Upholding the conviction of former Haryana director general of police (DGP) S.P.S.
Upholding the conviction of former Haryana director general of police (DGP) S.P.S. Rathore for molesting a 15-year-old girl, Ruchika, the Supreme Court on Friday let him off by reducing the sentence of 18 months imprisonment to the one he had already undergone, which is five months. The girl had committed suicide after the molestation incident came to light.
Disposing of an appeal filed by Mr Rathore against a Punjab and Haryana high court verdict refusing to interfere with an order of the 18-month imprisonment, a Bench of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and R.K. Agrawal said, “There is devastating increase in cases relating to crime against women in the world and our country is also no exception to it.” The Bench said, “Although the statutory provisions provide strict penal action against such offenders, it is for the courts to ultimately decide whether such incident has occurred or not. The courts should be more cautious in appreciating the evidence and the accused should not be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds. Mr Agrawal said, “We do not find any reason for the prosecution witness to depose falsely against the appellant-accused.
There is, thus, every possibility that Ms Ruchika could have been embraced by the appellant in the manner as described by the witness.
The high court said the prosecution was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The high court, on proper re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the right conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC was made out.”
Rejecting Mr Rathore’s contention that he has been falsely implicated, the Bench said a charge under Section 354 of the IPC is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. The Bench, however, said it be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance. When a plea is taken by the appellant-accused that he has been falsely implicated, courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations made against him. In the instant case, both the trial court and the high court have done that. There is no scope for taking a different view from the view already been taken by the courts below. The Bench, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to the one he had already undergone.
