Mumbai: January 2014, when one of the posh-called-localities of Mumbai, Powai, was embarrassed by a society gatekeeper of a well-known housing society. The victim, a dance teacher by profession, who was reportedly out for a late night dinner with couple of her friends was raped while returning home by her own society watchman. The victim reportedly had two glasses of wine and reached home in an inebriated state.
According to the prosecution’s case, the victim and her two friends left the hotel around midnight and reached her residence around 2am and the victim was dropped outside her building by her friends. The CCTV footage, however, shows her entering the premises around 3.30am whereas her friends’ left her outside her building around 2am. The police found through CCTV footage that the Watchman, Pramod Upadhyay, was not at his place during this time period.
The accused of the rape case, Pramod Kumar Upadhyay, was convicted in the case in 2015 and was sentenced to 10 year imprisonment by the sessions court. The convict, however, had filed for bail plea challenging the 10 year imprisonment by the sessions court. The court however found the verdict by the sessions court legitimate and rejected the bail plea by the convict. The court observed that Pramod Upadhyay, the convict in the case, was the security guard of the housing society. His moral and professional duty was to protect the members of the Society nor to rape any of them.
Special Public Prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade had opposed the bail plea by the convict on the ground of evidence against the convict. According to Bagade, the medical evidence and his extra judicial confession before the medical officer soon after his arrest shows his involvement in the crime. Also, he had the mobile phone of the victim in his possession which again hints at his involvement in the crime.
The defense advocate Apeeksha Vora however, argued that since the accused was the Watchman of the society, he was wrongfully framed in the case. She also blames on delaying in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and that the statement of witnesses were incorrect and inconsistent.
However, the court found the evidence adduced by the prosecution valid and hence rejected the bail plea by the convict.