New Delhi: Upholding 20 years of life imprisonment for two alumni of OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat in connection with the 2015 gang rape and blackmail incident of a fellow university student, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday said that “Merely because the victim is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue, her testimony cannot be dismissed”.
A bench of Justices Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Pankaj Jain confirmed the conviction of Hardik Sikri and Karan Chhabra, but acquitted the third accused, Vikas Garg. The complainant had lodged an FIR in the case in April 2015 and a court in Sonipat found Hardik and Karan guilty of gang rape, while Vikas was convicted of rape.
The matter came into the limelight when the High Court granted bail In September 2017, the three accused were suspended and their 20-year sentence was suspended, with several references to the victim’s “involvement”, “adventure”, and “experimentation in sexual encounters”. Her statement, the court said, “presents an alternative conclusion of a quirky attitude and audacity born of a voyeuristic mind”. Then the Supreme Court stepped into to stay his bail in November 2017.
Upholding his sentence, the HC on Friday said that the complainant had successfully proved that he was “being blackmailed and forced into an abusive relationship”.
The court noted that the accused had referred to the complainant’s conversation with other boys to question her testimony. However, it refused to make such an inference saying, “As per established law, merely because the victim is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue, her testimony cannot be rejected. have the right to protect the dignity”
The court found the statement of the complainant to be “credible” and found it corroborated by WhatsApp chats and statements of other witnesses. It asserted, “By a joint reading of the testimony of the prosecutor before the trial court and WhatsApp chat, the version of the prosecutor is fully substantiated. She comes across as someone who can be said to be an open and extrovert, but certainly cannot be called a fib. ,
‘Silence is not consent… even deprived of basic dignity’
The 73-page judgment passed on September 30 also has 20 pages of WhatsApp chats between Hardik and the complainant, “to understand the fracture condition of the victim due to vandalism at the hands of the applicant-Hardik”.
“It is clear that it is a case of ‘submission’ on the part of the accused. His silence or acceptance of the demands of the accused cannot be said to be consent. After going through the WhatsApp chat, which is on record relating to the relationship between the parties Most material evidence, it is clear that the accuser was facing abusive relations with Hardik (sic),” the court said.
Referring to the conversation between the complainant and Hardik, the court said that she was “at Hardik’s orders” and he used to blackmail her.
“Sometimes, she had to take his permission for dinner or even for drinking water… she was forced to buy a sex toy. She was being threatened repeatedly to publish intimate/obscene pictures of her.”
The court, therefore, concluded that she was not a consensual party to the sexual acts, observing, “Reading of the entire chat shows the lewdness with which the accuser was treated by Hardik. He was not only abused and hurt, but also deprived of the basic dignity that a living being deserves, let alone the courtesy and compassion that a human being provides to his fellow man. ,
“She was hooked and the dilemma she was facing was not only to keep the noose loose but also to hide it. The whole time she was carrying the burden of the evil designs of the accused.”
read also, Delhi Police says factory owner ‘raped’ minor worker, forcibly poured ‘some liquid’ in his mouth
‘More than a willing partner’
A special court in Sonipat Court in May 2017 convicted Hardik and Karan under sections 376 (rape), 376D (gang rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of the same woman), 292 (sales, distribution) was convicted. obscene books etc.), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.
He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The third accused, Vikas, was convicted under sections 376, 120B and 292 of the IPC under sections 67A of the IT Act and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
In the High Court, Karan’s counsel had argued that the complainant had selectively created WhatsApp chats, and was “more than a willing participant in intimate encounters”. She also relied on her chats with other boys that she was “an outgoing person”. Hardik’s lawyer had also questioned his side, while stating that “a woman in general shall not put her chastity at stake” is not an absolute rule.
The accused had also alleged that the complainant continued to correct his statement from the first complaint to the police and in the statements made before the court. The court, however, rejected these arguments, and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to Hardik and Karan.
However, Vikas was acquitted when the court observed that “the allegation of the prosecution that Vikas was also with the other two accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt”.
(Edited by Anumeha Saxena)