The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a police officer and lawyer for falsely implicating Sushil Gulati in a fake gang rape case and subjecting him to custodial torture. The Court condemned the abuse of power and delay tactics, enhancing compensation for the victim’s family.
The Delhi High Court has delivered a strong judgment, upholding the conviction of a police officer and a lawyer who falsely implicated an innocent man, Sushil Gulati, in a fabricated gang rape case. The Court also took serious note of the custodial torture, harassment, and misuse of legal process that Gulati suffered for years before his death.
This case exposes a disturbing example of how authority was misused for personal gain, where false evidence was planted and the legal system was manipulated to extort money. The Court made it clear that such abuse of power cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with strictly.
ALSO READ: ‘Disturbing Trend’: Delhi HC Slams Filing Of Fake Rape Cases, Refuses to Quash FIR
The Bench, led by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, highlighted the immense suffering faced by the victim and emphasized that the justice system must act firmly to prevent such incidents in the future. The Court also refused to give any benefit to the accused due to the death of a key witness, noting that the delay in cross-examination was caused by the defense itself.
Justice Sudha observed,
“…PW12 Sushil Gulati was not only falsely implicated in a heinous crime of gang rape but was also subjected to custodial violence and undue harassment at the hands of the police. He was further harassed by being repeatedly summoned to court on multiple dates, only to be sent back without his cross-examination being conducted. It is a matter of great concern that the trial court also did not effectively step in to prevent the harassment. The request for adjournments for cross-examination is seen granted for the mere asking…”.
The case dates back to August 2000, when lawyer Haji Mohd. Altaf and Police Sub-Inspector Narender Singh conspired with others to falsely accuse Gulati of gang rape. As part of their plan, they staged a fake rescue of a woman who was acting under a false identity and had been coached to accuse Gulati. To make the case appear real, blood was planted in Gulati’s car and on the woman’s clothes.
However, a later investigation by the Crime Branch revealed the truth and proved that Gulati was innocent. This led to his discharge and the prosecution of those involved in the conspiracy.
In 2016, the Additional Sessions Judge at Rohini Courts convicted the accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy, fabrication of false evidence, and framing incorrect records. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of up to four years.
The accused challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the testimony of the woman and other accomplices should not be accepted because they were not formally granted pardon under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the High Court rejected this argument and relied on Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows an accomplice to be a valid witness.
The Court further emphasized the continued harassment faced by Gulati during the trial. It noted,
“…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”.
Importantly, the Court accepted the testimony of Gulati even after his death by applying Section 33 of the Evidence Act. It stated that the defense had enough time—almost three years—to cross-examine him but instead chose to delay the process repeatedly.
The Bench strongly criticized the conduct of both the lawyer and the police officer involved. It stated,
“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 Court also dismissed a highly insensitive argument made by the accused. It remarked,
“…In addition to all this, quite an insensitive argument is seen advanced on behalf of A1 and A2 before the trial court that – “they had no insight or supernatural knowledge that the witness would die later on.” Nobody need have such ‘insight or supernatural knowledge’. But they could have prevented such a situation by cross-examining PW12 promptly instead of seeking adjournment on every occasion possible. This is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law”.
Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicted individuals and upheld their sentences. In a significant move, the Court also enhanced the compensation awarded to Gulati’s family. Considering the serious damage to his reputation and the suffering he endured, the compensation was increased from ₹2 lakh to ₹3 lakh, which will be paid to his legal heirs.
This judgment sends a powerful message that misuse of legal authority, especially by those in positions of trust like lawyers and police officers, will not be tolerated. It reinforces the importance of accountability and fairness in the justice system while ensuring that victims, even posthumously, receive recognition and justice.
Read More Reports On Fake Gang Rape Case
