The survivor in the 2015 Sonepat varsity gang rape case was not only abused but was denied “even basic dignity of a living creature, compassion and courtesy”, the Punjab and Haryana high court has observed as it upheld the jail terms of two convicts in the case.
The case pertains to the gang rape and blackmail of a student in Jindal Global University by three law students in the same varsity over a period of two years. The FIR in the case was registered on April 11, 2015, on the basis of the survivor’s complaint.
On Friday, the court upheld the 20-year jail term given to accused Hardik Sikri and Karan Chhabra and acquitted the third accused, Vikas Garg, who had been given a 7-year sentence. A trial court had issued the sentences to the three on May 24, 2017.
Also read: After 11 years behind bars, HC sets free Ghatkopar man convicted for killing mom, brother
According to Friday’s judgment, a copy of which was made available to the public on Saturday, the high court bench of justice TS Dhindsa and justice Pankaj Jain said that the survivor was “noosed and the dilemma that she was facing was not only to keep the noose loose, but also to conceal it”.
{{/usCountry}}According to Friday’s judgment, a copy of which was made available to the public on Saturday, the high court bench of justice TS Dhindsa and justice Pankaj Jain said that the survivor was “noosed and the dilemma that she was facing was not only to keep the noose loose, but also to conceal it”.
{{/usCountry}}“The whole time, she was carrying the burden of the diabolical designs of the accused,” it further recorded.
Taking note of WhatsApp chats between Sikri and the survivor, the court said it appeared she was at Sikri’s command and that he used to blackmail her.
“At times, she had to seek his permission even for having dinner or even to drink water,” the bench noted.
Over the course of the trial, the appellants had referred to the chats of the survivor with other boys and termed her as a consenting partner and a “woman of easy virtue”.
However, the court said, she appeared to be a person who may be termed “open and extrovert, but definitely can’t be said to be a fibster.”
During the trial, the prosecution relied heavily on WhatsApp Chats but the convicts preferred not to rebut them and had further accused the survivor of selectively leaking chats. However, the court said if accused were in possession of the best piece of evidence but withholds it, the presumption would be that the evidence, if produced, would be “unfavourable to him.
Also read: Can’t unleash untrained drivers on innocent public: Delhi HC
With respect to Garg, the court said the testimony of the survivor did not show that there was any allegation with respect to a conspiracy between him and the other two accused, nor could it be inferred from WhatsApp chats.
The court further said that it is evident that this is a case of “submission” by the girl.
“Her silence or caving-in to demands of the accused cannot be termed as consent,” the bench added.
“Any resistance on part of the prosecutrix was chewed-out by the accused Hardik even more severely. In such a situation it can’t be said that she was a consenting party,” it said, adding that from the conjoint reading of the survivor’s testimony and the WhatsApp chats, her version is fully corroborated.