The Delhi High Court on Saturday upheld the conviction of lawyer Haji Altaf and a Sub-Inspector Narender Singh for fabricating evidence to falsely implicate a man in a rape case in 2000 [Haji Mohd. Altaf Vs The State].

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha raised the compensation awarded by the trial court to victim Sushil Gulati’s legal representatives from ₹2 lakh to ₹3 lakh. Gulati passed away during the pendency of the trial in 2014.

The Court observed that the complete disregard for professional duties by the lawyer and police officer was not justifiable. It also opined that a more stringent sentence ought to have been imposed on them to send a strong message to persons occupying authoritative position.

However, it noted that the State had failed to appeal against the inadequate sentence of four years awarded to the convicts in 2016.

“A lawyer is an officer of the Court, whose duty is to defend his client and assist the court and not to indulge in such acts of implicating innocent persons in crimes. Likewise, A2, a police officer, whose duty is to prevent crimes, has in complete disregard to the same, indulged in acts which are in no way justifiable. This is a fit case in which a more stringent sentence ought to have been imposed so as to send a strong message to the people occupying such positions, be it a lawyer or a police officer, that Courts would not treat such crimes lightly or turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of their position and authority,” the Bench said.

The Court was dealing with the appeals moved by Altaf and Singh against their conviction and sentencing. Gulati's family had also filed a plea for enhancement of the sentence and the compensation awarded.

In 2000, Gulati had rescued a woman from being sexually assaulted by a chowki-in-charge Chandramohan Dutta. The incident had led to registration of a criminal case against Dutta.

Subsequently, Dutta hatched a plan to falsely implicate Gulati. He carried this out with the help of the lawyer and the police officer. They managed to get a woman's statement accusing Gulati and two of his associates of raping her in a moving car.

Her statement led to registration of a rape case against Gulati and others. However, after the case was transferred to the Crime Branch, the complainant was interrogated at length, leading to revelation of the conspiracy hatched against Gulati.

Dutta, Altaf, Singh and a four accused namely Sonu were then charge-sheeted in the case.

Gulati died in 2014, three years after the completion of his examination-in-chief. Dutta and Sonu also died even before the trial was complete. During the trial, Gulati deposed that he was subjected to repeated custodial violence by police.  

In 2016, Altaf and Singh were found guilty by the trial court.

Dealing with their appeals, the Court found that Gulati was harassed to the maximum extent possible during the investigation and trial. It said that the trial court ought to have prevented the harassment.  

“Not only was he falsely implicated in an offence of such heinous nature and later on beaten up/tortured in police custody, even after the matter came up before the trial court, no effective steps are seen taken to protect him or at least prevent harassment. On the other hand, he is seen to have been harassed to the maximum extent possible by making him appear before the court about 20 times, but sending him back without examining him. The trial court ought to have been more vigilant and ought not to have granted adjournments on the mere asking by the defence. It is a matter of great concern that the trial court also did not effectively step in to prevent the harassment.”

The Court also observed that the rape-complainant and other witnesses were paid to build a false case against Gulati.

“A reading of their testimony makes it clear that they agreed to become part of the conspiracy when substantial amounts were offered to them. All the said witnesses, who appear to be from the lower financial strata of the society, is seen to have fallen for the same. This Court is in no way justifying their conduct. But, taking into account their financial status, they seem to have fallen easy prey to the bait offered by the accused persons," it noted.

It, thus, upheld the trial court verdict convicting the accused.

"On an overall appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to disbelieve them. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference by this Court," the High Court said.

Advocates SC Buttan, Himanshu Buttan, Ojasvi Annadi Shambhu and Nikhil appeared for lawyer Haji Mohd Altaf.

Advocates Ravin Rao, Akshit Sawal, Ayan Sharma and Akshay Mathur appeared for police officer Narender Singh.

Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]