The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for credible and legally admissible evidence to form the basis of conviction, and the failure of the legal aid system to provide effective assistance to the accused.

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. In the recent past, Delhi - the Capital City of our Country has witnessed unprecedented protests by ‘Aam Aadmi’ (common man) and there was public outcry to make the city safe for women who have been guaranteed equal rights to live with dignity. Delhi was referred to as ‘Rape Capital’ by every newspaper highlighting instances and plight of rape victims. People from all strata of society came on the street with the demand of ‘Death Penalty for Rapists’. To address the concern of the citizens and to ensure speedy trial of rapists, Fast Track Courts were created to deal with the cases of sexual offences. Aim was to provide speedy justice and also send a strong message to the offenders as well the to the potential offenders that legal system is capable of tackling the problem and punishing the guilty without any delay thereby providing some solace to the victims of sexual assault that the guilty has been punished as per procedure established by law.

2. Being conscious of misuse of the provisions of rape and the effect it can have on the accused, in the context of evaluating the testimony of the rape victim, following observations were made by the Supreme Court in Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 858 :

‘....It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication.... there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.’

3. In this case registered under Sections 354/323 IPC, the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 363/376(2) (f)/323 IPC. This Appeal raises many issues leading to serious concern with reference to the duties of the Trial Court to ensure protection of statutory rights as well as right to have fair trial in criminal cases guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further the purpose of providing legal aid and effectiveness of the existing legal aid system and whether it is able to achieve the desired purpose also comes to the fore. This Appeal is a glaring example as to how mountain can be made out of molehill by the victim and her mother.

4. How poverty leads to unending misery for an accused and how the concept of providing legal aid to those persons, who are not able to defend themselves by getting legal assistance at their own expenses, has failed to achieve the desired purpose, can be best answered by the Appellant who had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine for rape which he did not commit. This case also brings in limelight the need to have an experienced counsel on the panel of legal aid especially for heinous crimes like the present one so that the legal aid provided to such an accused is not for ‘namesake’ or an ‘eye wash’ only.

5. Facts giving rise to the prosecution of the Appellant are narrated in the complaint Ex.PW1/A made by the child victim (name of the child victim withheld to conceal her identity and hereinafter referred to as ‘J’). She made statement to the police that the Appellant came to her house to ask for a utensil to keep vegetables (subzi ke liye bartan mangaa). Her father asked her to give the utensil. She gave the utensil to the Appellant and on the pretext of giving toffee to her, the Appellant took her to the gali and thereafter lifted her in his lap and started pressing her (bheechnein laga). She raised alarm and many persons from jhuggis gathered there. At that time, the Appellant slapped on her face resulting into an injury on her lip. Thereafter the crowd brought the Appellant to her mother and she (‘J’) narrated the incident to her mother. On the basis of the above statement made by ‘J’, case FIR No.299/2009 under Sections 354/323 IPC was re