A Delhi court has junked a plea by the public prosecutor at Tis Hazari court to withdraw a case against a man accused of attempting rape, ordering the chief secretary to identify the person behind the move.
The judge observed that the prosecutor had “marginalised” the nature of the crime against a woman and referred to it as a false case.
Additional sessions judge Savita Rao said: “It is unfortunate that the managers of government had been brain washed to give such accord to this unholy mess which the court decries… Rather, if at this stage, the withdrawal is permitted, that would amount to stifling and thwarting the course of law (sic).”
The judge, rubbishing the prosecution plea, said the court was yet to examine the truthfulness of the complainant’s case, but the public prosecutor had gone ahead and declared the case unfit for trial, which suggests that the victim could have manufactured a false rape case.
The judge, angered at the conduct of the prosecution counsel, said that on one hand the government constituted fast-track courts to try crimes against women and on the other, the prosecution counsel sought withdrawal of a case against accused booked for a heinous crime.
Referring to the Delhi chief secretary, “the CEO of the government”, the judge said: “Chief Secretary, Delhi, is hereby called upon to hold the proper and discreet inquiry under intimation to this court and to take such steps against anyone whosoever it may be, who recommended for withdrawal… (sic).”
The judge observed that during the trial, additional deputy commissioner of police — when asked about the comments regarding withdrawal of
the case — conveyed to the home department, NCT of Delhi, that “the accused persons took the law in their own hands. It would set a wrong precedent for others, if the case is withdrawn”.
The Delhi police had registered an FIR in 2011 against Tarkeshwar Yadav, Shivaji and Vidhya Sagar for attempting to rape their landlady.
After investigating the case, the police also filed a chargesheet, which detailed about the commission of the offence, and the evidence which supports the case.