Ms. Ruchika to his office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00
noon in connection with the same. Sh. S.C. Girhotra had agreed to the
same. On 11-8-1990 Sh. S.C. Girhotra informed his daughter Ms. Ruchika
about the visit of accused and also the desire of accused to meet her at
12:00 noon on 12-8-1990 for making arrangements of special coaching for
her. Sh. S.C. Girhotra specifically instructed Ms. Ruchika to meet Sh.
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
4/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
4
Rathore on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon on his office. On 12-8-1990 Ms.
Ruchika visited the house of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu and told her
excitedly about the visit of the accused to her house on the previous day i.e.
11-8-1990. She also disclosed that Sh. Rathore had advised her father not
to send her to Canada and had promised that as she was a promising
player, the accused would arrange extra coaching for her. Ms. Aradhana @
Reemu was further told that Sh. Rathore had called Ms. Ruchika to his
office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon. Thereafter both Ms. Aradhana and Ms.
Ruchika went to play at the lawn tennis court and while both were playing,
Mr. Paltoo, ball picker came over and told Ms. Ruchika that Sh. Rathore
had called her to his office at 12:00 noon. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika
accompanied by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu went to meet Mr. Rathore in his
office and found him standing outside the office. On seeing both of them,
Sh. Rathore entered his office and asked both of them to follow. Ms.
Ruchika requested Sh. Rathore to talk to her outside the office, but Sh.
Rathore insisted on their coming inside the office. On his insistence, both
the girls went inside the office. Then, Sh. Rathore got fetched one chair
which was occupied by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. Sh. Rathore himself sat in
his chair, which was on the other side of a table. Ms. Ruchika kept standing
on the right side of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. Thereafter, accused SPS
Rathore asked Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu to go out and fetch Mr. T. Thomas,
coach. Ms. Aradhana accordingly left leaving Sh. Rathore and Ms. Ruchika
in the office. Ms. Aradhana went towards the rear of the house where she
found Mr. T. Thomas standing on the southern side of the house across the
road. Between her and the coach, she also found the same person standing
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
5/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
5
who had brought the chair in the office for her. Ms. Aradhana asked this
person to go to Mr. Thomas and tell him to come to the office of Sh.
Rathore. Accordingly, the said person went to Mr. Thomas and told him
whatever was conveyed to him by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. However, Mr.
Thomas waived his hand indicating that he would not come. Immediately
thereon, Ms. Reemu returned to the office. On entering the office Ms.
Aradhana @ Reemu found that the accused was holding one hand of Ms.
Ruchika while his other hand was around her waist and Ms. Ruchika was
trying to get herself released by pushing the accused with her other hand
which was not held by the accused. On seeing Ms. Reemu, the accused got
nervous, released Ms. Ruchika and fell back in his chair. Ms. Aradhana @
Reemu told the accused that Mr. T. Thomas, coach had refused to come,
whereupon the accused again ordered Ms. Reemu to go and bring the
coach personally. In the meantime, Ms. Ruchika started leaving the room,
but the accused asked her to stay and again told Ms. Reemu to go and fetch
the coach. However, Ms. Ruchika reached near Ms. Reemu and then ran
out of the office. The accused then told Ms. Reemu to ask Ms. Ruchika to
cool down and he will do whatever she says. Thereafter, Ms. Reemu also
ran out of the office of the accused and tried to catch up with Ms. Ruchika
who was then running towards her house and was also weeping. With
some effort, Ms. Reemu could catch up with Ms. Ruchika. On seeing Ms.
Reemu, Ms. Ruchika who was already weeping, started crying loudly.
According to Ms. Reemu, Ms. Ruchika informed her that as soon as the
former had left to fetch the coach, the accused had caught hold of Ms.
Ruchika's hand which was got released by her with lot of difficulty. But the
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
6/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
6
accused then got up from his chair and caught Ms. Ruchika's hand again
and with his other hand, had also encircled Ms. Ruchika's waist, dragged
her towards himself and had embraced her. Ms. Ruchika also informed
Ms. Reemu that she had struggled to push the accused away with her other
hand which was not held by the accused. Thereafter, Ms. Aradhana
consoled Ms. Ruchika upon which she stopped weeping and enquired if it
would be proper to inform her father and the parents of Ms. Reemu about
this incident. After discussions, however, both decided not to inform their
parents as they apprehended that Sh. Rathore being an IG police could
involve and harass the girls and their parents. Both the girls thereafter,
went to the house of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu from where Ms. Ruchika left
for her house. On 13-8-1990, as it was holiday at the lawn tennis court,
neither Ms. Reemu nor Ms. Ruchika went to play tennis.
3. On 14-8-1990, at about 4:30 p.m., Ms. Reemu alongwith Ms. Ruchika went
to the lawn tennis courts. They also wanted to avoid Sh. Rathore who used
to usually visit the lawn tennis court in the evening. At about 6:30 pm on
14-8-1990 while Ms. Reemu and Ms. Ruchika were about to return after
practice, Mr. Paltoo, ball picker came over to the lawn tennis court and
told Ms. Ruchika that the accused had called her to his office immediately.
However, Ms. Ruchika refused to go and pointed out to Ms.Reemu that
since they had not informed their parents about the misbehaviour
committed by Sh. Rathore on 12-8-1990, the accused was feeling
emboldened and had again called Ms. Ruchika to his office with a view to
molest her. Thereupon, both Ms. Reemu and Ms. Ruchika decided that it
would be proper to inform the father of Ms. Ruchika and the parents of
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
7/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
7
Ms. Reemu about the said incident of molestation at the hands of Sh.
Rathore. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika accompanied by Ms. Reemu went to
Ms. Ruchika's house and met Sh. S.C. Girhotra. They started narrating the
incident of molestation on 12-8-1990. However, Ms. Ruchika could not
narrate the incident further and broke down whereupon Sh. S.C. Girhotra
told Ms. Reemu to take Ms. Ruchika to Ms. Reemu's mother promising
that he would also reach there. Thereafter, Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika to
her house. On seeing Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Ruchika started crying.
After being consoled by Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Ruchika cooled down
and narrated the entire incident of her molestation at the hands of the
accused. Mrs.Madhu Prakash also called her husband Sh Anand Prakash
who was present in the house and both the girls narrated the incident to
him as well. On being asked by Sh. Anand Prakash about the whereabouts
of the accused, both the girls informed that the accused might be available
at the lawn tennis courts. On 14-8-1990 itself Sh. Anand Prakash, Smt.
Madhu Prakash accompanied by Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu proceeded
to the lawn tennis court and on way Sh. S.C.Girhotra and some of his
neighbours including Mrs. Veenu Mittal, Mrs. Sangeet Virk also joined
them. On reaching the lawn tennis courts, they found S/Sh. Manish Arora,
Vipul Chanana, Pushpinder and other players playing tennis. The
enquiries made from them about the whereabouts of Sh.Rathore revealed
that the accused had already left for the office of the association. The said
persons thereafter proceeded to the office of the accused where Chowkidar
Pyare Lal informed them that the accused had already left for Chandigarh.
4. On 15-8-1990, 10-15 other persons who were mostly the parents of boy/girl
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
8/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
8
players and member of the HLTA collected at the residence of Sh. Anand
Prakash, the then resident of House No. 407, Sector 6, Panchkula and
decided that some strong action should be taken by way of taking up the
matter with the higher authorities of the Haryana Government. It was
decided that a deputation of citizens including the players would meet the
Chief Minister and Home Minister with a request to order an enquiry into
the incident. Accordingly, a petition / memorandum was prepared in
Hindi addressed to the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Governor,
Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Home), Government of Haryana,
SDM Panchkula and SHO Panchkula. On 16-8-1990, the parents of Ms.
Ruchika and Ms. Reemu took Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu with other
residents of Panchkula to Civil Secretariat to see the Chief Minister and
Home Minister, but they could not contact any of the two. Accordingly,
they met Sh. J. K. Duggal, Home Secretary, Haryana and submitted a
memorandum asking for an enquiry into the molestation of Ms. Ruchika.
Sh. J. K. Duggal, in addition to bringing the matter to the notice of the
Principal Secretary to the CM, the Chief Secretary and the Home Minister,
discussed the matter with the Home Minister on 17-8-1990. It was then
decided to send the memorandum to the then DGP, Haryana asking him to
enquire into the matter and submit enquiry report within one week. An
office note was accordingly marked to the Home Minister for passing the
aforesaid orders. After the approval of the note by the Home Minister, the
same was forwarded to Sh. R.R. Singh, the then DGP, Haryana vide No.
18/34/90-2HGI dated 20-8-1990.
5. It was further found during the investigation that on 16-8-1990 Sh. J.K.
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
9/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
9
Duggal had assured the parents of Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu and others
that he would also depute Sh. S. K. Joshi, SDM to reach the lawn tennis
court at 5:00 p.m. on that day to hear the grievances of the parents and the
member players. On 16-8-1990 at about 5:00 p.m. Sh. Anand Prakash
alongwith Smt. Madhu Prakash and others went to the lawn tennis court
where other parents alongwith their wards were also present. These
persons however found a notice dated 15-8-90 declaring suspension of Ms.
Ruchika w.e.f.13-8-1990 displayed there. This agitated the persons/players
present there as Ms. Ruchika had been suspended without any fault on her
part and they started raising slogans against Sh. SPS Rathore. Sh. Anil
Dhawan, SHO, PS Panchkula who was on patrolling duty in the area
received information around 5:30 p.m. that some boys and girls were
raising slogans at the tennis court of sector 6, Panchkula. On reaching
there he found the member players including boys and girls shouting
slogans against Sh. SPS Rathore, President HLTA. Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
Manager, T. Thomas, Coach and Paltoo were also present there. Sh. S. K.
Joshi, SDM also reached the lawn tennis court and declared that the tennis
court had no connection with HLTA and that he had taken over the same
under orders of the Home Secretary. Sh. S. K. Joshi also made enquiries
from Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager and Sh. T. Thomas, coach about the
indiscipline on the part of Ms. Ruchika whereupon both wrote on the
suspension order itself that they were not aware of any act of indiscipline
on the part of Ms. Ruchika. Sh. Joshi also declared that the lawn tennis
court will be open to everybody and that no fee will be charged from any
person for playing over there. It was also revealed in the enquiry that no
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
10/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
10
act of indiscipline was officially recorded and enquired into against Ms.
Ruchika.
6. On 21-8-1990 Sh. R.R. Singh who was the then DGP, Haryana received the
order dated 17-8-1990 for making an enquiry into the matter. Sh. R.R.
Singh conducted the enquiry into the incident of molestation of Ms.
Ruchika and recorded the statements of Ms. Ruchika, Ms. Reemu, Sh. S.C.
Girhotra, Smt. Madhu Anand, Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. Anil Dhawan,
SHO, PS Panchkula. After conducting the enquiry into the incident Sh.
R.R. Singh concluded that whatever Ms. Ruchika had stated about her
molestation by Sh. SPS Rathore was based on true facts and that he was of
the considered opinion that a cognizable offence was made out. Sh. R.R.
Singh, therefore, had recommended registration of case under appropriate
sections of Indian Penal Code and had forwarded his enquiry report dated
3-9-1990 to the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana. After the
incident of molestation Ms. Ruchika remained confined to her house and
remained depressed. Later Ms. Ruchika committed suicide by consuming
poison on 28-12-1993 and died on 29-12-1993. In the investigation
conducted by the CBI it was established Sh. SPS Rathore, IPS, while
working as President of Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, Panchkula,
Haryana molested Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990 knowing that his act was
likely to outrage the modesty of Ms. Ruchika and thus committed the
offence punishable u/s 354 IPC, therefore, he be summoned and tried
according to law.
7. Challan was presented in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
Ambala on 17-11-2000. An application for condonation of delay was also
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
11/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
11
filed alongwith the challan. The court was of the view that the accused
should also be heard before deciding the application, therefore, notice of
the same was given to the accused vide order dated 18-11-2000. The delay
was condoned by the court and application u/s 473 of Cr. P.C. was allowed
vide detailed order dated 5-12-2000. Thereafter, accused was ordered to be
summoned for the offence u/s 354 of IPC vide another order of the same
date. The accused appeared in response of notice on 10-1-2001 and he was
bailed out in this case. An application for addition of offence u/s 306 of
IPC alongwith offence u/s 354 and 509 of IPC was moved by the applicant
Smt. Madhu Prakash on 8-10-2001. This application was allowed by the
court vide order dated 23-10-2001 and the court started the proceedings
for commitment of the case, but a Criminal Revision No.44697-M of 2001
was filed by the accused/respondent in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. Vide order dated 12-2-2002 the revision of the accused was
accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, accused was served upon
notice of accusation u/s 354 of IPC on 17-3-2003 to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed regular trial.
8. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all. Sh.
Anand Prakash, husband of complainant was examined as PW-1. Smt.
Madhu Prakash, complainant of the case was examined as PW-2. PW-3
was Sh. Munish Arora who was member of HLTA. PW-4 was Sh. Vipul
Chanana, who was also a member of HLTA. PW-5 was Dr. Naresh Mittal.
PW-6 was Sh.R.R. Singh, Ex. DGP, Haryana who conducted the enquiry in
this case. PW-7 was Sh. S. K. Joshi, the then SDM Panchkula. He had
inspected the spot after the incident. PW-8 was Sh. Som Lal Kajal,
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
12/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
12
Assistant Engineer who has prepared the site plan of the place of incident.
PW-9 was Sh. Sunil Malik, Executive Engineer. PW-10 was Sh. Anil
Kumar, the then SHO, Panchkula. PW-11 was Sh. Ratan Singh who was
SHO Panchkula at the time when FIR was registered in view of order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court. PW-12 was Sh. J. K. Duggal who was posted as
Home Secretary, Haryana at the time of incident. PW-13 was Ms.
Aradhana @ Reemu who is eye witness of the incident. PW-14 was Sh. B.S.
Ojha who was posted as Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to
Government of Haryana at the time of incident. PW-15 was Sh. S.C.
Girhotra, father of the victim. PW-16 was Sh. Rajesh Ranjan, I.G. CBI was
the Investigation officer of the present case. Documents Ex P1 to Ex P10,
Ex PW6/1 to Ex PW6/2, Ex PW8/A, Ex PW10/A, Ex PW11/A to Ex PW
11/B, Ex PW13/A, Ex PW14/A, Ex PW15/A, Ex PW16/1 to Ex PW16/6 were
also tendered into evidence.
9. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. In the statement u/s
313 Cr. P.C. entire incriminating evidence which has come out against the
accused during the evidence of prosecution was put to the accused. In the
statement the accused admitted certain facts that in the period of 1990 he
was President of HLTA and the garage of his house was used as office of
HLTA. T. Thomas, Kuldeep Singh and Paltoo were employed as Tennis
coach, Manager and Ball picker respectively. PW-3 Munish Arora, PW-4
Vipul Chanana, PW-13 Ms. Aradhana and Ms. Ruchika Girhotra were the
members of the association during the year of 1990. Another facts are
denied with explanation by the accused in his statement. He denied that
Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana were close door neighbourers. He stated
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
13/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
13
that they lived approximately 15 minutes walking distance from each other.
He denied that on 11-8-1990 he went to the house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra. He
denied the conversation between him and Sh. S.C. Girhotra. He specifically
denied that on 12-8-1990 he caught the Ruchika's one hand tightly and put
his another hand around her waist and embraced her with his chest and
that Ms. Ruchika was trying to get herself released by pushing him away.
He denied the presence of Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu at that time. He denied
all the evidence relating that incident. He denied all the other facts also
that he organised any procession which raised slogans against Ruchika and
Sh. S.C. Girhotra and in favour of accused. However, he admitted the
registration of case in view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He alleged
that recording of statement of witnesses by the CBI during the
investigation was doubtful. He further alleged the investigation as unfair.
He alleged that the memorandum Ex P-1 is false and fabricated. The
witnesses of the prosecution are not credible. He concluded his statement
with the lines that it is a case of no evidence and prosecution has not been
able to prove any case against him and he preferred to lead defence
evidence.
10.In defence, the accused examined 18 witnesses in all. DW-1 was Sh. Ved
Parkash, who remained attached as gunman with the accused. DW-2 was
Sh. Ram Piara who was labourer and working at HLTA on the day of
incident. DW-3 was Sh. Surender Kumar. DW-4 was Sh. Chander Pal who
was manager of HLTA. DW-5 was Sh.Gobind Ram Sharma. DW-6 was
Sh.Shadi Lal Malik who was working as Assistant Reader with the accused
in the year of 1973. DW-7 was Sh. Jog Dhian, Sub Inspector who has
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
14/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
14
produced the summoned record. DW-8 was EHC Bhagwan Dass. He also
produced the summoned record. DW-9 was Sh. Karan Singh. DW-10 was
Sh. Devendra Prashad who was document expert. DW-11 was Sh.
Abhilaksh Likhi, P.S. To Raksha Rajya Utpadan Mantry, Ministry of
Defence. DW-12 was Dr. C.S. Rao. DW-13 was Sh. Bihari Lal. DW13/A was
Sh. S.S. Dahiya, retired Chief Engineer. DW-14 was Sh. Rajiv Purohit,
clerk, CRC, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. DW-15 was Smt.
Neelam Kasni, IAS, Director Social Welfare, Haryana. DW-16 was Sh. Om
Prakash Kathuria, the then Secretary HLTA and DW-17 was Sh.
Madhulesh Kumar Shishodia. DWs Vipan Pubby, Radhey Shyam and
Record Keeper Ambala were given up and not examined in defence.
Documents Ex D-1 to Ex D-20, Ex DW5/A, Ex D-8, Ex D-9, Ex D-10, Ex
DW8/1, Ex DW11/A, Ex DW12/A, Ex DW14/1, and Ex DW16/1 were
tendered into evidence.
11. Ld. PP for the CBI and Ld. Defence counsel were heard.
12.Ld. PP for the CBI initiated the arguments on behalf of prosecution/CBI.
Ld. PP argued that CBI has charge-sheeted the accused for the commission
of offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC with the allegations that the accused
molested Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990 knowing that this act was likely to
outrage the modesty of Ms. Ruchika. Notice of accusation has been served
upon the accused by the court on 17-3-2003. In order to establish notice of
accusation against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as
16 witnesses. Prosecution has successfully proved this case against the
accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence. The important and
material incidents took place in the present case on 11,12,14,15,16,17 and 18
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
15/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
15
August, 1990. The prosecution has well proved sequence of the incidents
by way of leading cogent evidence.
13.Ld. PP argued that it is not disputed that during 1990 Haryana Lawn
Tennis Association (in short HLTA) was functioning in Panchkula
(Haryana). The accused was the President of HLTA. Its office was
established in the garage of House No. 469, Sector 6, Panchkula which was
owned by the accused and the same was under construction. It is also
admitted fact that Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu (PW-13), Mr. Manish Arora
(PW-3), Mr. Vipul Chanana (PW-4) and Ms. Ruchika (Since deceased)
were the members of association and used to play tennis in the lawn tennis
court. It is the prosecution case that on 11-8-1990 the accused visited the
house of Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW-15) and told him that he (accused) came to
know that he (S.C. Girhotra) was sending his daughter Ms. Ruchika to
Canada. He requested him (S.C. Girhotra) not to send her abroad as she
was very good player and he will arrange special coaching for her. This fact
has been well proved by Sh. S.C. Girhotra, PW-15 in his statement. He
deposed that on 11-8-1990 accused visited his house at about 12:00 noon
and proved that accused had asked him not to send her daughter to
Canada and that he will arrange special coaching for her. The accused
asked Sh. S.C. Girhotra to send her daughter on 12-8-1990 at about 12:00
noon in his office to discuss with her about training. At that time, Ms.
Ruchika was not present at her house. On her return, the witness informed
her about the visit of Sh. SPS Rathore (Accused) and asked her to meet
him on 12-8-1990 in his office at 12:00 noon. This fact finds corroboration
from the statement of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13). She deposed that on 12-8-
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
16/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
16
1990 at about 11:00 am Ms. Ruchika came to her house and she was
appearing very excited. She told her that on 11-8-1990 Sh. SPS Rathore
had visited her house and requested her father not to send her abroad and
that he would arrange extra coaching/special coaching for her as she was
promising player. She further informed Ms. Aradhana that Sh. Rathore
had asked her father to send her on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon at HLTA.
This fact figures in the memorandum Ex P-1 also which has been signed by
Ms. Ruchika at point-B alongwith others. The evidence of Sh. S.C. Girhotra
is direct evidence to substantiate the fact that accused visited the house of
Sh. S.C. Girhotra on 11-8-1990 and asked him to send Ms. Ruchika to his
office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 noon.
14.Ld. PP submitted that Ms. Ruchika (since deceased) and Ms. Aradhana
went to play at lawn tennis court on 11-8-1990 and while they were playing
Sh. Paltoo, the ball picker came there and told Ms. Ruchika that Sh.
Rathore had called her to his office at 12:00 noon. Accordingly, Ms.
Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana went to office of HLTA where they met the
accused. Accused sent Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach Sh. T. Thomas.
While Ms Aradhana had left the office, accused molested / outraged the
modesty of Ms. Ruchika. When Ms. Aradhana returned, she herself saw
the accused molesting Ms. Ruchika. There is overwhelming evidence to
substantiate this allegation. Ms. Aradhana in her statement has deposed
that on that day when both of them i.e. Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Aradhana
were playing tennis, Sh. Paltoo, the ball picker came and informed Ms.
Ruchika that Sh. SPS Rathore had called her in HLTA office. They both
went there to meet the accused in the office. They saw that accused was
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
17/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
17
standing outside his office. The accused on seeing them proceeded to his
office and asked them to follow him, whereupon Ms. Ruchika requested
the accused to talk to her outside the office, but accused insisted to her to
come in the office. They followed him towards the office. On reaching
inside the office, on being asked by the accused a chair was brought on
which she (PW-13) sat down and Ruchika remained standing. The accused
directed not to bring another chair. Immediately thereafter, the accused
asked Ms. Aradhana to fetch the coach Mr. T. Thomas. Witness left Ms.
Ruchika there in the office and went to call the coach. When she went at
back of the house of the accused, she found coach Sh. T.Thomas standing
at a distance on the other side of the house across the road. She asked Sh.
Paltoo to go and fetch the coach. Mr. Paltoo by gesture indicated her that
he has refused to come. Thereafter Ms. Aradhana returned and when she
entered the office, she saw that the accused was holding one hand of Ms.
Ruchika and his other hand was around her waist and he had embraced
her. Ms. Ruchika was trying hard to get herself released by pushing him
away with her other hand. On seeing the witness there, the accused
became nervous and left Ms. Ruchika and fell down on the chair. Witness
informed the accused that coach has refused to come, thereupon, the
accused forcefully asked the witness to go again and call the coach
personally. In the meantime Ms. Ruchika tried to come to the side of the
witness. Accused asked Ms. Ruchika to stay there and asked the witness
again to fetch the coach. Ms. Ruchika came near the witness and went out
of the office. When Aradhana also wanted to follow her, the accused told
her (Aradhana) ask her to cool down, I will do whatever she will say.
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
18/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
18
Thereafter, the witness followed Ms. Ruchika who was running. When
witness caught up Ms. Ruchika, she started weeping loudly, thereupon the
witness inquired from Ms. Ruchika as to what had happened. Ms. Ruchika
narrated that as soon as she had left to fetch the coach, the accused caught
hold of her hand which she got released with great difficulty, but the
accused again caught hold her hand and with his other hand the accused
caught hold of her waist and dragged her towards him and embraced her,
while she was pushing him. She further informed that in the meantime you
(Aradhana) reached there and on seeing her (Aradhana), he left her. After
that both of them discussed and decided not to informed their parents as
Sh. SPS Rathore being high ranking police officer could harm their
families. Their apprehension was not misplaced as later on the brother of
Ms.Ruchika namely Ashu was got implicated by the accused in false case
and the accused arranged demonstrations against the victim with the help
of paid demonstrators to harass her. From the statement of eye witness,
the molestation of Ms. Ruchika by the accused is well proved. There was no
reason for Ms. Aradhana to depose false. The fact regarding molestation of
Ms. Ruchika has been stated on oath by Sh. Anand Prakash (PW-1), Mrs.
Madhu Prakash (PW-2), Mr. Manish Arora (PW-3), Mr. Vipul
Chanana(PW-4) and Sh. S.C. Girhotra (PW-15).
15. Ld. PP further argued that on next date i.e. on 13-8-1990 it was Monday
and on Monday the loan tennis court used to remain close for
playing, therefore, these two girls did not go on that date for playing. These
two girls used to play tennis in the evening at 6:30 p.m. In the evening
almost daily, the accused used to visit the lawn tennis courts. These girls
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
19/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
19
in order to avoid him thought it proper to go for playing at 4:30 p.m. on
14-8-1990. At about 6:30 p.m. on that day when they were about to return
after practice Sh. Paltoo, came over the lawn tennis court and told Ms.
Ruchika that accused had called her in his office immediately. However,
Ms. Ruchika refused to go there and told Ms. Aradhana that since they had
not informed about the incident which took place on 12-8-1990 to their
parents that has emboldened the accused. There upon, they decided to
inform their parents. They went to the house of Ms. Ruchika where they
met Sh. S.C.Girhotra, father of Ms. Ruchika. Ms. Ruchika tried to narrate
the incident to her father, but she could not narrate the same and broke
down, whereupon her father told Ms. Aradhana to take her to her mother.
They went to the house of Ms. Aradhana where Mrs. Madhu Prakash(PW-
2) and Sh. Anand Prakash (PW-1) were present. Ms. Ruchika disclosed the
entire incident to PW-2 Mrs. Madhu Prakash who informed to her
husband about the said incident. Thereafter, Ms. Ruchika, Aradhana, Sh.
Anand Prakash, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra and other
persons went to HLTA court to meet Sh. SPS Rathore. They came to know
that Sh. Rathore has already left the HLTA. They waited for about about 45
minutes and thereafter dispersed.
16.On 15-8-1990 number of persons who were mostly players and their
parents collected at the residence of Sh. Anand Prakash. They decided that
the incident should be brought to the notice of higher authorities including
the Chief Minister of Haryana. Accordingly a memorandum Ex P-1 was
prepared. A number of copies of this memorandum were prepared for
being handed over to different authorities. This memorandum was signed
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
20/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
20
by Sh. Anand Prakash, Ms. Ruchika, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Meenu,
Sangeet, Aradhana, Anirudh, Beenu, Naresh Mittal, C.S.Gupta and Sh. I.
D. Mittal. The witnesses who were examined in the court identified their
signatures as well as signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum. The
accused disputed the genuineness of signatures of Ms. Ruchika. He has
tried to substantiate his contention by examining hand writing expert. The
contention of accused is not tenable as the witnesses who have been
examined by the prosecution and in whose presence the memorandum was
signed, have identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika. Sh. Anand Prakash
has proved the preparation of memorandum. The law is very clear that a
fact should be proved by best available evidence. The witnesses have
identified the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum, therefore,
the evidence of the hand writing expert can not be considered to be safe
and requires corroboration from independent witnesses. As already stated
the signature of Ms. Ruchika has been proved by the witnesses that is
direct and primary evidence, therefore, it can be relied upon.
17. On 16-8-1990, Sh. Anand Praksh, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Sh. Naresh Mittal,
Ms. Aradhana, Sh. S.C Girhotra, Ms. Ruchika and some more persons went
to Civil Secretariat to meet the Chief Minister and the Home Minister, but
they were not available there, therefore, a memorandum Ex P-1 was given
to Sh. J. K. Duggal, the then Home Secretary (PW-11) who assured them
that the matter would be enquired into. He asked those persons who had
gone to the Secretariat to reach lawn tennis court where Sh. S. K. Joshi,
SDM would also be reaching. After that they went to lawn tennis court and
assembled there at about 5:00 p.m. Those persons found a notice dated 15-
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
21/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
21
8-1990 declaring suspension of Ms. Ruchika w.e.f. 13-8-1990 displayed
there on the notice board. Sh. S. K. Joshi, SDM also reached there. Sh.
Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas were present there. On being enquired,
Kuldeep Singh in the presence of witnesses, informed that he has affixed
the notice Ex P-2 on the directions of accused Sh. SPS Rathore. He further
disclosed that Ms. Ruchika has committed no act of indiscipline. On being
asked Sh. Kuldeep Singh gave the same facts in writing on the notice. This
fact was confirmed by coach Sh. T. Thomas and he signed at point I
supporting the contents of the endorsement of Sh. Kuldeep Singh. He was
also asked to give in writing, if no act of indiscipline has been committed
by Ms. Ruchika. On this, he made an endorsement to the effect that to the
best of his knowledge Ms. Ruchika has not done act of misbehavior or
indiscipline in the HLTA tennis courts. This notice was produce by Sh.
Anand Prakash at the time of his deposition. It has come in his evidence
that said notice was given to him by the SDM immediately after making
endorsement. These facts have been proved by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4,
PW-5 and PW-13. The presence of Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas
on that day and time has already been proved by Sh. Anil Dhawan, SHO,
Panchkula (PW-10). He was on patrolling duty on that date and on
receiving verbal transmission message about the incident, he reached on
the spot. He further stated that on being called by Sh. SPS Rathore, he
went to his residence at about 9:00 p.m. on 16-8-1990 itself. At that time,
Manager Sh. Kuldeep Singh, coach Sh. T. Thomas and one more person
were also present there besides IG (Accused) himself. Sh. Rathore
complained that some boy/girl players and their parents had beaten Sh.
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
22/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
22
Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas and one watchman and took away the
registers alongwith money etc. But he deposed that on that date when he
had gone to lawn tennis court, Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. T. Thomas did
not complain about the beating given by those persons.
18.On 17-8-1990 at about 12:00 noon Sh. Anand Prakash alongwith other
persons met the Chief Minister Sh. Hukam Singh who told him that the
facts related to the incident have come to his knowledge and he has
ordered for enquiry in the matter to be conducted by Senior most police
officer Sh. R.R. Singh and he will submit his report expeditiously. This fact
is corroborated by PW-2, PW-5 and PW-15.
19.On 18-8-1990 Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra went to police
station Panchkula and met Sh. Anil Dhawan, SHO, Panchkula and handed
over to him a hand written report Ex P-3 alongwith photo copy of
memorandum Ex P-4.
20.Sh. R.R. Singh was directed by the Chief Minister and Home Minister to
conduct the enquiry into the allegations contained in the memorandum Ex
P-1. In compliance of the said order Sh. R. R. Singh recorded the
statements of the witnesses including Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Ms. Rimmu,
Sh. S.C. Girhotra and Anil Dhawan. The statements of Ms. Ruchika and Sh.
Anand Prakash were also recorded. After the enquiry, he recommended
that a case under appropriate sections of IPC be got registered on the
statement of Ms.Ruchika and investigated. Despite the fact that Sh. R.R.
Singh had recommended the registration of case against the accused, no
action was taken by the Government. It is most surprising that no value
was attached to the report and recommendation made by such a highest
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
23/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
23
rank police officer i.e. Director General of Police, Haryana. It shows that
how much clout the accused was having on the Government. The accused
has alleged that Sh. B.S. Ojha and Sh. J. K. Duggal were having great
grudge against him. But when the report was submitted Sh. B. S. Ojha was
working as P.S. to Chief Minister and Sh. Duggal was working as Home
Secretary. If the contention of the accused has got any truth, then officers
who were holding the highest position in the Government would have got
the case registered against the accused immediately. It shows that they
were having no grudge. The accused has alleged that relations between him
and Sh. R.R. Singh were strained since 1976. But this suggestion of the
accused was denied by the witness while appearing in the court. It shows
that proper report was given by Sh. R.R. Singh, otherwise also, it is a
matter of common experience that no girl or father would make a
complaint of such heinous nature even against their enemy.
21.Sh.R.R.Singh had conducted the enquiry under the orders of Government
of Haryana,therefore,he was competent to investigate/enquire into the
allegations made in the memorandum Ex P-1. As such,all the statements
recorded by him are admissible under section 157 of Indian Evidence Act
for the purpose of corroboration. The word investigation mentioned in
section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act should not be construed too
narrowly. The word investigation in this section has been used in broader
sense. It's scope does not limit itself to the investigationas envisaged in
Cr.P.C. It is not out of context to mention that statements of witnesses
recorded by police officers under provisions of Cr.P.C. can not be utilised
for the purpose of corroboration. Section 162 of Cr.P.C. clearly forbids the
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
24/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
24
use of such statements for corroboration. Such statements can be used for
the purpose of contradicting the witness. Therefore, it is amply clear that
word investigation as provided in section 157 of Indian Evidence Act can
not be construed narrowly and it is clear that statements of witnesses who
were examined in the court can be corroborated with the statements
recorded by Sh. R.R. Singh.
22.As already stated Sh. J. K. Duggal and Sh. B.S.Ojha are independent
witnesses and they have no grudge against the accused as alleged by the
accused. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed to be correct that
there was some dispute over the control of HLTA between the accused and
the two, it was not such a big issue which would have induced them to
implicate the accused falsely. There is no evidence on record to
substantiate the allegations of accused that these two officers were in any
way instrumental for preparation of memorandum or implicating the
accused in this case. There is no evidence on record to suggest any nexus of
these two officers with Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. S.C. Girhotra. There is
no evidence to suggest any enmity between the accused and Sh. Anand
Prakash to implicate the accused in such a case falsely.
23.The accused has alleged that Sh. Anand Prakash had a motive to implicate
him falsely. He has examined Sh. Shadi Lal Malik as DW-6 in that
connection. Sh. Shadi Lal has stated that in the month of
October/November 1973 one MLA Mr. Garg alongwith Sh. Babu Lal, father
of Sh. Anand Prakash came in the office of Sh. SPS Rathore who was
working as S. P. Kurukshetra at that time. Sh. Garg introduced Sh. Babu
Lal to the SP and stated that he is a good man and his son is Engineer and
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
25/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
25
there were false complaints of Satta against him. On this Sh. Rathore asked
the Head clerk to connect him to SHO, Ladwa. He stated to SHO that if the
complaint is correct then he should be put behind the bar, otherwise he
should not be harassed. There is nothing in the said statement which may
lead to infer any type of enmity between the accused and Sh. Anand
Prakash or his father. Moreover, it is quite improbable for a person to
remember such a petty matter after a gap of 35 years. The statement of
DW-6 was recorded on 5-3-2008 after a long gap. However, no
documentary evidence has been adduced by the accused to substantiate
such allegations, therefore, the statement of DW-6 can not be safely relied
upon.
24.While cross examining Sh. Shadi Lal, accused came up with a case that Sh.
S.C. Girhotra wanted a heavy amount from the accused for settlement of
the matter in the year of 2001. The accused produced a cassette purported
to be a conversation between Sh. Karam Singh (DW-9) and witness about
the demand of money. The cassette was played for five seconds only in the
court and witness was asked to identify his voice in the said cassette. He,
after hearing the voice in the cassette, denied that it was his voice. His
voice was never got tested by the accused though, the cassette was in his
possession. Therefore, the defence of the accused is not established in any
manner and he levelled false allegations which are likely to be discarded.
Ld. PP submitted that in such circumstances, the commission of offence
punishable u/s 354 of IPC by the accused is clearly proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
25.Ld. defence counsel on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
26/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
26
advanced by ld. PP for the CBI. Ld. Defence counsel argued for sufficient
long time in detail touching the factual, technical and circumstantial facts
of this case. Ld. Counsel pressed that the case against the accused is
absolutely false and frivolous and the accused has been framed in the
present case by the complainant party and the high level officers of State
with ulterior motive. At the very outset, ld. Defence counsel pointed that
the IAS lobby in the Government of Haryana was entirely against the
accused and it has collided with Sh. Anand Prakash and others against the
accused. The reason for that is that there was rivalry between the two
tennis association, one headed by the accused and one formed later on by
the IAS group with Sh. J. K. Duggal, Home Secretary as its president with
the patronage of Sh. B.S. Ojha. Earlier to that they pressurized the accused
to step down from the Presidentship of HLTA in favour of Sh. B.S. Ojha to
which the accused refused. This annoyed Mr. Ojha who had strong reasons
for ordering the enquiry by Sh. R.R.Singh and police officers working
under him had arganised the drafting of memorandum against the
accused. Sh. J. K. Duggal had ordered to take over the coaching centre of
the accused. After refusal of the accused, the another group had formed
their separate association named as HTA (Haryana Tennis Association).
Due to that grudge, the accused has been framed in the present case and
the IAS lobby sided with the complainant party to harass the accused. Ld.
Counsel stated that with this background, the false proceedings were
initiated against the accused. Ld. Counsel argued that the prosecution has
failed to prove this case against the accused from every angle. The case has
been registered against the accused after a long delay which itself is fatal
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
27/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
27
for the case of prosecution. The witnesses of the prosecution are not
trustworthy. The main documents like Ex P-1, Ex P-2 and Ex P-3 of the
case of the prosecution can not be relied upon as those are forged. The
story of the prosecution is highly improbable as nothing like that, as
alleged by the prosecution, can happen in the broad day light, in the
presence of lot of persons who were working at the alleged place of
incident. Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu is not an eye witness and she has been
planted in the present case. Ms. Ruchika, the alleged complainant has not
been examined by the prosecution as she has already expired. Therefore,
FIR Ex P-1 is not admissible in evidence and can not be relied upon. In the
same way, FIR written on the basis of statement of Miss Ruchika can not
be read into evidence.
The enquiry held by Sh. R. R. Singh can not be relied upon because no
enquiry could be marked to him and he has not held the enquiry in proper
manner. The present case is only counter blast of the complainant side as a
case has been filed by the accused for defamation u/s 500 of IPC against
many members of the complainant party including representatives of
media. The media has played negative role in the present case and
published the selective news items only in collusion with the complainant
party. The material witnesses like ball picker Paltoo and coach K.T.
Thomas who were allegedly present on the spot, have not been examined
by the prosecution. The witnesses have made a lot of improvements in
their case and there are other discrepancies also in the statements of
witnesses due to which they can not be relied upon. The defence
has also adduced sufficient evidence and succeeded in proving that
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
28/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
28
the case of prosecution is false and frivolous, the net result of which is that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the accused is entitled to be
acquitted.
26.The above arguments were further elaborated by ld. Defence counsel
taking one by one and written arguments were also supplied by ld. Defence
counsel in the court. The contention of ld. Defence counsel is that the very
basis of the case of the prosecution that is memorandum Ex P-1 on the
basis of which FIR was registered, is unreliable, false and forged
document. Ex P-1 has been drafted after prolonged consideration and
deliberation by several interested persons including senior police officers
working under Sh. B.S. Ojha including I.G. Sh. C. P. Bansal and DSP Sh.
Sham Lal Goyal after delay of five days, as such, this document gives a
coloured and tainted version which can not be relied upon. Moreover, this
document does not disclose the details of the incident. It merely suggests
that accused misbehaved with Ms. Ruchika which does not attract section
354 of IPC. The name of the players who were allegedly accompanying Ms.
Ruchika has not been mentioned in the memorandum intentionally and
later on Ms. Anuradha @ Reemu has been planted as Sathi Khladi. The
signature of Ms. Ruchika on Ex P-1 are not proved and those are false and
forged. The alleged signature of Ms. Ruchika are at point B. One more
application was allegedly given to SHO, Panchkula which is on record as
Ex P-3 and the signature of Ms. Ruchika on that application is at mark A.
Both the signatures are different which are visible from the naked eye and
can be appreciated by the court also. However, the expert has also been
examined by the defence. The expert opined that the person given his
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
29/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
29
signature on Ex P-1 marke X 1 did not write the signature on Ex P-3 mark
X2. Thus, these documents can not read into evidence. It has also revealed
from the report of expert DW-10 that said document Ex P-1 is a photo copy
and it is not original document. On this ground also, these documents can
not be relied upon. Moreover, proper date of preparation of Ex P-1 is not
disclosed by the witnesses. Some of the witnesses states that it was
prepared on 15-8-1990 while some of the witnesses have signed it giving
the date as 16-8-1990. Other document Ex P-2 is also tempered with by
way of trimming the lower edge of the document, which has also come in
the evidence of expert. In such circumstances, the document on the basis
of which FIR was allegedly registered has not been proved by the
prosecution and the document has been proved false and forged by the
defence, therefore, it can not be relied upon and this fact is sufficient to
demolish the entire case of the prosecution.
27.Ld. defence counsel argued that it is very significant to note that no
complaint was filed by Ms. Ruchika or her father Sh. S. C. Girhotra or Sh.
Ashu, elder brother of Ms. Ruchika or Mrs. Madhu Prakash (PW-2) or Sh.
Anand Prakash (PW-1) or by Ms. Reemu (PW-13) in the police post of
police station or police station or before any other authority on 12-8-1990
of afterwards. Even after 14-8-1990 when Ms. Ruchika and Aradhana
allegedly informed their parents, none of that approached the police to file
FIR. The police post, Sector 6, Panchkula is at a distance of 300 Yards only
from the tennis court. It is situated very near to the house of Sh.
S.C.Girhotra also. In this way undue and unexplained delay resulted in
manipulations and proper version could not be put before the court. In
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
30/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
30
support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law bearing citation
Ram Jag and others Vs State of UP CLJ 1974, Awadhesh and
others VS State of Madhya Pradesh-1988 (2) SCC 557, Devi Lal
Vs State of Haryana AICLR 1999-709. Non mentioning the name of
Sathi Khiladi effects the veracity of prosecution case. In support of her
arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the case bearing citation Ram Kumar
Pandey Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 CLJ 870. If the
complainant was aggrieved by any action of the police, then modalities
contain in section 190 r/w section 200 of Cr. P.C. were to be adopted.
Reliance was placed in this regard on law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case Aleque Padamsee and others Vs UOI and others
2007 (6) SCC 171. But no such step was taken by the complainant. In this
way, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and her family members abused the process of
law which makes the prosecution case untenable. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-
13 and PW-14 can not be relied upon because of improvement and
contradictions in their statements. These witnesses as well as PW-3, PW-4
and PW-12 are interested witnesses. There exists enmity between these
PWs and accused because of filing of criminal defamation case u/s 500 IPC
on 18-8-1990 in the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ambala by the
accused. All these persons except PW-12 are summoned accused in that
case. In such circumstances, they can not be relied upon. In support of her
arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing
citation Kartik Malhar Vs State of Bihar: AICLR 1995 (3) 622,
Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs State of Maharastra 2005 (1)
RCR (Crl) 858. Statement of Ms. Anuradha @ Reemu that Ms. Ruchika
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
31/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
31
told her that Rathore Sahib caught hold her hand which was rescued by
her with great difficulty, but again he caught hold hand of Ms. Ruchika and
put his another hand around her waist and pressed her with his chest and
that Ms. Ruchika continuously tried to rescue her, are inadmissible in
evidence being hearsay. This part of the statement made by Ms. Reemu is
an after thought and improvement. These averments were not contained in
Ex P-1 dated 16-8-1990. These averments are not contained in Ex P-3 and
Ex P-4. Her statement is not admissible on the plea of res gestae u/s 6 of
the Evidence Act because the statement for declaration must be
contemporaneous/simultaneous with the transaction. It must be
spontaneous statement during the transaction, closely associated with the
thing being done. The statement allegedly made by Ms. Ruchika to Ms.
Reemu was not immediately made when Ms. Reemu allegedly saw the
misbehavior. Ms Reemu remained in HLTA office listening to alleged
conversation with Mr. Rathore and later some more time had elapsed in
catching up Ms. Ruchika by Ms. Reemu. Thereafter, she enquired from Ms.
Ruchika as to what happened, then Ruchika narrated the alleged story.
This narration has come after lapse of some time, therefore, can not be
relied upon. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law
laid down in cases bearing citation 1971 CLJ 172 Vol 177 CN 57, Teper
Vs Reginan, AIR 1958 Cal 482 (V.45.C-121), Partap Singh V State
of Madhaya Pradesh 1991 CLJ 172, Hadu Vs The State AIR (38)
1951 Orrisa 53, AIR 1931 Mad. 233(2), Sreehari Swarnakar Vs
Emperor AIR 1930 Cal. 132, Raman and others Vs King Emperor
AIR 1921 Lahor 258, Mohammad Afzal Vs Crown AIR (37) 1950
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
32/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
32
Lahor, State Vs Bihari Lal, Pahu Lal,1953 Crl LJ 1427, 1980 Cr LJ
NOC 13 Kant, 1996 6SCC 241.
28.The enquiry conducted by Sh. R.R. Singh can not be read into evidence
and can not be safely relied upon because he had no authority to conduct
the enquiry and no proper directions were given to him to conduct the
enquiry. Moreover, he has not recorded the statements of the witnesses of
the defence due to which the enquiry was not impartial. The alleged
statement of Ms. Ruchika before Sh. R. R. Singh has already been held to
be inadmissible by the CBI court at that time and the order has been
upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The statement
of PW-1, PW-3, PW-5, PW-13 and PW-15 recorded by Sh. R. R. Singh on
21-8-1990 i.e. Nine days after the alleged incident can also not be read into
evidence as per the provisions of section 157 of Evidence Act. In support of
her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing
citationAIR (932) 1945 Madras 358, AIR (36) 1949 Cal. 629, AIR
1960 Allahabad 339, AIR 1928 Cal. 732, AIR 1928C 893, 110 IC
521, (1991) 1 Malayam LJ 106 Penang High Court Rajan Vs State
of Kerla 1992 Crl. LJ 575, 578 Kerla, John's V SC and C. Railway
co. 1918, 87 LJKB 775, Robinson Vs Stern 1939 2 Alla. ER 683,
1951 All Law Journal 149 (152), 1910-6 Madras LT 17 (21) (FB),
AIR 1949 Cal. 629 (6). The enquiry of Sh. R. R. Singh is also not
admissible in evidence as administrative enquiry and its report is
inadmissible. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law
laid down in case bearing citation Jagbir Singh Vs State of Haryana:
1994 (2) RCR. The sketch map and its legend Ex P8/A is not admissible
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
33/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
33
for corroboration as per section 162 of Cr. P.C. as it was prepared at the
pointing of PW-13 Ms. Reemu which has been proved by PW-9 Sh. Sunil,
draftsman. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law
laid down in case bearing citation 1976 CLJ 1162 (a) Crl. PC (5 of
1898).
29.Ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution story is un-natural and
concocted. As per prosecution case, Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu remained
silent for three days and did not disclose the incident to their parents on
account of alleged fear /apprehension from the accused that he would
involve their parents in false cases. It is a very adult argument which no
minor girl of 13 years can think of. It is generally true that minor children
look towards their parents for counselling, sharing and sympathy when
they are emotionally disturbed. PW-2 Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Reemu in
their statements have stated that Ms. Ruchika was having very close
relations with Mrs. Madhu Prakash and she treated her like her mother.
Then how Ms. Ruchika could withhold the said incident from Mrs. Madhu
Prakash. It is beyond comprehension and unbelievable. Ms. Ruchika was
daughter of Sh. S. C. Girhotra who was manager of UCO Bank. As per
statement of Sh. S. C. Girhotra, uncle of Ruchika lived in Parwanoo and
owns an industrial shed. Ms. Ruchika's Bua was working in Bank of
Rajasthan. Real Nana of Ruchika was DSP CBI, Ambala in 1976. Ruchika's
Nana had his house in Panchkula and brother in law of Sh. S.C. Girhotra
and his wife resides in Panchkula. The accused was posted on deputation
to BBMB on 12-8-1990. As per statement of Sh. S.C. Girhotra, his daughter
was studying in Sacred Heart School and he wanted to send his daughter
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
34/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
34
abroad. Thus, Ruchika was convent educated girl, very rich and had
influential background. She was modern and friendly with male trainees in
HLTA training court. It is too unnatural and improbable that a girl with
such a profile and background could entertain any apprehension from the
accused who did not wield any influence over the Panchkula police, as he
was on deputation to BBMB. It is further borne out from the admitted facts
that PW-10, SHO Panchkula did not register an FIR on the complaint of
manager of HLTA made on 16/17-8-90 which had been brought to
knowledge of SHO personally by the accused. In such factual scenario, this
is beyond reason to believe that two girls would entertain any fear against
the accused. The hypothesis of fear and apprehension is further shattered
by the fact that they went to play tennis in coaching centre on 14-8-1990 in
their own shift after Ruchika's visit to HLTA office on 12-8-1990. If they
were really scared with the position of the accused then why Ruchika
would have gone to play tennis in HLTA courts on 14-8-1990 which were
still under the control of Mr. Rathore and who remained the IG and
President of HLTA on that day also.
30.Ld. defence counsel contended that there are material contradictions in
Reemu's statement before the court due to which she is totally unreliable
witness and her evidence is unacceptable. She on one hand says that she
and Ruchika wanted to avoid Mr. Rathore on 14-8-1990 who comes to play
tennis at 6:30 p.m. and hence they went to play tennis at 4:30 p.m. but as
per her own statement, they stayed on the tennis court beyond 6:30 p.m. If
a witness who is only witness against the accused can modulate his
evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
35/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
35
of securing conviction, such a witness can not be considered reliable. In
support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case bearing citation Badri Vs State of
Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 560. In addition to above ld. Counsel also
relied upon the law bearing citation Maharj Deen and another Vs The
State 1996 CLJ 506, Tej Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1995 CLJ
1944 Raj. Further Ms. Aradhana is falsely introduced eye witness of the
prosecution. Prosecution has not produced any witness to prove that
he/she saw Reemu in HLTA office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 hours. Even PW-
15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra has testified that he saw Ruchika going from house to
HLTA office on 12-8-1990 around 12:00 hours and testified that she went
alone. The prosecution has not examined Sh. Paltoo and coach who
according to Reemu's statement were present in HLTA office on 12-8-1990
at 12:00 hours. This raises presumption against the prosecution that if
these witnesses had been examined, they would not have supported the
prosecution version. In support of her case ld. Counsel relied upon the law
bearing citation Habib Mohd. Vs State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC
51, Rama @ Dhaktu Worak Vs State AIR 1969 Goa, Daman and
Diu Vs State .
31.Ld. counsel contended that Ms. Reemu is unreliable witness. There are
contradictions and improvements in her evidence. Reemu explained in her
deposition after 15 years of the alleged incident that she is Sathi Khiladi as
mentioned in Ex P-1, but it can not be accepted as the same has come after
15 years. Ms. Ruchika played with many girls and boys besides Ms. Reemu.
This fact is deposed by Ms. Reemu in her statement, Ruchi was one of
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
36/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
36
them. Ruchi has signed at point H in complaint Ex P-3, but not on Ex P-1.
Investigation Officer Sh. Rajesh Ranjan has neither examined Ruchi u/s
161 Cr. P.C., although her signature and her mother's signature appears on
Ex P-3, which has been admitted by PW-2 during her cross examination,
nor investigated on this aspect and gave any findings. These facts lead to
the probability that Sathi Khiladi in Ex P-1 which had been prepared after
due deliberation, was mentioned for the purpose of introducing an eye
witness of choice. Ms. Ruchika was neither close to Ms. Reemu nor her
parents. PW-13, PW-1 and PW-2 have attempted to project that Ms.
Reemu and Ruchika were close friends and Ruchika was more close to
Smt. Madhu Prakash, the mother of Ms. Reemu. This has been proved
wrong and untenable by the facts and circumstances testified by PW-13,
PW-15, PW-1 and PW2 themselves. PW-13 Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu stated
in her statement that Ruchika used to play tennis with other players also
and some times she used to play with Munish too. Reemu's close
friendship with Ruchika is ruled out because Reemu did not go to see
Ruchika when she was ill in PGI nor went to see her when she died or
visited during her Kirya ceremony. Even her parents did not visit Ruchika
and her father on either of these occasions which has come in the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-2. Reemu even did not know the correct house address of
Ruchika, nor she knew her pet name as Rubby. She even did not know
Ruchika's father's profession. Even Ruchika's father Sh. S.C. Girhotra
stated that he knew Sh. Anand Prakash and his wife by name only. He self
stated that he came to know them after the incident. The cumulative effect
of aforesaid facts disproves the existence of any close relationship between
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
37/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
37
Reemu and Ruchika or between their parents. There are fatal
contradictions in the testimonies of PW-13 Reemu and PW-15 Sh. S.C.
Girhotra which disproves the prosecution story that Reemu accompanied
Ruchika to HLTA office at 12 hours on 12-8-1990. Reemu has stated that
on that date at about 11:00 a.m. Ruchika came to her house who was
seeing to be excited....... After that they went to HLTA to play. At that time
Paltoo, ball picker informed Ruchika that she has been called at 12:00
hours in the office by Sh. SPS Rathore. On the other hand PW-15 Sh. S.C.
Girhotra stated in his statement that Ruchika went to play tennis in
evening and not in the morning...... On 12-8-1990 she went to see the
accused at 12:00 O'clock. She went from the house about 15-20 minutes
prior to 12:00 O'clock. At that time, she was not having anything in her
hands. At another place in his statement, he says that Ruchika had her own
tennis racket which she used to take while playing. It has also come in his
evidence that traveling distance between his house and HLTA office was
approximately 15 minutes. The evidence of Sh. S.C. Girhora, father of Ms.
Ruchika, thus, completely falsify Reemu's story that Ruchika went to the
house of Reemu and spent some time in making alleged conversation and
later on went from Reemu's residence to HLTA courts which is again 10-15
minutes walking time. Ruchika could reach HLTA office around 12:00
hours if she goes directly from her house to HLTA. It, therefore, ruled out
the probability of Ruchika meeting Reemu on 12-8-1990 after she left her
home.
32.Conduct of Ms. Reemu of being mere spectator in HLTA office on 12-8-
1990 is very unnatural. She nowhere in her statement deposed that she
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
38/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
38
protested to the accused when she allegedly saw the accused forcibly
hugging Ruchika. She in her deposition has admitted the presence of two
officials of HLTA i.e. Paltoo and coach when she had gone to HLTA on 12-
8-1990. Both Ms. Ruchika and Ms. Reemu were fully acquainted and have
been dealing with them in coaching centre every day. If she was present
with Ruchika and seen anything objectionable, she would have naturally
been entertained and raised alarm or called Paltoo spontaneously for help.
Neither did Reemu nor Ruchika raised any alarm. The conduct of Reemu
of being silent mute spectator without resistance what they saw at the time
of alleged incident is very unnatural and nullifies her presence with
Ruchika on 12-8-1990 at HLTA office. The prosecution has not given any
explanation in regard to the said unnatural conduct and not examining
Paltoo and coach, therefore, it raised presumption against the prosecution.
In support of his arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in
case Sardar Singh Vs State of Haryana, State of Rajasthan Vs
Bhanwar Singh 2005 SCC (Crl) 73.
33.The next contention of ld. Defence counsel is that Ex PW8/A and its legend
negates Reemu's story of alleged incident. DW-1, DW-2, DW-4 and DW-16
have proved that there were wooden doors with windows in which plain
glass was fixed, in front of garage. PW-9 also proved that there was glazing
at point X in Ex PW8/A. Reemu has got legend of site prepared indicating
different situations / positions of chairs, tables, Ruchika and accused on
12-8-1990. But she did not remember about the partition at point X which
she had seen only five years ago i.e. 27-1-2000. This indicates that the
witness is not speaking truth before the court. Her version that the accused
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
39/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
39
fell down in his chair as soon as Reemu returned after calling the coach,
proved false by the legend which was prepared on her pointing.
34.It is also the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that minor girl's testimony
can not be relied upon. Reemu was minor girl aged about 13 years at the
time of alleged incident in 1990. She was examined on 5-3-2005 when she
was 28 years old. She was totally under the influence of her parents who
were accused in defamation complaint u/s 500 IPC instituted on 18-8-
1990. As such, her evidence can not be relied upon. In support of her
arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law Bhag Singh Vs State
ofHaryana PLR Vol. LXXXI 1979 page 265.
35.Ld. Defence counsel argued that the antecedents of the complainant and
her family members who have forged and fabricated documents, show that
the accused has been framed by them. Mrs. Madhu Prakash wife of Sh.
Anand Prakash is an advocate, hence her averments in Ex P-3 that they
have no knowledge of law is potently false. She filed Criminal Misc. no.
1694 to 1697 wherein she sworn affidavit that the facts stated therein are in
her knowledge, whereas she has no personal knowledge of facts stated
therein. Her statement that she was more close to Ruchika is belied by the
fact that she did not visit Ruchika during her illness in PGI nor she
attended her cremation. Filing of Criminal Misc. Petitions in the Hon'ble
High Court was the counter blast of the defamation case. She has admitted
that she was having friendly relations with police rivals of the accused.
36.Sh. Anand Prakash husband of Mrs. Madhu Prakash was Superintending
Engineer in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. He was
compulsorily retired from the service. There were adverse reports of
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
40/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
40
corruption and intergue and for causing losses to the Government. He
challenged his compulsory retirement by filing writ petition. In that writ
petition, the Haryana Government and Marketing Board filed their written
statement. This written statement contains the bad service record and his
character traits etc. Suit for recovery is also pending against him in the
name of A. P. Singh. He alongwith his wife and others had prepared Ex P-1
on 15-8-1990. It is in evidence of PW-4 that Sh. Anand Prakash got
signature of PW-4 on prepared draft of EX P-4 at latter's residence on 18-
8-1990. He had also prepared Ex P-3 on pre signed pages. He and his wife
and others have interpolated lines in certified copies of document Ex DC
which prosecution has attached with the challan. The said facts proves
bolstering up of the case of prosecution by filling up lacunas for securing
conviction. DW-6 has given evidence of past enmity of Sh. Anand
Prakash's family. He is pursuing his own vendetta against the accused
assisted behind the scene by various interested persons including service
rivals of the accused. Another witness Sh. Naresh Mittal is an influential
man of Panchkula. He is leader of Aggarwal community. He is son in law of
sister of Sh. Anand Prakash. He is having political and bureaucratic clouts
being office bearer of different associations. His political and bureaucratic
clout and money power as well as his powerful position in the Vaish Smaj
social group in the caste ridden society provided additional courage and
daring to Sh. Anand Prakash and his family to hatch and participate in
conspiracy against the accused. It has come in the evidence that there were
several FIRs lodged against Sh. Naresh Mittal over the years. Sh. S.C.
Girhotra, father of Ms. Ruchika was manager in UCO Bank. He was
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
41/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
41
convicted by CBI for corruption. His father in law was DSP CBI and his
own brother was an industrialist. His sister in law was working in bank in
Chandigarh. These persons were all living in Panchkula. His demand for
money has been tape recorded and put before the court as mark D-55, D-
56, D-57 and D-58. DW-9 and DW-17 have given evidence regarding
demand of money on tape recording of conversation. However, he refused
before the court to get his voice compared. Adverse influence is to be
drawn against him for refusing to get his voice compared. Hence, the
evidence on behalf of witness is coloured and interested.
37.Ld. defence counsel argued that there is material inconsistency and forgery
/manipulation in the prosecution documents made as Exhibits by the
prosecution. Ld. Counsel pressed that documents Ex P1 to Ex P4 are false
and forged. Factum regarding Ex P-1 has already been discussed. As regard
to Ex P-2 ld. Counsel argued that it remained in illegal custody of PW-1
and it was tendered by him in the court first time on 17-4-2003. The
statement therein can not be read as they do not fall under section 157 of
Evidence Act. Coach and Manager who have written the alleged note have
not been produced. Document expert has opined that documents have
been tempered by cutting the bottom of the paper. The SDM had made
some endorsement in Hindi on it which is missing. Ex P-3 complaint
which was organised by PW-1 Sh. Anand Prakash and on 18-8-1990 it was
presented to Sh. Anil Dhawan, the then SHO, Panchkula around 12:00
hours on the same day. Author of the document Ex P-3 is disputed. PW-1
Sh. Anand Prakash say that Ex P-3 is written by him, whereas PW-5 claims
that he wrote Ex P-3. However Ex P-3 was incorrectly made Exhibits, but
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
42/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
42
after that the prosecution failed to prove the signature of Sh. Anand
Prakash and any writing of Sh. Anand Prakash on it. Ex P-3 is, therefore,
defectively proved and can not be read into evidence. It was not clarified
from the remaining signature appearing on the said document. It appears
that complaint was made on a pre signed page. Ex P-3 bear signature
written as Ruchika. Late Ruchika's admitted signatures were not procured
from her school etc. for proving the document allegedly bearing her
signature. Therefore, her signatures are not proved. Ex. P4 is a photo copy
and not original document and is inadmissible in evidence. Material of Ex.
P-4 is the same as Ex P-1. Memorandum Ex P1 is in 5 pages and is signed
by several persons, all of whom are family members of Sh. Anand Prakash
or his close relatives or neighbourers. Memorandum Ex P-4 is in six pages
and is photo copy. On the 6th page, which is back page of 5th page of Ex P-1.
It has approximately 50 signatures. Circumstances as emerged after
recording of prosecution evidence reveals that Ex P-3 and Ex P-4 were
created on 18-8-1990 and signatures were obtained on separate blank
sheets which were then photo stated on the reverse of the back of the 5 th
page. CBI, however, managed to get it Exhibited. In such circumstances,
these documents can not be relied upon.
38.Ld. Defence counsel pressed that adverse presumption is to be drawn
against the prosecution for not producing the material link witnesses, site
witnesses and independent witnesses. The presence of Ball picker Paltoo
and coach T. Thomas in front of HLTA office on 12-8-1990 at 12:00 hours
has been stated by Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu in her statement. Therefore,
Ball Picker Paltoo and Coach T. Thomas Babu Raj were material witnesses
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
43/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
43
of the prosecution. Paltoo was not even examined u/s 161 Cr. P.C.. Both
Paltoo and T. Thomas have not been brought by the prosecution before the
court for examination. This is a serious inconsistency which is fatal to
prosecution. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law
laid down in cases bearing citation Harijana Thirupala and others VS
Public Prosecutor 2002 (3) RCR Crl 861 SC, State of Punjab Vs
Ajaib Singh 2005 SCC (crl) 43, Jamuna Chaudhary Vs State AIR
1974 SC 1822. No witness from the locality has been examined by the
prosecution, particularly Sh.R.S. Chauhan, his sons Sh. Anup and Sh.
Baboo who assembled on 14-8-1990 before the Panchkula residence of
accused in the evening. Investigation officer has not examined the gunman
of the accused u/s 161 Cr. P.C. and thus did not bring before this court the
evidence of the most natural eye witness. Non examination of this witness
only point out that occurrence as put up by the prosecution before the
court did not take place. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied
upon the law laid down in cases bearing citation Brajabandhu Naik and
others Vs State 1975 Cr LJ 1933, Habib Mohd. Vs State of
Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51, Thulla Khali Vs State of Tamil Nadu
AIR 1973 SC 501, Harijana Thirupala and others VS Public
prosecutor 2002 (3) RCR Crl. 861.
39.Ld. counsel further argued that prosecution has failed to prove the
allegations beyond doubt. The prosecution has to stand on its feet and has
to prove the allegations beyond any doubt. In support of her arguments,
Ld. counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing citation State
of Himachal Pradesh Vs Varinder Singh 2002 (2) RCR (Crl) 769,
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
44/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
44
Dwarka Das Vs State of Haryana 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) SC 794. But
the prosecution failed to prove the present case beyond doubt. The
prosecution failed to prove that Ms. Reemu is an eye witness or even a
reliable witness. PW-15 Sh. S.C.Girhotra in his statement dated 30-5-2005
stated that Mr. Rathore came to his residence on 11-8-1990 at about 12:00
hours and mentioned that his daughter will be made very good player of
tennis through special training and asked him not to send her to Canada
and send her to HLTA office for discussion on 12-8-1990. This statement
has been denied by Mr. Girhotra himself in the reply filed in damages suit
instituted by the accused in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Chandigarh on 3-
11-2003 which is Ex D-17. He has admitted his signature on written
statement Ex D-17. He further stated that it is correct that accused never
came to his house and never meet him. Totally opposite and contradictory
statement has been made by him before two courts. It shatters his
credibility and render his evidence before this court unreliable and
rejectable. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused called Ruchika
to visit him. As already pointed out, there are fatal contradictions in the
statement of Reemu and Ruchika's father Sh. S.C. Girhotra regarding the
fact and time of leaving the house by Ms. Ruchika on 12-8-1990. The fact
that the accused sent Reemu to call the coach through Paltoo is not proved
because Paltoo and coach have not been examined. Similarly, due to non
examination of Paltoo, it is not established that accused called Ruchika on
14-8-1990. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that
notice Ex P-4 was the suspension order of Ms. Ruchika signed on 15-8-
1990 i.e. after PW-1, PW-2 etc. went to HLTA office on the evening of 14-8-
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
45/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
45
1990 to meet the accused. This circumstance has been proved to be wrong
and fabricated. The suspension order had been signed and issued on 13-8-
1990. This fact is also evident from the reading of contents of Ex P-2,
besides Ex P-2 has been tempered by Sh. Anand Prakash. There are several
missing links in prosecution case as prosecution has not examined the
coach, manager and Paltoo. These facts adversely effect the case of
prosecution. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law
laid down in cases bearing citation State of UP Vs Ashok Kumar 1992
CLJ 1104, Ram Dass Vs State of Maharastra 1977 CLJ 955.
40.The next contention of Ld. Defence counsel is that the incident is
absolutely improbable. It has been proved by leading evidence that the
accused is an IPS officer of 1965 batch. By virtue of his integrity and moral
character, he earned promotion from rank to rank and reached to rank of
IG police in the year 1990 and DGP of State of Haryana in the year 1999.
During his service in the State of Haryana he worked as Superintendent of
Police at District Kurukshetra, Rohtak, Sirsa, Ambala and Karnal and was
DIG of Hisar range. He also headed the vigilance organisation of State
Electricity Board and BBMB. During his service he has been awarded five
in service medals including President medal for meritorious service. These
facts have come in the evidence of DW-8. The aforesaid service record of
accused is proof of his good reputation, integrity and high moral character.
PW-6 Sh. R.R. Singh has also admitted in his cross examination that he
had never, prior to 12-8-1990, heard of any complaint of misbehavior of
Mr. Rathore with any lady. PW-10 DSP Anil Kumar has also admitted in
his cross examination that prior to 16-8-1990 he got no information
-
8/9/2019 SPS Rathore-Ruchika Trial Court Judgement
46/97
CBI Vs SPS Rathore
46
regarding any obscene conduct of the accused with any lady. PW-11 also
deposed that he always heard well about moral character of the accused
and honesty. DW-9 testified that he never heard anything adverse against
t
top related