![\"HC](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130316244,imgsize-340950,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/img_high_court__2__1_1_9nk52mkajpg.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi:<\/span> Twenty-six years after a good Samaritan was framed in a fake rape case by a cop as revenge for getting his colleague suspended in a molestation case, Delhi High Court<\/a> has upheld the conviction of the policeman and a practising advocate who abetted him.In a recent order, HC also raised the issue of systemic failure that led to denial of justice for Sushil Gulati, who passed away in 2014 before he could see his tormentors punished. The main accused policeman died during the pendency of the case.\u201cGulati 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\u2026,\u201d Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha noted while dismissing the appeals filed by lawyer Haji Mohammad Altaf and sub-inspector Narender Singh<\/a> against their conviction by the trial court in 2016 for criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence and extortion under IPC.The duo had been sentenced to a four-year jail term that they underwent before HC could decide the appeals.\u201cA lawyer is an officer of the court, whose duty is to defend his client and assist the court, not to indulge in such acts of implicating innocent persons in crimes. Likewise, 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,\u201d HC noted in its 85-page verdict.HC observed it was \u201ca fit case in which a more stringent sentence ought to have been imposed so as to send a strong message\u2026 that courts would not treat such crimes lightly or turn a blind eye to such blatant misuse of position and authority\u201d.The prosecution said Gulati had strongly intervened when he said local cop C M Dutta had tried to molest a woman. It resulted in action against Dutta, who conspired with Singh and Altaf to frame Gulati in a rape case. They paid a woman to level the claim, resulting in Gulati\u2019s arrest and custodial torture. It was only when the woman\u2019s testimony fell that Gulati was discharged a year later.HC lamented that not only was Gulati \u201cfalsely implicated in an offence of such heinous nature and 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.\u201dHC enhanced the token compensation for Gulati\u2019s kin for causing enormous damage to his reputation and character. \u201cGulati never got justice during his lifetime. Therefore, this court did not want to further delay the matter.\u201d<\/div>\n