Rathore’s contentions ripped apart in 103-page judgment

Court: Ruchika was the best person to depose about the genuineness of her signatures but she is no more,so cannot appear in the witness box. In her absence,the persons in whose presence she signed the document are the best witness to prove the genuineness of her signatures. Their view is relevant under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Her signatures were not got compared with any previous authenticated and admitted signatures of Ruchika. The strong direct evidence cannot be rebutted by the weak type of evidence of the handwriting expert. Ultimately,the court held that signatures of Ruchika stand proved.

The former top cop questions why S C Girhotra or Ashu Girhotra did not sign the memorandum against him. Says it is a conspiracy

Court: No doubt,the memorandum was not signed by SC Girhotra,Ruchika’s father,and brother Ashu Girhotra. The memorandum bears signatures of some persons.

They have just assembled and mustered courage that action should be taken against the accused on the basis of facts stated therein.

The question arises whether there was conspiracy to falsely implicate the accused or few people of Panchkula had joined hands after the occurrence for justice to Ruchika and for taking action against the accused at the highest level since he was an officer of the rank of inspector general.

Claims Girhotra and Anand Prakash had previous enmity with him

Court: There is no iota of evidence which may even remotely suggest that SC Girhotra had any previous enmity with the accused for falsely implicating the accused and putting his minor school-going daughter’s future at stake.

There is no documentary evidence on the file about previous enmity of Anand Parkash with the accused. The accused (Rathore) examined Shadi Lal Malik (a defence witness) working as an assistant reader with him in the year 1973 when he was posted as SP of Kurukshetra district.

The statement of the defence witness cannot be believed. No complaint in writing against the father of Anand Parkash who was living in Ladhwa district,Kurukshetra,in the year 1973 is proved on the file.

Many persons daily meet the superintendent of police. It is not probable that a incident which had occurred more than 15 years ago was in the mind of Anand Parkash. Had Anand Parkash been nursing any enmity against the accused,then he would not have allowed his daughter Aradhana to join the Haryana Lawn Tennis Academy which was formed and headed by the accused. The statement of the defence witness is an afterthought.

Rathore alleges Girhotra wanted to extort money from him

Court: If SC Girhotra was interested to extort any money from the accused,then he would have met the accused on August 15,1990,when Rathore sent a letter to meet him alone and not bring the girls along.

The defence version that Girhotra joined hands with Anand Parkash only out of greed for money does not sound a reason and cannot be accepted.

Rathore alleged that RR Singh,former Haryana DGP,who recommended registration of a criminal case against him was biased

Court: The accused came with the defence that on transfer of R R Singh as SSP,Rohtak,the accused succeeded him. When R R Singh left the charge,he allegedly asked the accused to accommodate him to harvest the wheat crop at the residence. The accused,however,refused to do so. So relations between two turned sour since 1976,the accused said.

If R R Singh had any hostility in his mind,then he would not have admitted before the CBI that he might have asked Rathore to accommodate him for harvesting the crop at his Rohtak residence.

It shows that R R Singh is a truthful man. Moreover,the proceeds from the said crop were required to be deposited in the government treasury and the same were not to be kept by R R Singh. There is no other fact on the file about hostility between accused and RR Singh. RR Singh is proved to be an impartial man,while holding the post of Haryana DGP.

He conducted an inquiry on the orders of the Government of Haryana.

He sent the report for registration of the case against the accused but no case was registered. RR Singh was posted as DGP of Haryana at that time. If he was hostile towards the accused,then he would have personally made efforts to register a case against the accused. After sending the report,he did not bother about the case which further proves that he was not hostile or biased against the accused.

Rathore questions Aradhana’s eyewitness account

Court: Since Ruchika is no more,so the court is required to scrutinise the statement of Aradhana very carefully…….Aradhana alongwith her parents and Ruchika were also impleaded by the accused in a complaint filed under Section 500 of the IPC (defamation); so the version of the accused that Aradhana was introduced as an eyewitness at a later stage cannot be accepted. If she was not the eyewitness,then there was no question of impleading a minor girl in a defamation complaint.

Aradhana stepped into the witness box as a prosecution witness. Her cross examination was conducted on many dates,which runs into 152 pages.

Rathore creates doubt on the commission of offence,giving room dimensions saying he could not have fallen on his chair (as mentioned in the FIR). Questions why Ruchika kept silent for two days after the incident

Court: It was not a big room and the chair of the accused was not far away. The distance of two-three feet is not such a big distance. It can be covered in one or two steps.

It is not improbable that the accused cannot fall on his chair. Ruchika was studying in a convent school. Her decision not to tell the act to their parents as they were scared from the accused being a senior police officer cannot be in any way considered as unnatural.

Rathore contended that he is a man of high integrity

Court: The act of molestation on the part of the accused is duly proved by the eyewitness so argument of the learned defence   counsel that the accused is a man of high integrity and moral character loses its significance. It cannot be presumed that a person will not commit the act of molestation since he is having a meritorious service record.

Rathore attributes motives behind Anand Prakash and others joining hands against him

Court: Much stress has been laid on the role of Madhu Parkash and Anand Parkash and their relative Dr Naresh Mittal about their role against the accused. They were not the eyewitnesses.

If they had joined hands after the occurrence for getting justice for the victim then no motive can be attached to their acts…….when conscious of any person is pricked is anybody’s guess. The bad service record of Anand Parkash has no relevancy in the instant case. Moreover,it is a case of eyewitness’s account so all other points raised by the accused (Rathore) against the prosecution witness are of no help to him and those are liable to be ignored.