Manjit Singh case: Flimsy pleas made to get acquittal

Manjit Singh case: Flimsy pleas made to get acquittal

Manjit Singh,the employer of the victim was held guilty of raping the victim and for criminal intimidation.

She came with her family to Chandigarh from Uttar Pradesh some years ago to earn her livelihood and sent her 13-year-old daughter with a man,who she thought would take care of her,to work as a domestic help. Her daughter,who considered her employer a “father figure”,was raped by him not once but many times. Finally,she got justice after four years of legal battle. On Monday,the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Najar Singh sentenced the man to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for raping her. Manjit Singh,the employer of the victim was held guilty of raping the victim and for criminal intimidation.

The mother of the victim also alleged that Manjit Singh use to drop her at the house of a person named Pappu,who also raped her daughter.

While the victim did not support the prosecution’s case,her mother,the complainant in the case,supported the “prosecution version in toto (totally) and deposed on the lines of her complaint to police”,which led to the conviction.

The defence had pleaded that the victim had retracted from her statement made under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and there was delay in filing a complaint after the crime,which the court rejected.


While rejecting the defence counsel’s plea,the court observed,“The prosecutrix narrated the incident only to her mother when she was released from the clutches of the accused. The prosecutrix was hesitating in narrating the incidence as disclosed by her mother. This act of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be unreasonable and unquiet.”

The detailed judgement read,“It is quite natural and believable that she was coming out from a traumatic experience and that she told her mother about it. Under these facts and circumstances,the delay has been well explained and the same cannot be said to be unnatural and the case of prosecution cannot be discarded on the grounds of delay in registering the FIR.”

Responding to the other plea by the defence counsel that the victim retracted from her statement,the court held,“The mother of the prosecutrix categorically narrated the whole story as unfolded by the prosecutrix and the testimony of her mother is admissible under section 8 of Evidence Act.” The court further held that while the victim denied the contents of the statement made before the Judicial Magistrate,she accepted that before making her statement she was asked by the Magistrate whether she wants to make the statement with her own will to which she agreed and she also made her statement voluntarily.

The court held that there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statement given by then judicial magistrate who has written the statement of the victim,where she categorically disclosed that she was raped by the accused.

The court held that it is proved beyond doubt that the stand taken by the victim before the court where she retracted from her statement given to the judicial magistrate is false and “taken as per the whims of the accused,being won over by the accused without knowing that even her that stand will not be sufficient to procure an acquittal for the accused.”