On a day Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal proposed launching an experiment to finish all trial court cases in six months, a fast-track court actually delivered its judgment in a case of attempted rape in a little over two months. The court summmed up the recording of prosecution evidence in a day. This is being called the fastest resolution of a rape case in the city.
Normally, such cases drag on for months, with the witnesses and sometimes even the complainant turning hostile.
The overall proceedings in the rape case, right from the registration of the FIR (first information report) by the police to the pronouncement of sentence by the Dwarka fast-track court, took a little over two months.
Additional sessions judge Virender Bhat awarded five years’ imprisonment to Vinay Dubey after holding him guilty of trying to rape a woman on the pretext of providing her a job. He was also fined Rs.25,000.
A case was registered against Dubey on August 19 in Dwarka and he was arrested a day after the FIR was lodged.
According to the police, Dubey tried to rape the woman. The victim in her complaint said that about three or four days before the day she filed a complaint with the local police, she received a call from Dubey who offered her a job and called her for a meeting at his Dwarka Sector-12 office in west Delhi.
When the woman visited Dubey’s office, he first talked about her educational and professional qualifications, later he started misbehaving with her and tried to rape her. But the woman managed to push him away and thwart his rape bid, the complaint said. The woman then called the police from the spot.
Dubey escaped from the spot, but was arrested by the police on August 20.
Delhi Police filed a chargesheet in the case on September 30 before a magisterial court that took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to be tried by the fast track court.
The fast track court on October 8 framed charges against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
On October 13, the court began recording of the statement of prosecution witnesses and concluded the process in a day.
Five witnesses, including the complainant, testified as prosecution witnesses to support the allegation levelled against Dubey.
On October 15, the court recorded the statement of Dubey as an accused and also examined his friend as defence witness.
The court on October 20 convicted Dubey under rape charges. The argument for quantum of punishment was heard on October 26 where public prosecutor Satvinder Kaur submitted that the maximum possible sentence be imposed upon the convict whereas the defence counsel for the convict prayed for leniency towards him.
On October 28 the court, while awarding Dubey a five-year jail term, held that the crime committed by the convict cannot be said to be simple as he betrayed the trust of the victim.
“The convict had called the prosecutrix (victim) to the office of his friend on the pretext of providing employment to her but, in fact, his real intention was to satiate his sexual lust upon her,” the court said.
“…the offer of employment was given to the prosecutrix only as a bait in order to trap her.”
The court observed that the victim would never have imagined that the convict is only interested in sexually exploiting her.