Delhi court convicts former Bar President Rajiv Khosla for assault of woman lawyer in 1994

Former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla has been convicted by a Delhi court for assault of a woman lawyer in 1994 (Sujata Kohli (State) v Rajiv Khosla and Ors)..Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Gajender Singh Nagar held Khosla guilty of offences under section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC more than 27 years after lawyer Sujata Kohli filed the complaint against Khosla.Kohli had subsequently become a judge in Delhi judiciary and retired as a District and Sessions Judge last year.The argument on sentencing will take place on November 15.The incident dates back to August 1994 when Kohli accused Khosla, then secretary of Delhi Bar Association (DBA) of pressurizing her to join various protests and demonstrations. Kohli told the court that she had a seat at the bar association library in Tis Hazari lawyers' complex. She added that while she favoured setting up of family courts, Khosla opposed it and on July 29, 1994 she was asked to attend a seminar on family courts but she declined stating that she was busy. Khosla however, threatened her and said that all the facilities provided to her would be taken away.She filed a civil suit seeking injunction but soon after that, her table and chair at the court complex were removed from its spot. In August 1994 she moved an application for changing the nature of the suit from permanent injunction to mandatory injunction. Though the court asked the parties to maintain status quo, the Civil Judge said that she would also visit the site on the same day. While the complainant was waiting on her seat for the judge, Khosla arrived with another co-accused named PS Rathi and a mob of 40-50 people, pulled Kohli by her hair, twisted her arms and dragged her while also hurling abuses and threats. A complaint was then filed but the police registered a case only five days later at Subzi Mandi police station, it was alleged.The investigation took nearly a year to complete and because Kohli was not satisfied with the investigation she moved a private complaint for prosecution of the case. The complaint and police case were later clubbed and as she became a judge in 2002 the public prosecutor conducted the case..Though the defence had argued that Kohli had no independent witnesses nor did the police witness support Kohli’s case and there was no medical report, the Court rejected the arguments.Dealing with the issue of absence of an independent witness, the Court said that it cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused was the Secretary of Delhi Bar Association..“It rarely happens that people would come forward and speak against their chosen leader. It is common knowledge that nowadays people are becoming self-centered and they find it safe to keep mum even if they see an injustice being done to any person. This is becoming a harsh reality these days. These days nobody comes forward to save someone or to stand witness for someone unless and until one has personal interest in the matter,” the Court said. .The Court also rejected the argument of the lack of support from police witnesses, stating that the reluctance of police in taking action against the accused is evident from the beginning and therefore, non-corroboration of Kohli’s testimony by “the police witness is not detrimental to her case”.The Delhi Bar Association is a “very strong and formidable body of lawyers” and police is often “very slow” in taking action against them, the Court added.The Court also rejected the argument of lack of medico legal certificate (MLC) holding that only bodily pain was caused to Kohli since she was manhandled and pulled by hair. Thus, non proving of MLC is not fatal to the case.Though Khosla had argued that the entire incident was cooked up, the Court rejected even this argument and held that the timing and the consequence of the case are “so perfect that it has to be believed that such events had been orchestrated by destiny”..“The complainant was an advocate, she was aware about all the legal provisions, if she had to cook up a story she could have easily made up a story that in the late hours after dark she was attacked or molested by the accused which is not the case here. In the present case the complainant has alleged the attack in the broad daylight in presence of a number of lawyers, soon before the visiting of Ld Civil Judge. It is impossible for a person to so minutely cook up a story as allegedly done by the complainant,” the Court ruled..[Read Order]