New Delhi :The rape case which troubled Uber cabs in India will finally see the verdict on October 23 as a Delhi court pronounces its judgment today by convicting driver Shiv Kumar in all crimes under Section 506, 323, 376 and 366.
Teez Hazari court on Tuesday convicted the driver in rape and abduction case.
It is the same case in which a Uber cab driver was facing trial for allegedly raping a 25-year-old woman executive in his taxi last year.
Additional Sessions Judge Kaveri Baweja had on October 7 reserved the verdict after concluding hearing final arguments from both the sides in the case.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of December 5 last year when the victim, a finance executive working in Gurgaon, was heading back to her house at Inderlok.
Accused driver Shiv Kumar Yadav was arrested on December 7, 2014 from Mathura and is currently in judicial custody.
Special Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava had earlier said that an accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the victim if it is trustworthy.
He had said there was sufficient evidence on record to hold Yadav guilty in the case and none of the 28 prosecution witnesses has spoken contrary to the police case.
Advocate D K Mishra, appearing for Yadav, had argued that there were several contradictions in the prosecution’s story and the alleged victim’s version and false evidence was planted to implicate his client.
He had also argued that the woman had made various improvements in her statements before the court and police.
The Supreme Court had earlier set aside the Delhi High Court order allowing the accused to re-examine 13 prosecution witnesses, including the victim.
The woman and the Delhi Police had moved the apex court against the high court order. The proceedings in the case were stayed by the apex court for six months from March 10 to September 10.
The trial court has framed charges against Yadav under IPC for alleged offences of endangering a woman’s life while raping her, abducting with an intent to compel her for marriage and criminally intimidating and causing hurt.
The court had also recorded the testimony of the accused in which he termed the charge against him as “false”.