The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of multiple accused, including a lawyer and a police officer, for orchestrating a conspiracy to falsely implicate a man in a rape case, holding that the prosecution had established a “deliberate and coordinated fabrication” of criminal charges. The Court enhanced compensation to his family, while noting that the victim “never got justice during his lifetime.”
The case traces back to June 2000, when a police officer allegedly developed enmity against the deceased victim after the latter intervened in a molestation case and became a key witness in a criminal case against him. The Court noted that this incident triggered a chain of threats, culminating in a plan to falsely implicate him in a serious offence. Acting on the conspiracy, a woman was tutored to file a false rape complaint, supported by staged events and fabricated evidence, leading to the arrest and custody of the victim. He was subjected to custody, physical abuse, and prolonged humiliation before the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch.
Later, the complainant retracted her allegations in a subsequent statement, admitting that the accusation was false, motivated by inducement and pressure, and part of a pre-planned conspiracy. Scientific evidence, including DNA analysis, further confirmed that the deceased victim was not involved, thereby exposing the fabrication.
Based on the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused of offences including criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, and misuse of official position. These findings were challenged before the High Court.
Dealing with the principal defence that key witnesses were accomplices and their testimony was inadmissible, the Court rejected the contention, holding that the law does not bar reliance on accomplice evidence. It clarified that even if a witness could have been made an accused, their testimony remains admissible, subject to careful scrutiny.
The Court emphasised that “an accomplice is a competent witness,” and the failure to prosecute such witnesses or tender pardon does not invalidate their evidence. Reference was made to Lakshmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938. The Court considered delay, the financial status of the accomplice-witnesses and held that:
“A reading of their testimony makes it clear that they agreed to become part of the conspiracy when substantial amounts were offered to them. All the said witnesses, who appear to be from the lower financial strata of the society, is seen to have fallen for the same. This Court is in no way justifying their conduct. But, taking into account their financial status, they seem to have fallen easy prey to the bait offered by the accused persons…..On an overall appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to disbelieve them.”
Rejecting reliance on precedents relating to the examination of co-accused (Abdul Razak vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3282), the Court noted that such principles apply only where the witness was formally arraigned as an accused, which was not the case here.
On appreciation of evidence, the Court found that the chain of circumstances, including prior threats, planning meetings, staged medical evidence, and subsequent retraction, clearly established a criminal conspiracy to falsely implicate the victim in a serious offence.
The Court also noted that the testimony of the victim, detailing custodial abuse and fabrication of evidence, remained largely unchallenged and was corroborated by other material on record. While minor procedural lapses were pointed out, the Court held that such irregularities would not vitiate the trial in the absence of prejudice to the accused.
The Court also took serious note of the roles played by the accused, observing that the conduct of both a legal professional and a police officer in orchestrating such a false case was “in no way justifiable.” It emphasised that a lawyer, as an officer of the Court, is expected to assist justice, while a police officer is duty-bound to prevent crime, and any deviation from these duties strikes at the integrity of the justice system.
“The crime committed by A1, a lawyer and A2, a police officer is in no way justifiable….This is a fit case in which a more stringent sentence ought to have been imposed so as to send a strong message to the people occupying such positions, be it a lawyer or a police officer, that Courts would not treat such crimes lightly or turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of their position and authority.”
However, since no appeal had been filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence, the Court refrained from modifying the sentence on that ground.
On compensation, the Court found that the amount awarded by the trial court did not adequately reflect the extent of harassment, humiliation, and mental agony suffered by the deceased victim of a false rape case. Acknowledging that no monetary compensation could truly redress the injustice, particularly as the victim was no longer alive, the Court nevertheless enhanced the compensation to the entire fine amount of ₹3,00,000, directing that it be paid to his legal representatives.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the convicted persons were dismissed, while the victim’s appeal was partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation.
Appearances
Appellants- Mr. S.C. Buttan, Mr. Himanshu Buttan, Mr. Ojasvi Annadi Shambhu and Mr. Nikhil, Advocates. Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Akshit Sawal, Mr. Ayan Sharma and Mr. Akshay Mathur, Advocates.
Respondents- Utkarsh, APP for State
