Having appeared before the court as a “victim” of gang rape, a 32-year-old Nabha resident would now face trial for not only registering a false complaint, but also for furnishing false evidence and also on charges of perjury.
The case will come up for hearing before the additional district and sessions judge, Najar Singh, on February 17.
The perjury proceedings were initiated on December 18, 2013, by the court of additional district and sessions judge Shalini S Nagpal, while acquitting former president of NRI sabha, SAS Nagar, Amarjeet Singh Virk (61), his wife Surinder Kaur (59) and son Gurjit Singh (33), booked on the charges of gangrape, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation.
A case was filed in a district court on August 27, 2012, after the Nabha resident lodged a complaint alleging that she had been raped in Sector 68, SAS Nagar, on July 13, 2011.
The woman alleged that accused Amarjit Singh had met her at Nabha and allured her to file a case against Nawab Singh, a Patiala resident, whom she had accused of raping her on November 9, 2011.
The “victim”, who claimed to be vice-president Human Rights Manch in Punjab, later taking a U-turn, had claimed that she had falsely named Nawab Singh and two other persons at behest of Virk, who had dispute with Nawab Singh.
She said she had come to SAS Nagar in September 201 and alleged that she was raped by some person.
She also alleged that she was made to close an FIR against Nawab Singh under pressure.
During the course of arguments in the court, it came to light that the victim was Human Rights Manch vice-president in Punjab. In order to falsely implicate Virk and her family, the victim inflicted injury marks on her body.
The court, in a strong worded judgment of December 18, Shalini Singh Nagpal has initiated a criminal trial and written to chief judicial magistrate (CJM) to proceed against the “victim” under Section 211 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 340 of the CrPC. A maximum of seven years rigorous imprisonment can be awarded for the offences.
Court had ordered enquiry against investigating officer too.
The court, taking strong note of the functioning of the investigating officer, sub-inspector Hari Om, had also asked the UT police inspector general and senior suprintendent of police to take action against Hari Om. Strongly deprecating the investigation, the court had observed “shock and disgust” over the deliberate attempt by the police to mislead the court.