CBI Vs SPS Rathore

IN THE COURT OF JASBIR SINGH SIDHU

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: CHANDIGARH.

Challan No : 3/17-11-2000, 12T/19-4-2006

RBT191/17-11-2009
Date of Decision : 21-12-2009
Computer 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 3-1-2000

U/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-
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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.
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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.
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

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
 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

 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,
 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
 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
 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

 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-
 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
 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.
 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
 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

 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-
 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.
 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

 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
 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
 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
 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
 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

 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
 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
 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
 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
 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

citation AIR (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
 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
 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

 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
 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

 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
 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
 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

 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

 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
 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
 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,

 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-
 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

 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

the accused. The evidence of good moral character and integrity by itself

disown the allegations of misbehavior by the accused towards Ms. Ruchika

who was of the age of his daughter. In support of her arguments, Ld.

counsel relied upon the law laid down in cases bearing citation Habib

Mohammad Vs State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51,

Bhagwanswarup Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1965 SC 682. It is

now of vital relevance to consider the probability or improbability of

prosecution story in this background. As per prosecution version, the

accused send the companion of Ruchika to call the tennis coach who would

be behind the HLTA office and in the meantime molested Ruchika, but the

distance which was to be covered by Reemu as per prosecution evidence is

only 91 feet. This implies that the time taken by Reemu, a young tennis

player in going to call tennis coach and returning to office would hardly be

one minute or so, a fact which is very well known to the accused because he

knows the dimensions of the plot on which his house is being constructed.

Thus the vital question/query arises out of prosecution version is that

whether a senior police officer who has been credited with his unblemished

record for integrity and moral character, who spent his lifetime curbing

crime and criminal activities, would in broad day light in the presence of

his gunman and others in close vicinity, would send a girl out the office for

a task that would take hardly a minute or so and would proceed to commit

a criminal act in the open and unhidden way which could be noticed by
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

47

other persons in the house which was under construction. The answer is

obviously negative. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon

the law laid down in case bearing citation AIR 1954 SC 711.

41. The sketch plan and legend which is Ex PW8/A also shows that the

incident was improbable. Ex PW8/A (Though it is inadmissible under the

law for corroboration by the prosecution being hit u/s 162 of Cr. P.C.) also

confirms the improbability of alleged occurrence. The said site plan shows

that HLTA office is 6 feet in width and 9 feet and 4 inches east west in

length. The legend does not mention the size of office table. It has come in

the evidence of DW-1 that the size of office table was approximately 4x3

feet. The distance between A to B was 2.5 to 3 feet, between B and C is 3

feet, the chair at point B would naturally be at middle of his office. If the

table is placed at some distance as shown in Ex PW8/A even 6 to 9 inches

from X, the passage for reaching from C to A was hardly 15 inches. It

obviously does not allow free movement. Legend shows that when Reemu

left the HLTA office to call the coach, Ruchika was standing at point C and

accused was sitting at point A. The prosecution version is that incident

took place at point I and H where the accused and Ruchika respectively

stood. It is not the prosecution case that alleged misbehavior took place at

point C where Ruchika originally stood. The question as how Ruchika

reached at point H has not been answered by the prosecution and chain of

alleged events has broken. Further PW-13 Aradhana said that accused on

seeing her fell down on his chair leaving Ruchika. As per the prosecution

version accused was at point I when PW-13 returned to HLTA office and

point A is where accused's chair was placed on which he was sitting. As per
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

48

PW-8 distance between A to I is 2.5 feet. It is, thus, clear that accused can

not fell down in his chair as deposed by Reemu. Due to this reason, the

story of the prosecution is highly improbable and same can not be

believed.

42.Ld. defence counsel submitted that it has come in defence evidence that

there was rivalry between two tennis associations, 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 patronage of Sh. B.S. Ojha. Earlier

the accused did not step down from the presidentship of the HLTA in

favour of Mr. Ojha which had annoyed Mr. Ojha who had ordered enquiry

by Sh. R.R.Singh.

43.The accused interalia has examined four witnesses of the spot i.e. DW-1 Sh.

Ved Prakash Chowkidar, Sh. Ram Pyare,Sh. Surender Kumar and Sh.

Chander Pal. These were the spot witnesses who were present at the time

of Ruchika's meeting with accused at HLTA. These witnesses have

effectively bestood the cross examination. They are independent witnesses.

It has come in the evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 that Ms. Ruchika

alone had come to the office on 12-8-1990 and was scolded and asked to

get out of the office by the accused on her refusal to submit apology to the

coach. She went away in presence and in front of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3

normally and nothing untoward happened. DW-5 has proved the

suspension order of Ms. Ruchika mark-5 which was typed and issued on

13-8-1990. It has come in the evidence of DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4 that Ms.

Ruchika had committed act of indiscipline on 10-8-1990, 13-8-1990 and

14-8-1990 in the tennis court in HLTA. It also came in the evidence of DW-
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

49

1 and DW-4 that she was prevented from playing on the evening of 14-8-

1990 by Sh. Platoo, ball picker due to her suspension, whereupon both the

girls left the court angrily threatening to teach him and his master a lesson.

Ruchika's suspension w.e.f. 13.8.1990 has been mentioned in Ex P-2 which

is a prosecution document. It is further relevant that DW-4 has stated in

his deposition that the notice on which SDM wrote something was type

written document and not Ex P-2. The SDM, PW-7 has not denied about

his endorsement in Hindi on some document. It, therefore, lead to a strong

probability that the copy of suspension order dated 13-8-1990 was given by

the manager alongwith Ex P-2 and SDM made endorsement on it and kept

it with him for submitting / showing to Sh. J. K. Duggal who had sent him

to take over the coaching centre. The SDM handed over Ex P-2 to PW-1

after obtaining the statement of coach and manager under coercion on Ex

P-2.

44.It has come in the evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-4 that coach and

manager were beaten and terrorized by Sh. Anand Prakash and Sh. Naresh

Mittal in the coaching centre on 16-8-1990. It has further come in evidence

of DW-4 that SDM asked the coach to bring out the notice of suspension of

Ruchika and manager Sh. Kuldeep Singh brought the notice from the

notice board and thereafter the SDM in his presence before the crowd

where PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 etc. were shouting slogans, got recorded on

the notice by coach and manager that Ruchika did not commit any act of

indiscipline. It has come in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-

19 and PW-15 that SDM Sh. Joshi taken over the control of coaching centre

of HLTA and deputed players PW-3 and PW-4 to lift the registers of HLTA
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

50

which was a registered body and took them away without issuing any

receipt to manager of HLTA. PW-10 Sh. Anil Dhawan has stated that SDM

had said that he was taking over the HLTA at the instance of Home

Secretary, Haryana. The illegal act of PW-12 to send the SDM to coaching

centre after receipt of Ex P-1, to take control of the centre indicates strong

probability that the SDM got the note regarding the innocence of Ms.

Ruchika recorded on Ex P2 by the coach and manager on the instructions

from PW-12. The relevant question which arose at this stage is that why

and how PW-1 and his family members were taking such aggressive lead in

this incident in the company of senior police officers directly working

under Mr. Ojha, IAS, Sports Secretary and P.S. to Chief Minister, Haryana

and getting support of PW-12 Sh. J. K. Duggal, IAS, Home Secretary and

President of rival tennis association. In this connection it has come in the

evidence of DW-6 Sh. Karan Singh that PW-1 nurtured old grudge against

the accused on account of action taken by the accused on the father of PW-

1 against whom there were complaints of Satta gambling. PW-1 even

blamed the accused for the chargesheet issued by Marketing Board to PW-

1. It has come in the evidence of DW-10 Sh. Om Parkash Kathuria, Chief

Engineer and Secretary HLTA, DW-9 Sh. Karan Singh that PW-1 had told

him in July 1990 that Mr. Ojha and Mr. Duggal, IAS are angry with the

accused and want to throw him away from HLTA and that PW-1 will settle

his old score with Sh. Rathore. It has also come in the evidence of DW-9

Sh. Karan Singh that PW-14 Sh. B.S. Ojha and PW-12 Sh.J. K. Duggal held

animus against the accused as Mr. Ojha's suggestion that accused should

resign in his favour for his becoming president of HLTA, was turned down
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

51

by the accused and there was ongoing civil litigation between Sh. J. K.

Duggal and the accused. It has also come in the evidence of PW-1 and DW-

8 Bhagwan Dass that DIG, C.M. Flying Squad Sh. C. P. Bansal, working

directly under the control of Sh. B. S. Ojha, was present at the time of

drafting of Ex P-1 at the residence of PW-1 on 15-8-1990. Ex P-1 without

any endorsement from Sh. J. K. Duggal reaches to PW-14 Sh. B.S. Ojha

who orders for holding an enquiry by Sh. R.R. Singh against the accused

himself due to enmity against the accused. The evidence reaches to

irresistible conclusion that Ex P-1 was managed and procured on the

behest of PW-12 and PW-14 with predetermined motive to frame the

accused and in order to force his removal from the position of president of

HLTA on the ground of moral turpitude. The driving motive of PW-1 Sh.

Anand Prakash, architect of the complaint, is his past grudge against the

accused as well as his motive to derive benefit in his own service career

which was highly chequered. The encouragement given to Sh. Anand

Prakash and malicious conspiracy to frame the accused in false case is

indicated by the fact that Sh. Anand Prakash was rewarded by granting

promotion to the rank of Chief Engineer, despite pending vigilance enquiry

and report of corruption against him, within four months of the drafting of

complaint Ex P-1 and presenting of Ex P-1 to Home Secretary Sh. J. K.

Duggal on 16-8-1990. This fact of bad service record and his promotion

within four months of presentation of complaint has been admitted by

PW-1 Sh Anand Prakash in his statement. He admitted that in the year

1969-70 he was posted as SDO at Naraingarh and road was got repaired by

him. The Marketing Board had charge-sheeted him for 1/3rd amount of
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

52

that work in 1991. He self stated that charge-sheet was issue under

pressure of accused. He admitted that a suit for recovery of Rs.51,456/-

was filed against him. He further stated that in the year of 1990-91 adverse

remarks were conveyed to him in his ACR which was for doubtful integrity,

encouraging factionalism and groupism amongst the colleagues and

subordinates, inefficient and corrupt officer. He admitted that in the year

of 1985 he was demoted as Executive Engineer from Superintending

Engineer and in the year of 1990 he was converted as Superintending

Engineer from back date. He was promoted as Chief Engineer on 5-12-

1990. Due to this, innocence of accused is well established. Ld. Counsel

stated that innocence of an accused person may be established on the

testimony of single witness, even though a considerable number of

witnesses may be forthcoming to testify the truth of the case for the

prosecution. In support of her arguments, Ld. counsel relied upon the law

laid down in case bearing citation Vadivelu Thever Vs State of Madras AIR

1957 SC 614. Ld. Defence counsel concluded that in such circumstances,

the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused and the accused

is entitled to be acquitted in the present case.

45.In rebuttal, Ld. PP for the CBI/prosecution argued that the accused has

examined DW-6 Sh. Shadi Lal to establish that Sh. Anand Prakash was

hostile towards the accused right from 1993, but no such grounds are made

out from his statement. The accused had simply directed the SHO, Ladwa

that if complaints against Sh. Babu Ram, father of PW-1 were correct, he

should be put behind the bar, otherwise he should not be harassed. The

accused had issued such a direction which was expected from an officer.
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

53

Moreover, DW-6 has deposed falsely and stated in his statement only those

facts which suit the accused. No person can remember such a trifle matter

after a period of 15 years. However, no such question or suggestion was put

to PW-1 in his cross examination. Hence, it is an after thought.

46.Ld. PP argued that as per defence memo Ex P-1 was prepared in

consultation with police officers especially Sh. C.B.Bansal,DIG and Sh.

Sham Lal,DSP. This argument is not tenable. A perusal of memo Ex. P-1

would show that whatever was written in it was a spontaneous outburst

and reaction of the persons who came to know about the incident. If it was

prepared on the directions or in consultation with police officers, it would

have been in the form of FIR and not in a memorandum. Its bare reading

shows that it was drafted by layman. If it was prepared in consultation of

police officers to implicate the accused falsely, witnesses would have not

shown the presence of police officers in their statement in the court.

Moreover, accused could not prove/show that these police officers were on

inimical terms with the accused and were interested in false implication.

47.The memorandum as per the evidence of witnesses was prepared on 15-8-

1990 at the house of PW-1. Memorandum bears the signatures of some

persons who put the date as 16-8-1990 under their signatures. There is no

discrepancy in it. PW-1 in his statement has stated that it was signed on 15-

16.8.90. The defence failed to discern as what the accused wants to say

from this. All the persons who signed the memorandum were not

witnesses of the fact which was written in it. They wanted that action

should be taken against the accused on the basis of facts mentioned

therein, therefore, it is not unnatural conduct of the persons who signed on

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

54

16-8-1990. It has been argued by the defence that if memorandum Ex P-1

was based on true facts Sh. S.C.Girhotra must have signed on it being

father of victim girl. He has stated in the statement before the court that he

signed on additional sheet attached to it. He has proved his signature on

Ex P-4 on additional page. He clarified that at that time his condition was

bad that is why he did not dictate the memorandum. It is, but natural that

after a serious incident with his daughter, his condition was bad. It is a

matter of common experience that in given situation person reacts

differently. In support of his arguments, Ld. PP relied upon the law laid

down in cases bearing citation State of UP Vs Devendra Singh 2004

CLJ 3118 SC, Dinesh BorthakurVs State of Assam 2008 III AD

Crl. SC 21, State of Tamil Nadu Vs Suresh 1998 CLJ 1416 SC.

48.It has been pointed out by the accused that in memorandum Ex P-1 name

of Ms. Aradhana has not been mentioned and the accused alleged her as

planted witness being daughter of PW-1. PW-1 in his statement has

mentioned the reasons for non mentioning the name of Ms. Anuradha in

the memorandum. He has not mentioned her name because the persons

present at the time preparation of memorandum were of the opinion that

in case her name is mentioned on it, the accused being high rank police

officer would harass her.

49.It is alleged by the defence that Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Sh. T. Thomas and Sh.

Paltoo were beaten by PW-1 and others and by force Sh. Kuldeep Singh

and Sh. T. Thomas were made to right Ex P-2. However, during final

arguments it has been contended that Ex P-2 is not the same notice which

was affixed on the notice board. It has also been argued that the same was
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

55

tempered with. From these contradictory contentions, it is not made out

that what stand the accused wants to take. The case of accused that

accused persons were beaten is belied by the fact that during cross

examination Sh. Anil Dhawan, PW-10 has stated that Manager Sh.

Kuldeep Singh and coach T. Thomas were standing by the side of Jali and

no suggestion was given to him that they were beaten by someone. He also

stated that none of them complained either to him or to Sh. S. K. Joshi

about having been beaten up by anyone. They were present there in relax

mood. As per PW-10 Sh. Anil Dhawan, Sh. Kuldeep Singh has lodged two

reports with him, one on 16-8-1990 which was lodged at the instructions of

accused and the other on 17-8-1990. He found both the reports very

contradictory.

50.Ld. PP pressed that during cross examination of PW-1 Sh. Anand Prakash,

no suggestion has been given to him that notice Ex P-2 was tempered with

and this was not the same notice which was affixed on the notice board.

51. The contention of defence that endorsements which are in the hand

written on Ex P-2 was obtained by using force and Sh. T. Thomas and Sh.

Kuldeep Singh were beaten by the witnesses, is belied from the statement

of Sh. Anil Dhawan, PW-10. He had gone to the residence of accused at

Panchkula on 14-8-1990 at 9/9:30 p.m. on being summoned by the

accused. Both Sh. Kuldeep Singh and T. Thomas both were present, but

none of them complained about the beating and threats by witnesses. It

was the accused who informed him about the threats and beating of these

persons. The natural conduct demands that the victim should have stated

the incident in their words because the accused was not present at the time
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

56

of alleged incident on 14-8-1990. This shows that accused by exerting his

pressure by virtue of being IG police wanted to harass and pressurize the

witnesses with the sole object that they out of fear might not proceed

against the accused. If it was a fact that they were beaten and report was

lodged by Sh. Kuldeep Singh on his own, there was no necessity to lodge

another report on 17-8-1990 especially when no other incident had

happened. Sh. S. K. Joshi who had no grudge to grind against the accused

has also stated that Sh. Kuldeep Singh had informed him that notice was

affixed on the directions of the accused and they gave in writing that

Ruchika had committed no act indiscipline. Sh. S. K. Joshi does not say

that these two persons had informed him that the witnesses who were

there gave them beating. It has come in the statement of Sh.Anil Dhawan,

PW-10 that he did not find truth in the complaint of Sh. Kuldeep Singh.

This goes to show that accused wanted the witness to act upon the false

complaint with th sole object to harass the witnesses.

52.Ld. PP alleged that the accused has tried to explain that the procession

which passed through on 26-8-1990 raising slogans against Ruchika and in

favour of accused by suggesting that it was comprising of those persons

who were working on 12-8-1990 as labourers in the house of accused and

they were protesting as their statements were not written by Sh. R. R.

Singh on 21-8-1990. There were 50-60 persons in the procession. It is not

the case of accused that on 12-8-1990 about 50 persons were working at

his house. However, the accused has not disclosed the names of those

persons who were working at his house and were the part of that

procession. These persons had no reason or occasion to protest and raise

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

57

slogans against Ruchika and in favour of accused. It is not in evidence that

they were demanding that their statements be recorded.

53.It is alleged by the accused that investigation was not done by the DIG

himself and the accused was investigated by Sh. Harbhajan Ram, but in

fact, Sh. Rajesh Rajan, DIG CBI himself conducted the investigation of the

case. During the investigation he was assisted by certain officers of CBI

including Sh. Harbhajan Ram, the then SP. The Hon'ble High Court and

Hon'ble Supreme Court in their orders have nowhere ordered that

Investigation officer can not take the assistance of subordinates in the

investigation of the case. There is no force in this contention.

54.There is lot of criticism from the side of accused that why Sh. Kuldeep

Singh and T. Thomas were not made witness to prove the notice Ex P-2.

The Investigation officer in his statement has given the reasons for that,

that he did not make them as prosecution witness as he did not think

relevant to prove Ex P-2 as his focus was only on the main allegations

which was act of molestation. He denied the suggestion that he did not

make Sh. T. Thomas and Sh. Kuldeep Singh witnesses as they would

unveiled the forgery behind the document. A perusal of statement of Sh.

Rajesh Rajan reveals that investigation was fair and after through

investigation he formed opinion that accused has committed offence

punishable u/s 354 of IPC and filed the charge sheet.

55.It came in the evidence that Ruchika was present on 15-8-1990 at the

house of Sh. Anand Prakash when memorandum Ex P-1 was prepared and

put her signature on it. Ruchika and other persons had gone to tennis

court and then to the house of accused on 14-8-1990 to meet the accused.
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

58

There on being asked by PW-3 and PW-4 she stated that she was molested

by the accused. On 16-8-1990 she alongwith witnesses and other persons

had gone to Secretariat to meet the Chief Minster and Home Minister to

apprise them about the incident and to give the memorandum. On 16-8-

1990 she alongwith other persons went to tennis court. On 18-8-1990 she

signed the report which was presented to the SHO. The witnesses have

identified the signature of Ruchika on Ex P-1 and Ex P-2. She had gone to

give her statement before Sh. R. R. Singh on 21-8-90. She was aged about

14 years at that time. From these facts, it was proved that she was mature

girl who could not be tutored. She was mature enough to know the

consequence of allegations in her life. Allegation of molestation might have

ruined her future life. No girl would ever label such false allegations

especially when she and her father had no enmity with the accused. In

support of his arguments, ld. PP for the CBI relied upon the law laid down

in cases bearing citation Aman Kumar and anr. Vs State of Haryana 2004

CLJ 1399 SC, Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerla 2004 CLJ 605 SC. She and her

father had nothing to do with the alleged dispute between rival tennis

associations. Same is the position of Sh. S.C. Girhotra, PW-15. There is no

evidence which may even remotely suggest that he had any enmity with the

accused. Only on the ground that PW-15 was prosecuted by CBI in a

corruption case and was convicted, it can not be said that he will falsely

implicate the accused.

56.The accused has contended that statement recorded by Sh. R. R. Singh can

not be used by the prosecution for the purpose of corroboration u/s 157 of

the Evidence Act. The contention of the accused is not tenable at all. This
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

59

section envisages two categories of statements of witnesses, which can be

used for corroboration. First is the statement made by a witness to any

person at or about the time when the fact took place. The second is the

statement made by him to any authority legally competent to investigate

the fact such statement gains admissibility, no matter that it was made

long after the incident. But if the statement was made to non authority it

losses its probative value due to lapse of time. Then the question is, within

how much time the statement should have been made? If it was made

contemporaneous with the occurrence the statement has a greater value as

res-geste and then it is substantive evidence. But if it was made only after

some interval of time, the statement looses its probative utility as resgeste.

Sh. R. R. Singh was an authority legally competent to investigate the fact,

Sh. R.R. Singh was asked by the Government to enquire the facts given in

the memorandum and to report. To make a person an authority legally

competent to investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having

authority which flow from a statute. It is sufficient that such person was

authorised legally by the Government to investigate the fact. As such, Sh.

R. R. Singh was authority competent to investigate the fact in question and

the statement given by the witnesses before him are admissible in evidence

irrespective of time gap between the time when incidents occurred and the

date on which the statements were given. If, for the sake of arguments, it is

considered that Sh. R. R. Singh was not an authority legally competent to

investigate the fact, even then the statement given by the witnesses before

him would be admissible in evidence and would have the corroborative

value. They are admissible in evidence. U/S 157 of the Evidence Act, every
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

60

former statement made before any person would be admissible in evidence

provided it was made at or about the time when the fact took place. In the

case titled State of Tamil Nadu Vs Suresh 1998 CLJ 1416 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under :-

What is meant by the expression at or about the time when

the fact took place. There can be a narrow view that unless

such a statement was made soon after the occurrence it can

not be used for corroboration. A broader view is that even if

such statement was made within a reasonable proximity of

time still such statement can be used for corroboration. The

legislature would not have intended to limit the time factor to

close proximity though a long distance of time would deprive

if of its utility even for corroboration purposes.

We thing that the expression at or about the time when the

fat took place in section 157 of the Evidence Act should be

understood in the context according to the facts and

circumstances of each days, in a given case, may not be

sufficient to exclude the statement from the use envisaged in

section 157 of the Act. The test to be adopted , therefore, is

this. Did the witness have the opportunity to concoct or to

have been tutored?. IN this context the observation of Vivian

Bose, Justice Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC

54 is apposite

57.In the above case the interval between the period of occurrence and the

statement used for corroboration was 14 days. In the present case time gap
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

61

between the offence committed and statement given to Sh. R.R. Singh is

only 8 days.

58.Ld. PP stated that the accused during the arguments tried to assassinate

the character of Sh. Anand Prakash, PW-1 by extensively reading from the

written statement Mark D-4 filed by Smt. Neelam Kasni, DW-15. Certified

copy of the document mark D-4 has been exhibited as DW14/1 by DW-14.

The said written statement can not be used by the accused for any purpose.

Smt. Neelam Kasni has not deposed anything about the fact contained in

the said written statement. Moreover, she has stated in her statement that

the facts contained in the written statement are not based on her personal

knowledge. Therefore, there arises no question of it being admissible in

evidence. Apart from this, the matter, as per statement of DW-14, is still

subjudiced. The contents of written statement were not based on the

personal knowledge of the witness, therefore, the contents of the written

statement can not be used. It is also submitted that the writ petition filed

by the accused as per the statement of DW-14 was allowed by the Hon'ble

High Court in favour of accused. However, on appeal by the opposite party,

the matter has been remanded back to the single Judge of Hon'ble High

Court for decision.

59.The accused has made extensive use of plaint in respect of recovery suit

filed in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Ambala to assossinate the character of

PW-1 Sh. Anand Prakash. In respect of that also DW-13 Sh. S.S. Dahiya as

admitted in his cross examination that he had not personal knowledge

regarding the contents in Mark-D-1. The said matter is already subjudiced.

Therefore, it can not be used impeach the credibility of PW-1.

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

62

60.All the witnesses including Sh. J. K. Duggal and Sh. B.S. Ojha examined by

the prosecution are the independent witnesses. The enmity/grudge

suggested by the accused to Sh. J. K. Duggal and Sh. B.S. Ojha is in fact, no

enmity. This matter i.e. dispute over the control over the HLTA was of such

a trifling nature that nobody would like to remember it. The accused wants

the court to believe that Mr. Duggal and Mr. Ojha made such plan in which

other witnesses were roped in to take revenge because they could not get

control over the HLTA. If these persons, who were occupying high posts in

the Government of Haryana were inimical to the accused and wanted to

implicate falsely in criminal case of this nature, they would have pursued

the matter and ensured the registration of a criminal case against the

accused in the police station especially when Sh. R.R. Singh had submitted

his finding and recommendation in his report dated 3-9-1990 that a case is

made out against the accused. This falsify the claim of the accused that he

has been implicated by these persons because of dispute over the control of

HLTA.

61. The Chief Minister and Home Minister had ordered the enquiry in the

allegations contained in memorandum Ex P-1. This enquiry was not

departmental enquiry. The contention of the accused that he was on

deputation with Central Government, Government of Haryana had no

jurisdiction to order enquiry against him, is not tenable.

62.The Ld. PP for CBI opposed that site plan Ex PW1/A is inadmissible in

evidence and is hit by section 162 of Cr. P.C. A perusal of statement of Sh.

Sohan Lal Kajal and Sh. Sunil Malik, PW-8 and PW-9 respectively would

show that it was prepared by these witnesses and not by the Investigation
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

63

officer and the locations mentioned in the legend were based on the

pointing out by Aradhana, PW-13. Threfore, whatever Ms. Aradhana told

to these witnesses and reflected in the site plan would be considered to be

her previous statement to these witnesses which corroborate the statement

given by her to the court. Whatever was stated to these witnesses by Ms.

Anuradha is not hit by Section 162 Cr. P.C. This site plan was prepared

after 10 years of the incident, therefore, it can not be equated with the site

plan which are generally prepared by the police officers during

investigation on the pointing out of the witnesses immediately after the

commission of the offence. The site plan filed by the accused does not help

in finding out the exact position of the garage at the time of incident.

63.Sh. Anand Praksh, Mrs. Madhu Prakash, Sh. Naresh Mittal, Ms. Aradhana

and Sh. S.C.Girhotra had no grudge against the accused during the time

when this incident happened and they had no reason to implicate the

accused falsely in this case. The enquiries conducted against PW-1 Sh.

Anand Prakash have nothing to do with this case. It may be mentioned

that he during cross examination has admitted the enquiries condcuted

against him, which makes him truthful witness. He has not concealed

anything. Moreover, in those mattes he was exonerated and was promoted

as Chief Engineer. Perusal of cross examination of PW-15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra

would show that the accused had admitted the existence of Ex P-2 on 16-8-

1990. In cross examination of this witness he has put his case and has

suggested that on 16-8-1990 after the preparation of Ex P-2, it was given to

Sh. Anand Prakash PW-1 who also was present at that time. It has been

argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that Sh. S.C. Girhotra has
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

64

admitted that the accused never visited his house nor he met him. It

appears that the witness under some confusion made the statement as is

apparent from the subsequent cross examination by the accused. He has

denied the suggestion that the accused had not visited his house on 11-8-

1990. The accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not

examined Paltoo, the ball picker who was present when Ruchika and

Aradhana had gone to meet the accused on 12-8-1990. He contended that

an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution u/s 114 (g) of

Evidence Act. It may be submitted that it has come in the evidence of the

IO that efforts were made to locate and trace Paltoo during the course of

investigation but he was not found, as such his statement was not

recorded. As such no adverse inference can be drawn against the

prosecution. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

Srichand K Khetwani Vs State of Maharastra 1967 CLJ 414 that

Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn only if

it withholds certain evidence and not merely on account of its failure to

obtain certain evidence. When no such evidence has been obtained, it can

not be said what that evidence would have been and therefore, no question

of presuming that that evidence would have been against the prosecution

u/s 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, can arise. Thus, there is no

force in the contention of the accused.

64.The Ld. PP argued that accused has heavily relied upon the evidence of Sh.

Devendra Prashad DW-10 to show that the signatures of Ruchika on Ex P-1

and P-3 are different. From this, he has inferred that on the said

documents Ruchika had not signed. The evidence of an expert is a rather

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

65

weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as

offering 'conclusive'proof and, therefore, safe to rely upon the same

without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. This view was

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case 1996 Crl LJ 3237 S. Gopal

Reddy Vs State of AP. Moreover, there is direct evidence of Pws1,2, 13

and 15. It may be mentioned that PW-15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra is the father of

the victim girl Ruchika. In view of the evidence of these witnesses, no value

can be attached to the statement of the handwriting expert.

65.Arguments advanced by ld. Counsels for both the sides are duly

considered, apart from perusing the record.

66.Allegations against the accused are that on 12-8-1990 at about 12:00 noon

when Ms. Ruchika in the company of her friend Aradhana @ Reemu went

to visit him at the office of HLTA in the garage of House No.469, Sector 6,

Panchkula, Haryana, on being asked by him to meet him, there he

assaulted and used criminal force against Ms. Ruchika with intent to

outrage her modesty, he caught hold of her hand and with his other hand

caught hold of her waist, dragged her towards him and embraced her

against her will, intending thereby to outrage her modesty. The accused

was accordingly charge-sheeted u/s 354 of IPC. Thereafter, it was for the

prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond shadow of all

reasonable doubts by adducing cogent evidence. It was for the prosecution

to prove that accused assaulted and used criminal force against Ms.

Ruchika with intention to outrage her modesty. In that process, caught

hold of her hand and caught hold her waist with other hand and dragged

her towards him and embraced her against her will intending thereby to
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

66

outrage her modesty. In this process, the prosecution has examined 16

witnesses in all. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the

victim Ruchika is no more in the world. She expired about three years after

the incident, prior to the registration of the present case against the

accused. Out of the 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, there is only

one eye witness who is Aradhana @ Reemu. She has been examined by the

prosecution as PW-13. Being the friend of Ruchika she was present at the

time of alleged incident and as per case of prosecution she has seen the

entire incident of molestation with her own eyes. She is very crucial

witness of the present case. The entire case of prosecution revolves around

her version. She is very material witness of this case. The prosecution has

alleged that from the statement of this particular witness corroborated by

statement of material witnesses like Mrs. Madhu Prakash PW-2, Sh.

Anand Praksh PW-1 corroborated with the statements of IO Sh. Rajesh

Ranjan PW-16, Sh.Anil Dhawn PW-10 who was then SHO, Panchkula, Sh.

S. K. Joshi SDM PW-7, Sh. B. S. Ojha PW-14, Sh. J. K. Duggal PW-11 and

other witnesses and the documents, the case of the prosecution is well

proved. Contrary to that, the defence has a lot of objections on the entire

case of the prosecution, the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the

documents produced by the prosecution and the manner in which the

investigation was conducted by the prosecution, which are to be

considered herein after. The case of prosecution starts with the

memorandum Ex P-1 on the basis of which later on FIR was registered in

the present case as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana and the investigation were initiated. This is very base of the
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

67

case of the prosecution which is strongly challenged by the defence. The

defence has strongly raised objections regarding the correctness, reliability

and admissibility of this document. Before proceeding further in the

present case, it will be proper to discuss and decide correctness, reliability

and admissibility of this document in evidence. The objections of the

defence are that this document is not signed by Ms. Ruchika and she has

not been examined by the prosecution to prove the document, therefore,

this document and FIR are not admissible. As far as the signatures of

Ruchika on the document are concerned, the same are at point B on the

document. It is the contention of the ld. Defence counsel that these

signatures do not tally with the another signature of Ruchika on the

document Ex P-3, the application given to SHO, Panchkula and signature

of Ruchika are alleged to be at mark A. In this regard, the defence is relying

upon the report given by DW-10 Sh. Devendra Prashad, document and

hand writing expert. He has given an opinion after examination of the

signatures that person who has signed on Ex P-1 at mark X1 as shown in

the photograph has not signed on Ex P3 at mark X2 as shown in

photograph. Meaning thereby that the signatures on Ex P1 and P3 of

Ruchika are different. In this context, the version of prosecution is that

Ruchika has signed the document Ex P-1 because same is established by

the witnesses like Aradhana, Mrs. Madhu Prakash and Sh. Anand Prakash

in whose presence, she signed the documents, which is a direct evidence.

The evidence of expert can not be considered conclusive proof and it

requires independent and reliable corroboration. In support of his

arguments, Ld. PP relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

68

Court in case bearing citation S. Gopal Reddy Vs State of A.P. 1996

CLJ 3237. It is also alleged that experts tends to lien in favour of party

calling them. The reliance is placed on 207 Vol. 4 RCR 340 Ravinder

Singh VS Mandir Bhaje Ram. It is alleged that the evidence of expert is

not substantive evidence and reliance is placed on case law bearing citation

AIR 1977 SC 1091 Magan Bihari Lal Vs State of Punjab. In this regard, this

court is of the view that Ruchika was the best person to depose about the

genuineness of her signatures, but as she is no more, therefore, she could

not appear in the witness box to depose about the genuineness of her

signature on Ex P-1. In her absence, the persons in whose presence she

signed the document are the best witness to prove the genuineness of

signature. Their view is relevant u/s 47 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover,

signature of Ms. Ruchika on Ex P-1 were not got compared with any

previous authenticated and admitted signatures of Ruchika. Therefore, the

comparison can not be safely relied upon. As already stated, in view of

statement of witnesses that Ruchika has signed in their presence, the

signatures of Ruchika stand proved. In such circumstances, it can not be

concluded that Ruchika has not signed Ex P-1 or her signatures were

forged. The strong direct evidence can not be rebutted by weak type of

evidence of hand writing expert.

Apart from that, the document Ex P-1 can not be discarded

merely on the ground that it did not bear the admitted signature of

Ruchika. This document is signed by other persons also like PW-1 Sh.

Anand Prakash, PW-2 Mrs. Madhu Prakash, PW-13 Aradhana and they

have proved their signatures while appearing in the court. It is not

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

69

necessary that only victim has to file application to set the machinery of

criminal law in motion. Any other person can also set the machinery of

criminal law in motion by filing an application or memorandum etc. In

such circumstances, the memorandum Ex P1 can not be discarded as

alleged by the defence. It is also the contention of defence that as the

informant Ruchika has not been examined, therefore, report is

inadmissible. In this regard, this court is again of the view that Ruchika is

not the alone informant as other persons have also signed the

memorandum. In such circumstances, it can not be said that the report is

inadmissible merely on the ground that Ruchika has not been examined.

The case law produced by defence titled Saudagar Singh Vs State (Supra) is

not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Moreover, the prosecution has a justified explanation also for the non

examination of Ruchika that she has expired. It is also pertinent to

mention here that FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of

writ petition filed by Mrs. Madhu Prakash in the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana who has signed on the memorandum also. Order of

Hon'ble High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

said Mrs. Madhu Prakash has appeared in the witness box and proved

memo Ex P-1 as per law. Hence, the memorandum and FIR in the present

case are admissible and proved.

67.Next contention of the defence was that the said memorandum was

prepared after the prolonged deliberations. The name of Aradhana has not

been mentioned in the memorandum. It is mentioned in the memorandum

that Ruchika took with her another co-player (Saathi Khiladi). This fact, as
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

70

per defence, was written deliberately to plant Aradhana as a co-player

(Saathi Khiladi). As per defence, Aradhana was not present on the spot.

68.Now it is to be considered that whether the contents of memorandum are

manipulated and whether Ms. Aradhana was co player who was present on

the spot or she has been planted later on? A perusal of memorandum

reveals that it merely gives a sequence of events which had happened from

the very beginning. No manipulation appears to be made out. Merely on

the ground that Sh. C. P. Bansal, DIG and Sh. Sham Lal Goyal, DSP were

present on the spot, it can not be said that they actively participated in the

drafting of the memorandum and got written in it some un-necessary and

unwarranted facts. The memorandum appears to be written by layman. If

the experienced police officers would have participated in drafting of the

memorandum, then it should have been in the form of FIR and the

evidence must have been specifically pointed out in the memorandum. But

the language of the memorandum is like that the people have tried to show

their resentment against the alleged act and demanded action against the

accused. The prosecution has given reasons for not mentioning the name

of Aradhana in the memorandum that if her name would have been

written in the memorandum, she could have been harassed by the accused

being high police officer. The fact that whether Aradhana is Sathi Khiladi

or not, whether she was present on the spot or not, can be decided after the

appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and specifically the

statement of Aradhana. The defence has taken other objections qua PW

Aradhana like that she is unreliable witness. These facts can be discussed

and decided jointly.

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

71

69.As already stated Aradhana is the most material witness of the present

case, as, as per the case of prosecution she was present on the spot at the

time of incident. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-15 have also deposed about the

incident, but they have deposed upon the basis of information given by

Aradhana and Ruchika, the victim. Ruchika has already expired, therefore,

Aradhana is the sole eye witness and is very material for the decision of the

present case. Aradhana has appeared in the witness box as PW-13 to prove

the case. She has well deposed in her statement that on 12-8-1990 at about

12:00 O'clock she alongwith Ruchika went to HLTA. Sh. Paltoo, ball picker

came to them and told Ruchika that she was called by Sh. SPS Rathore in

the HLTA office at 12:00 hour. Thereafter, she and Ruchika went to the

HLTA office where accused was standing outside the office. On seeing

them, the accused turned back to go to the office and asked them to follow

him. On that Ruchika asked the accused that they can have conversation

by standing outside office itself, but the accused insisted them for coming

in. When they went to the office, the accused called for one chair which

was brought. The witness sat on that chair. One table and one hair were

already in the office. Ruchika was standing nearby the witness. Accused

forbid to bring another chair. Accused asked Aradhana to call coach T.

Thomas. She went to call the coach leaving Ruchika in the office. When she

reached behind the house, T. Thomas, coach was standing at a far distance

on the other side of the road. She asked Paltoo who was present there to

call the coach as Sh. Rathore wanted to see him. On that Paltoo went to call

the coach. He had some conversation with the coach and then made a

signal to the witness that coach had refused to come. The witness came
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

72

back to the office. When she reached on the entrance of the office, she saw

that Sh. SPS Rathore has strongly caught hold one hand of Ruchika and he

has put his another hand on the waist of Ruchika and he has embraced

Ruchika with his chest. Ruchika was trying to push him with another hand.

Sh. SPS Rathore saw the witness and he became nervous and he let off

Ruchika and fell down on his chair. The witness informed him that coach

has refused to come, on which he again asked the witness to call the coach

personally. In the meantime, Ruchika tried to come towards the witness,

but Rathore Sahib asked her to stay and asked the witness to go to call the

coach. He asked the witness to convey the coach that he has been called

immediately. Ruchika ran outside from the side of the witness. The witness

tried to follow her, then the accused told the witness, ask her to cool

down, I will do whatever she will say. Thereafter, the witness also ran

after Ruchika. When she reached near Ruchika, she started weeping. The

witness investigated as to what had happened on which Ruchika disclosed

to her that when the witness went to call the coach, accused caught hold

her hand, she rescued her hand with great difficulty. Thereafter, the

accused got up from his chair and caught hold the hand of Ruchika very

strongly, then he put another hand around her waist and embraced her.

She was trying to push the accused away with her another hand and he

misbehaved with her. (This portion of the evidence was objected being

hearsay and concocted. It will be dealt with in following paras). She

disclosed that on seeing the witness accused left her. Ruchika asked the

witness that whether this incident should be disclosed to their parents.

After brief conversation, both of them decided not to disclose the fact to
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

73

their parents as SPS Rathore was high rank police officer and he could

harm to their families. Thereafter, both of them went for their respective

homes.

70.The witness further stated that on 13-8-1990 they did not go to play as

HLTA used to remain closed on Mondays. On 14-8-1990, the witness and

Ruchika went to play tennis. Their usual time was 6:30 p.m. but on that

day they went on 4:30 p.m. as they wanted to avoid Mr. Rathore. When

they were about to return after playing, then Paltoo came and informed

Ruchika that Rathore Sir has called her in HLTA office on which Ruchika

refused. (This portion of the evidence was objected being hearsay. It will be

dealt with in following paras). Thereafter, Ruchika told the witness that

she has been again called by Sh. Rathore which shows that he was not

having good intention and he called her to molest her.(This portion of the

evidence was objected being hearsay. It will be dealt with in following

paras). Thereafter, both of them decided to disclose the fact to their

parents. Ruchika said that as they have not disclose the fact to their

parents, therefore, Mr. Rathore was feeling encouraged. Thereafter, they

went to the house of Ruchika where Sh. S.C. Girhotra, father of Ruchika

was present. Ruchika started disclosing the incident to him, but she broke

down in between. Thereafter, the witness disclosed the entire incident to

father of Ruchika. He asked the witness to take Ruchika to her home

because Ruchika had no mother and she could talk freely with the mother

of witness. He further stated that he would come to the house of witness

after some time. Ruchika was very close to the mother of witness and used

to talk freely with her. Then the witness deposed that the fact was disclosed
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

74

to the mother of the witness by Ruchika. Then the witness deposed about

the remaining incident that how they with the parents of the witness,

father of Ruchika and other neighbourers went to lawn tennis courts to

enquire from Mr. Rathore, but he was not available there. She further

deposed that memorandum was prepared on 15-8-1990. She proved her

signature and signature of Ruchika on the memorandum. She proved the

signatures of her parents also and then she deposed about the entire

incident as how they went to see the Chief Minister and Home Minister

and the Chief Minister and the Home Minister were not available. She

deposed as per the case of prosecution in her statement and supported the

entire case of prosecution.

71. The defence has raised certain objections on the certain questions on the /

during the above said specifically mentioned relevant and important

portions of the statement of the witness as pointed in the previous para.

Those objections were kept open and therefore the same are being decided

now. First objection of defence is regarding Reemu's version that Ruchika

told her about the alleged incident happened in the office. The defence has

alleged that it is inadmissible evidence as it is hearsay version. It is an

improvement made after 15 years of the alleged occurrence. These

averments are not contained in Ex P-1 and this statement is not admissible

on the ground of res-gestae u/s 6 of the Evidence Act because the

declaration must be simultaneous and spontaneous, but it was not

simultaneous in the present case because some time had elapsed in

between the alleged incident and conversation between the two. In this

regard, this court is of the view that said part of statement of Aradhana @
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

75

Reemu is well admissible in evidence. First of all, Aradhana @ Reemu has

seen entire incident of molestation with her own eyes. Secondly, Ruchika

has explained her incident immediately after the incident. There was no

time for Ruchika to make ay improvement in her statement. As soon as she

came out from the office, Aradhana followed her immediately by running

and reached up to her. The act of Ruchika i.e. running from the office and

the act of the witness to follow her and stopping her were the part of same

transaction. Therefore, it can not be said that the statement is not

admissible u/s 6 of the Evidence Act. The case law referred by the defence

bearing citation 1971 CLJ 172 Vol 177 CN 57, 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 Lahor, State Vs

Bihari Lal, Pahu Lal,1953 Crl LJ 1427, 1980 Cr LJ NOC 13 Kant,

1996 6SCC 241 are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the

present case because the statement was made simultaneously by the

witness and it was forming the part of the same transaction. Moreover, this

portion of the statement which has been objected to is merely the

repetition of the fact which the witness had already seen with her own

eyes. The defence is not likely to get any benefit from this objection

because the witness has given eye version of the incident. It is held that the

objection is not tenable and it is over ruled. There was another objection

on the fact that Aradhana refused to come to office of HLTA while she was
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

76

called by the accused being hearsay version. In this regard, this court is of

the view that Ruchika had denied from coming to the office of HLTA in the

presence of witness and in front of the witness, then how it can be a

hearsay statement, it is direct evidence. Hence, the objection is not

tenable. Again there is an objection on the fact that Ruchika disclosed to

the witness that she was called by the accused and the intention of the

accused appears to be bad. It is also a statement directly given to the

witness by Ruchika. It is not a statement in which Ruchika is describing

about the act of any third person. She is merely conveying her intention

directly to the witness, therefore, this objection is also not tenable.

72.The defence has raised other objections also on the statement of Aradhana

alleging that she is not reliable witness. She is interested witness being the

daughter of Sh. Anand Prakash. Sh. Anand Prakash is inimical towards the

accused because proceedings u/s 500 IPC were started against him and

Aradhana is his daughter. Due to that, as already stated, he has planted his

daughter in this case. There were a lot of cases and departmental enquiries

against Sh. Anand Prakash in his service career. Even he was once

demoted from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Executive

Engineer and when he took a stand against the accused then he was again

made Superintending Engineer and then Chief Engineer. It is alleged by

the defence that in such circumstances, her daughter can not be relied

upon.

73.As already stated to decide such type of objections, appreciation of

evidence of witness is a must. If the witness is inimical towards someone, if

the witness is planted or the witness is tutored, then something unnatural

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

77

is likely to come out during the evidence and during the cross examination

of the witness. Major and important portion of the statement of the

witness has already been discussed. The statement of witness runs in many

pages. Her examination in chief is from page 67 to 101 i.e. 35 pages and

cross examination is from pages 102 to 164 i.e. 63 pages. She stood a

lengthy cross examination, the confidence of the witness could not be

shaken on the material point i.e. incident of molestation which she had

seen with her own eyes. Minor contradictions are likely to appear with the

passage of time, but that does not mean that the witness is deposing false.

A perusal of version given by the witness appears to be natural, reliable

and inspires confidence. If the accused is implicated falsely by any witness

then allegations are generally aggressive in nature. In false implication, the

witness generally deposes as the accused at once assaulted the victim, he

torn the clothes of the victim or he gaged the mouth of the victim etc., but

it is not so in the present case. In the present case, the accused at once left

the victim when he saw the witness and he became nervous. After that he

fell down on the chair. This is natural reaction of the accused being high

rank police officer. He was worried about his reputation also, therefore, he

tried to recover from the situation as soon as possible. He again asked the

witness to call the coach. This time, he asked the witness to call the coach

in slightly strong manner. At that time, the victim observing the attitude of

the accused ran away from the room. The conduct of the victim appears to

be very natural. The accused again made an effort to come over the

difficult situation by asking the witness to tell Ruchika to cool down and he

will do whatever she wants. The proper words are, ask her to cool down I
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

78

will do whatever she will say. Thereafter, the witness also ran out of the

office. This is a very natural version given by the witness. She remained

strict to this version from the very beginning and throughout the entire

case. The confidence of this witness could not be shaken on this particular

incident despite lengthy cross examination. Hence, she can be very safely

relied upon regarding this fact which is the central point of this case. In

such circumstances, merely on the ground that her name was not written

in the memorandum, it can not be said that she was not Saathi Khiladi. She

is the same Saathi Khiladi who has been mentioned in the memorandum.

The defence has alleged that she has been planted by her father. In this

regard, this court is of the view that no person even a bad or corrupt

person would like to put the reputation of her daughter at stakes by

planting her in such type of case. Hence, the objection of the defence is not

tenable and this witness can be safely relied upon. Another fact which

establishes the reliability of the witness is that the same version was given

by the witness during the enquiry before Sh. R R. Singh. Sh. R.R.Singh, the

then DGP, Haryana had conducted the enquiry as per the directions of the

Government. Only one discrepancy which was pointed out by the defence

is that the witness has not named Paltoo, Ball Picker, in her statement

before Sh. R. R. Singh. A perusal of her statement before Sh. R.R. Singh

reveals that she stated that she asked the person who had brought the

chair in the office to call the coach. The defence has pointed out that Paltoo

was known to the witness and therefore she must have named Paltoo. In

this regard, this court is of the view that merely on the ground of this

minor discrepancy, the statement of the witness can not be disbelieved.

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

79

She has given a correct description of the person who has called the coach.

If she has not specifically named that person then it does not demolish her

reliability, while the entire other version is properly given.

74.It was also the contention of defence that the report of Sh. R. R. Singh can

not be relied upon. As per the order of the court, the statement of Ruchika

could not be proved by Sh. R.R.Singh and therefore, the statement of

Ruchika before Sh. R.R.Singh can not be read into evidence. Statement of

remaining witnesses also can not be read because Sh R R. Singh was

having no proper directions. He was not competent to conduct the enquiry

and he did not conduct the enquiry as per rules because the statement of

defence witnesses was not recorded. It is stated on behalf of defence that as

the enquiry was illegal, therefore, the statement in an illegal enquiry before

the authority which was not competent to conduct the enquiry, can not be

used for corroboration.

75.In view of the objections raised by the defence, it is to be decided that

whether the statement recorded by Sh. R.R.Singh in the enquiry can be

used for the purpose of corroboration and that whether the enquiry can be

relied upon. First objection of the defence was that there was no proper

directions for enquiry and he was not competent to held enquiry. In this

regard, this court is of the view that there are proper orders on the

memorandum Ex P-1 to the effect that the Chief Minister has ordered that

DGP should enquire into it and submit his report within one seek

positively. The order is signed by P.S. to Chief Minister on 17-8-1990. It

shows that there was a valid direction to hold enquiry.

76.Now, it is to be seen that whether he was competent to hold enquiry. First

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

80

of all, the State Government had given the directions, therefore, he was

competent to hold enquiry. Secondly, he was the police officer of highest

rank in Haryana at that time and as per the provisions of chaper 4, part A

section 36 of Cr. P.C., the police officer of higher in rank to a officer

incharge of police station may exercise the same powers throughout the

local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer

within the limits of his station. Sh. R.R. Singh was DGP, Haryana and

Panchkula falls under the territories of Haryana, therefore, Sh. R.R. Singh

was absolutely entitled to exercise his powers in that area, meaning

thereby he was armed with powers given by the Government and he was

having statutory powers also. In such circumstances, from any angle, it can

not be said that he was not competent to held the enquiry. This is no

ground to discard the enquiry that he has not recorded the statement of

witnesses of the accused. It was a kind of preliminary fact finding enquiry

and the witnesses of the accused were not required to be examined in such

type of enquiry. However, he admitted in his cross examination that he

was directed by the Government to record the statement of Sh. SPS

Rathore before submitting the report. In this regard, he has explained that

Sh SPS Rathore was called by him, but he pressed to record the statement

in the presence of advocate which was declined by Mr. R.R.Singh, that is

why statement of Sh. Rathore could not be recorded. In this way, Sh. R.R.

Singh has given a valid explanation for not recording the statement of Sh.

SPS Rathore. Otherwise also, the enquiry can be used for corroborating the

statement of the witnesses and that can be used even if the statement of

Mr. Rathore was not recorded by Sh. R.R.Singh. He conducted the enquiry
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

81

in very legal manner. Ld. Defence counsel argued that Sh. R.R.Singh was

not competent to held the enquiry, therefore, he can not be relied upon. In

support of her contentions ld. Defence counsel relied upon the law bearing

citation Jagvir Singh Vs State of Haryana (Supra) where the

confession of the accused recorded by the SDM during enquiry was not

found to be admissible in evidence. This case law is not applicable on the

facts and circumstances of the present case because there is no confession

in the present case and the statement of witnesses is only to be considered.

For confession, procedure laid down in section 164 Cr. P.C. is to be

followed. Moreover, in that case the SDM was holding enquiry under the

directions of Dy. Commissioner, while in the present case, Sh. R.R. Singh

was powered by statute also i.e. u/s 36A of the Cr. P.C. Similarly case law

bearing citation AIR 1949 (Cal.) 629 (6) (Supra) is also not application

on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

77. Apart from above, it was also the objection of defence that statement

recorded by Sh. R.R.Singh are hit by section 157 of Evidence Act as

sufficient time has elapsed till the recording of the statement by Sh. R. R.

Singh. In this regard, the prosecution has alleged that the expression at or

about the time when the fact took place in section 157 of Evidence Act

should be understood in the context according to facts and circumstances

of each case. The mere fact that there was an intervening period of few

days in a given case, may not be sufficient to exclude the statement from

the use envisaged u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has relied

upon the law bearing citation Rameshwar Vs Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC

54. In that case interval between the occurrence and the statement was 14
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

82

days. In the present case, time gap is about 8 days. During this period

there was no opportunity for the witnesses to be concocted or tutored

because the witnesses were running from pillar to post to seek action

against the accused. Case law produced by the defence in this regard

bearing citation AIR (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) are not application on the facts and

circumstances of the present case. In such circumstances, the statement of

the witnesses recorded in enquiry can be used for corroboration and

enquiry report can be relied upon. However, the statement of Ms. Ruchika

can not be relied upon because that could not be proved as she could not

appear in the court to prove the same being expired. It is pertinent to

mention here that Sh. R.R. Singh in his enquiry recommended for

registration of case against the accused under appropriate sections of IPC

and investigation of the same, but this enquiry report was ignored by State

Government and instead of registration of case, the departmental enquiry

was initiated against the accused. As per the averments of the defence, the

accused was exonerated in the enquiry and he got two promotions after the

incident. It is only after that the complainant party has to go to Hon'ble

High Court for registration of a case. It was also the objection of defence

that in the memorandum Ex P-1, the alleged act committed by the accused
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

83

has not been mentioned and it only discloses misbehavior (Chhedchhad)

with Ruchika, while the witnesses appearing in the court have given

improved version that accused caught hand of Ruchika, he put his other

hand behind the waist of Ruchika and embraced her. All these facts

amount to improvement in the statement of witness, therefore, the witness

can not be safely relied upon. In this regard, a perusal of Ex P-1 reveals

that the incident has been mentioned in the document in such a way that

accused Rathore Sahib finding the victim alone committed such a mean act

with the victim which is worse then a stigma on humanity and started

Chhedchhad (Molestation) with the victim who was 15 years of age and

younger even to the daughter of the accused. However, it was not

acceptable to the God that the accused may play with her respect.

78.As per the prosecution, what has been explained by the witnesses in their

statement is not a discrepancy, contradictions or improvement, that is in

fact the details of the incident narrated by the witnesses extracted by Ld.

Public Prosecutor in examination in chief and by defence in cross

examination. The prosecution has relied upon the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case bearing citation 2000 (2)4640 Narain

Chetan Ram Chaudhary Vs State of Maharastra also.

79.In this regard, it is observed that detailed version given by the witnesses is

not improvement and it does not amount to contradictions because in Ex

P-1 also there are allegations of molestation and in the statement also there

are allegations of molestation. The incident has been merely elaborated in

the evidence which does not amount to improvement. This fact further

proves that Ex P-1 was not prepared after deliberations and the high rank
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

84

police officers have not participated in drafting of the same. If the high

rank police officers have participated in drafting , then they must have

mentioned the incident in toto, which shows that the memorandum has

been prepared by layman and he tried to use .parliamentary language in

the memorandum instead of using the obscene language of the incident.

The entire incident has been properly mentioned in the memorandum

except the act of embracing the victim by the accused, though the same is

also well depicted by hints in the memorandum. The incident would have

been elaborated, if the matter has been investigated at that time by the

police and the statement of the victim or witnesses would have been

recorded. The matter was elaborated when case was registered. It is wrong

to say that the witnesses elaborated the incident first time after appearing

in the court. The witnesses have elaborated the incident before Sh. R.R.

Singh also and that enquiry report and the statement of witnesses, except

Ruchika, can be read into the evidence. That evidence corroborates the

evidence of present case. Hence, it can not be said that the witnesses have

made an improvement or there are discrepancies or contradictions

regarding the incident in their statements.

80.The defence has objected the authenticity, reliability and admissibility of

Ex P3 and Ex P4 also. It is alleged that PW1 and PW3 both are claiming

that they have written document Ex P3. Document Ex P-4 is photo copy of

Ex P-1. It contains the signatures of lots of other persons at the backside

which are not available on Ex P1. Explanation given by the prosecution is

that the signatures of some more persons were taken after submitting Ex

P-1 and there was nothing wrong in that. In this regard, this court is of the
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

85

view that if the signatures of some more persons were taken after

submitting Ex P-1, even then it does not affect the case of prosecution. The

contents of Ex. P1 and Ex P-4 are the same. These documents merely

establishes that information was given to the SHO, Police Station,

Panchkula. Ex P-3 may be written by anyone, but it was received in police

station in due course alongwith Ex P-4, therefore, those could be tendered

in evidence by the prosecution. These documents are not such a material

documents which may demolish the case of prosecution. However, as the

documents were received in due course and produced by the proper

authority in the court, therefore, these can be used upto the extent for

corroborating the fact that information was given to the SHO, Panchkula.

81.Next contention of ld. Defence counsel is regarding the conduct of the

prosecution witness Ms. Aradhana @ Reemu. It is alleged that Reemu had

not protested to the accused when she allegedly saw the accused forcibly

harassing Ms. Ruchika. She admitted the presence of two officials i.e. Sh.

Paltoo and coach Sh. T. Thomas, but she raised no alarm. As such, her

conduct was un-natural, therefore, she can not be relied upon.

82.In this regard, the prosecution has alleged that human behavior varies

from person to person and time to time. It depends upon facts and

circumstances of each case. Some are stunned on seeing the incident, some

starts shouting for help, some run away to keep themselves away and some

may remain tight lipped. There is no set rule for reaction. In such

circumstances, the statement of the witness Aradhana can not be

discarded. Ld. PP as relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Devendra Singh (Supra).

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

86

83.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court

is of the view that behavior of Ms. Aradhana was not un-natural. As soon

as she entered in the office, she remained sterned because she could not

expect such a behavior from the President of HLTA, who was much senior

in rank and age. Secondly, on seeing the witness, accused at once left the

victim and fell down on his chair, therefore, there was no use of making

any noise because the victim had been released by the accused. Thirdly,

there was no body near the office. It is wrong to say that Sh. Paltoo and

coach T.Thomas were present there. It has come in the evidence that coach

was standing on the other side of the road behind the house and Paltoo

was also with him at that time. As such, there was no occasion for raising

any alarm by the witness at that time.

84.Ld. Defence counsel contended that explanation of the witness that she

and Ruchika did not disclose the fact to their parents on the same day

because they were scared from the accused being high police officer, not

appears to be sound because the family of Ruchika and Aradhana was also

highly placed in the society as the father of Aradhana is retired Chief

Engineer, her mother is an Advocate, her uncle has political background,

father of Ruchika was manager in the bank, his father in law was DSP in

CBI and other relatives were also having high position in the society. In

this regard, this court is of the view that the witness Aradhana and victim

Ruchika may be having parents and relatives who were highly placed in the

society, but still they were pigmis before the stature of Mr. Rathore. Mr.

Rathore took a stand in the Hon'ble High Court when a writ was filed by

Mrs. Madhu Prakash for registration of a case against him that he was
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

87

scared from Haryana Police and case may be handed over to any other

agency except Haryana police. If he being a person of IG rank, can be

scared by the Haryana police, then why the witness and the victim could

not be scared from him as he had held very high posts in Haryana police

and later on retired from the highest rank of Haryana police, though on

relevant time, he was on deputation with the BBMB. Hence, this fact can

not be accepted that the witness and the victim were not afraid of Mr.

Rathore. Moreover, the subsequent events have happened in such a

manner which proved the fear of the witness and the victim to be true. A

procession was carried out in front of the house of victim at the instance of

accused which was shouting slogans against the victim and in favour of Mr.

Rathore. Though the accused has alleged that procession was not carried

out at his instance and he tried to give explanation that it was carried out

by those persons whose statement was not recorded by Sh. R. R. Singh and

they were working at his house, but there were not such large number of

workers and they had no reason to protest without instigation.

85.It was also the contention of the accused that Sh. R. R. Singh has enmity

with the accused, therefore, he has not conducted the proper enquiry. But

this contention of the accused has been vehemently denied by Sh. R.R.

Singh. The reason for the enmity given by the accused is that when

accused succeeded Sh. R. R. Singh as S. P. Rohtak, he did not allow Mr.

R.R. Singh to harvest the crop of wheat. Sh. R. R. Singh has admitted that

he may have asked Sh. Rathore to accommodate to harvest the crop at

Rohtak, but he refused that his relations became bad due to that incident

with the accused. In such circumstances, it is not made out that due to
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

88

enmity Sh. R.R. Singh may have conducted the enquiry with a biased

mind.

86.Ld. Defence counsel has pointed out some discrepancies and

contradictions in the statement of PW-13 Ms. Anuradha and PW-15 Sh.

S.C. Girhotra regarding the time at which Ruchika started from her house

to establish that Aradhana was not present with her at the time of incident.

Ld. Counsel stated that Aradhana stated in her statement that on 12-8-

1990 Ruchika came to her house at about 11:00 am, while Sh. S.C. Girhotra

in his statement has deposed that Ruchika went to meet accused at about

12:00 O'clock. Then again he stated that she went to meet the accused 15-

20 minutes prior to 12:00 O'clock. Ld. Counsel stated that if Ruchika

started 15-20 minutes prior to 12:00 O clock from her house, then she

went to the house of Anuradha which takes 15-20 minutes while coming

from the house of Ruchika to the house of Aradhana and it takes again 15-

20 minutes to go to HLTA from the house of Anuradha, so they can not be

at HLTA at 12:00 O'clock. Moreover, Aradhana has stated that Ruchika

was at her house at about 11:00 am which is also contradictory.

87.A perusal of statement of witnesses reveals that PW-15 Sh. S.C. Girhotra

has stated that Ruchika left from her house at about 15-20 minutes prior to

12:00 O'clock. As per prosecution version, she went to the house of

Aradhana, after that they both went to HLTA. As per prosecution case, the

house of both are situated in the same locality and HLTA is also not far

away from their house. In this way, if Ruchika started well before 12:00

O'clock from her house, both the girls could be present at HLTA at 12:00

O'clock. Aradhana has mentioned presence of Ruchika at her house a little

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

89

bit prior to the alleged time of Sh. S.C. Girhotra. In this regard, this court is

of the view that with the passage of time, minor contradictions are likely to

appear in the statement of the witnesses. The witnesses can not depose in

parrot like manner. Moreover, contradiction is not in respect of the time of

the incident. Minor contradiction is in respect of the time before the

incident. Whether Ruchika was present at the house of Aradhana at 11:00

am or she was present at her house at about 11:40 11:45 am, it does not

effect the time of incident. The combined effect of the statement of the

witnesses is to be observed, which reveals that presence of Ruchika at

12:00 O'clock on 12-8-1990 at HLTA can not be doubted.

88.The next contention of ld. Defence counsel was that the incident as alleged

by the prosecution is improbable because a lot of workers were working at

that time at the place of incident as the house was under construction.

Moreover, glasses were fitted in the windows of the garage from where it

could be easily seen that what is happening inside. No mature person will

commit such an act in such circumstances. In this regard, this court is of

the view that at the time of incident presence of any person inside the

room or very near to the room is not established, therefore, this defence

appears to be without merit. Moreover, in the day time, a person can see

outside from the room where the glasses are fitted, but it is difficult to see

inside from the outside. Only one person i.e. Aradhana was present in the

room and she was sent by the accused. In such circumstances, it can not be

said that incident was improbable.

89.The discrepancies in the site plan were also pointed out by ld. Defence

counsel. It was stated that after the incident, the accused can not fell on the
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

90

chair because it was about 2-3 feet away from the place of incident. In this

regard, this court is of the view that distance of 2-3 feet is not such a big

distance. It can be covered in one or two steps. The prosecution evidence

can not be discarded on this ground.

90.It is the case of defence that Sh. S.C. Girhotra demanded money from the

accused for withdrawing the matter from the court, but this objection is

without any substance. First of all, there is no cogent evidence on record to

establish that the money was demanded. It is alleged that voice of Sh. S.C.

Girhotra was recorded on the tape while demanding the money, but the

witness has denied his voice. Moreover, recording of the tape can not be

safely relied upon as it can be easily tempered. Moreover, the demand of

alleged money is not constant and differs from time to time which makes it

further doubtful. Hence, this argument can not be relied upon. Apart from

that, it is a subsequent event and it has no affect on the alleged incident.

The alleged incident had already taken place which has been mainly

proved by Ms. Aradhana. Hence, this argument is devoid of merits.

91. It was also the objection of defence that Sh. Paltoo, ball picker and Coach

T. Thomas were also the material witnesses and they were not examined by

the prosecution. In this regard, the IO has clarified that he tried to join

Paltoo, but he was not available and despite best efforts, the IO could not

trace him. As regard to T. Thomas, it is stated by the prosecution that he

was not substantial witness of the main incident, therefore, he was not

joined in the investigation. Explanation given by the prosecution appears

to be justified. Both the above witnesses were not eye witnesses of the main

incident, therefore, their non examination can not effect the merit of the
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

91

case.

92.It is the contention of defence that there is tempering in the document Ex

P-2 by way of trimming. In this regard, this court is of the view that it is

not made out that whether by trimming any line was torn from the

document or it was altered, therefore, it can not be said a case of

tempering. Signatures of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager and Sh. T. Thomas,

Coach are also disputed by the defence on the document on the ground

that those were taken by force. From the evidence, it is not made out that

their signatures were taken by force. The prosecution witnesses have stated

that they have signed the document as per their own will. Their testimony

could not be shaken during the cross examination. But DW-4 Sh. Chander

Pal has admitted the signature of Sh. Kuldeep Singh on the document at

point B. He has stated in his examination in chief that on the asking of

SDM, Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Manager and coach wrote on the notice that

Ruchika had not done any act of indiscipline. There is nothing on record to

establish that it was got written forcibly. It shows that the notice was

signed by Kuldeep Singh and it can be relied upon. Therefore, this

document can be relied upon. Moreover, this document has no concern

with the main incident and main incident has been proved by the

statement of Aradhana without this document also. Though this document

is a strong corroborative piece of evidence, yet if it is not relied upon, in

that eventuality also, the case of the prosecution is well proved. However,

in view of foregoing discussion, this document can be safely relied upon.

93.Ld. Defence counsel has raised objection of delay in lodging the FIR also.

In this regard, this court is of the view that FIR was not registered despite
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

92

best efforts made by the witnesses and after the recommendations of Sh.

R.R.Singh also. In such circumstances, the prosecution can not be blamed

for delay.

94.Ld. Defence counsel has raised objection during the arguments that Ex P-1

is a photo copy, therefore, it can not be read into evidence. In this regard,

this court is of the view that the contents of Ex P-1 not appears to be a

photo copy. Even if it may be photo copy then also the signatures of the

applicants are original, therefore, it will be considered original document.

As such, it is admissible in evidence. It could be said photo copy, if the

contents and signatures both were photo copy. But as stated above,

signatures are original, therefore, the document is admissible.

95.It has been argued on behalf of defence that the prosecution has alleged

that the accused sent Aradhana to call the coach and in the meantime

committed the alleged act. But the accused was aware of the fact that

distance between the office of HLTA and the place from where the coach

was to be called, was just 91 feet and Aradhana will take at the most one

minute in covering that distance, therefore, he could not commit such act.

In this regard, this court is of the view that Aradhana was sent to call the

coach, but she did not go up the place from where the coach was to be

called. She made signal from a distance and after getting the signal in

negative, she came back. In such circumstances, certainly she returned

back in short period than which was actually likely to be taken by her.

Moreover, she was supposed to fetch the coach with her as per the

directions which was likely to take sufficient more time. But she came

without fetching the coach which annoyed the accused and he again asked
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

93

her to fetch the coach. This could also be the reason due to which she came

back to the office prior to the assessed time and as such arguments of the

defence has no force.

96.The defence has also objected the admissibility of site plan on the ground

that it was prepared during the investigation, therefore, it can not be used

for the purpose of corroboration. In this regard, this court is of the view

that as the site plan was prepared at the instructions of the witnesses,

therefore, it can be proved and produced in evidence.

97.It was argued on behalf of defence that Anuradha was not close to Ruchika

because she did not go to see her at the hospital and she did not attend her

cremation and Kirya ceremony. In this regard, this court is of the view that

merely on the ground that Anuradha did not go to the hospital and did not

attend the cremation and Kirya ceremony of Ruchika, it can not be said

that they were not playing tennis jointly at some particular point of time

and they were not behaving like friends. It is made out from the evidence

that at the time of incident they were jointly playing tennis and were just

like friends.

98.It was also objection of defence that Sh. S.C.Girhotra admitted in his cross

examination that accused had not met him on 11-8-1990. It was also

alleged that accused admitted this fact in the written statement also which

is on record as Ex D-17 filed in a separate suit for recovery. In this regard,

this court is of the view that in his statement Sh. S.C. Girhotra has again

and again stated that accused visited his residence on 11-8-1990. At one

place in the cross examination, the question regarding the written

statement was asked and in the context of that written statement he stated
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

94

that he signed the written statement and accused has not met him. This

fact appears to be a little bit different from the entire remaining statement.

In his written statement in para no.14 he even denied that any information

was sent to the answering defendant by the accused or the answering

defendant was advised to withdraw Ruchika from the said centre, while it

is the case of defence that message was sent to Sh. S.C. Girhotra. Almost all

the facts of plaint have been denied by the witness in the written statement

and in the same way the fact regarding meeting of accused was denied. The

contents of written statement can not prevail upon the direct testimony of

the witnesses. However, even if the reliability of the witnesses is doubted

in this context, in that eventuality also, this witness is not the eye witness

of the case and the case of prosecution regarding the incident has been

proved by PW-13 Aradhana, therefore, the statement of this witness does

not adversely affect the case of prosecution. The case of prosecution is

proved even if the statement of this witness regarding the above fact is not

considered or relied upon.

99.The defence has alleged that the accused remained meritorious officer

throughout his career and he has been decorated with many awards also

which establishes that he bears a high moral character. In this regard, this

court is of the view that meritorious service record and the high moral

character are two different issues. A person can be competent and efficient,

but he may not be having a high moral character. Merely on the ground of

meritorious service, it can not be presumed that anybody will not commit

the act molestation, particularly in the circumstances when direct evidence

is available on record, this plea can not be relied upon.

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

95

100.In view of above discussion, it is well established from the statement of

witnesses that on 12-8-1990 the accused outraged the modesty of victim

Ruchika at about 12 : 00 O'clock in HLTA office and therefore, the charge

and offence u/s 354 of IPC is well proved against the accused. Hence, he is

held guilty. Let the convict he beard on quantum of sentence.

Announced: (Jasbir Singh Sidhu)

21-12-2009 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

Present: Sh. C. S. Sharma, PP, assisted by Sh. R. B. Sharma, PP for the CBI.
Ms. Anju Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.
Convict in person with counsel Ms. Abha Rathore.

1. Arguments on quantum of sentence heard.

2. Ld. PP for the CBI argued that the guilt of the convict is proved upto hilt.

Ld. PP stated that the object of the sentence should be to see that the crime

does not go un-punished. In support of his arguments, Ld. PP relied upon

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case bearing citation

Dhananjoy Chatterjee VS State of WB 1994 SCC (Crl) 358. Ld. PP argued

that convict was high rank police officer and his duty was to protect others

and he has indulged in such type of offence. Ld. PP pressed that in such

circumstances, the convict may be punished with highest imprisonment as

provided by law.

3. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, pressed for liberal view on the

ground that convict is old person who is 68 years old. He has already

undergone valve surgery and he requires medical help. The convict is

 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

96

suffering delayed trial for more than 10 years. The convict has attended

more than 400 dates in the present case. The accused is suffering from

media trial also due to which he feel mental stress. No complaint was filed

by the prosecutrix in the present case. The convict faced no allegations of

any type prior to this incident. He has a clean service record. The status of

the convict may be kept in mind while passing the sentence. In support of

her arguments, Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the law laid down by the

Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case bearing citation

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill Vs The State 1998 (4) RCR (Crl) 664. It is

submitted that convict may be released on probation.

4. Arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for both the sides are duly considered,

apart from perusing the record.

5. The guilt of the convict has already been proved upto hilt. The allegations

against the convict were that he assaulted and used criminal force against

victim Ms. Ruchika with intention to outrage her modesty and during this

process, he caught hold of her hand and with his other hand caught hold of

her waist, dragged her towards him and embraced her against her will and

thereby outraged her modesty. The allegations against the convict are

proved in the present case. The allegations are of moral turpitude. Such

allegations are serious in nature, particularly in the circumstances, when

the victim was minor. In such circumstances, liberal view can not be taken

against the convict. However, the prolonged trial and the age of the convict

can be considered while passing the order on quantum of sentence. The

arguments that the prosecutrix was not the complainant in the present

case is not helpful to the convict because it has already been dealt with in
 CBI Vs SPS Rathore

97

the judgement and it makes no affect on the quantum of sentence. The plea

regarding media trial is also taken. In that regard, this court is of the view

that the court has concern with the facts and circumstances which are

available on record only and the court is not concerned with what the any

other agency report about the accused or the victim. However, that can

not be a ground for taking a liberal view on quantum of sentence. It was

also the arguments of ld. Defence counsel that previously there was no

allegation on the convict regarding any such type of conduct. This plea can

be considered, while passing the order on quantum of sentence. Keeping in

view the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, no grounds are

made out to release the convict on probation. The convict is hereby

sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of

Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 354 of IPC. In default, he shall undergo

imprisonment for one month. Fine paid. File be consigned to the record

room after due compliance.

Announced: (Jasbir Singh Sidhu)

21-12-2009 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh.

Note: This judgement contains 97 pages and each page is checked and signed.

(Jasbir Singh Sidhu)

Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandigarh.