Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Muzaffar Ali @ Mulla - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 197/2013
Decided on : 07.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Pramod Saxena, APP for the State.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if able to create a dent in the prosecution's version.
Headnote:
IPC - Rape - Sections 376/506 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the credibility of the victim's testimony, the importance of medical and scientific evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution. It highlighted the lack of cooperation in the investigation, inconsistencies in the testimonies, and the benefit of doubt entitled to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 376/506 of the IPC based on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution's version. The appellant claimed false implication due to a family dispute with the prosecutrix's mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix was not sufficient to convict the accused. It noted inconsistencies in the testimonies, lack of cooperation in the investigation, and lack of medical evidence supporting the victim's version.
Issues: Credibility of the victim's testimony, lack of cooperation in the investigation, inconsistencies in testimonies, and false implication due to family dispute were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of credible and cogent testimony in rape cases, the need for corroborative evidence, and the entitlement of the accused to the benefit of doubt. It also highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution and the significance of medical and scientific evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 31.10.2012 and 07.11.2012 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted under Sections 376/506 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. For his second conviction he had been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month. The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The version of the prosecution unfolded in the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-7) is that on the fateful day i.e. on 01.12.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. when her parents had gone for work and she alone and watching T.V. in the house, the appellant Muzaffar @ Mulla living in the neighbourhood had committed rape upon her; he threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone. She started crying. When her brother Shivam returned home, she did not disclose the incident to him. She disclosed the incident to her father (PW-1) who in turn informed her mother (PW-8). Police complaint was lodged.
3. In view of the version of PW-7 coupled with the version of her mother (PW-8) and her father (PW-1) the accused was convicted. The medical evidence admittedly had not supported the version of the prosecution.
4. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that this is a clear case of false implication and the wife of the appellant who was also working as a maid servant in the neighbourhood used to fight with the mother of the prosecutrix which was the bone of contention between the two families and this had led to the false implication of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant on this score has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-7, PW-8 as also PW-1 and suggestions given to each of these witnesses on this score. It is pointed out that this defence of the appellant has been consistent from the inception and this has also been his stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is his argument that the clothes of the victim were deliberately not handed over by the victim and her mother for examination and this has come both in the version of PW-7 and PW-8 as also the doctor who has been examined as PW-6. The MLC of the victim Ex.PW-5/A also shows that there were no injuries noted upon the body of the victim; her hymen was also intact.
5. Arguments have been refuted by the learned APP for the State.
6. Record has been perused.
7. Star witness of the prosecution is PW-7. Although in her examination-in-chief, she had stated her aged to be 13 years but since the prosecution was not able to collect any evidence on her age the doctor had opined that ossification test be carried out. Ossification test report dated 07.12.2010 of the victim has opined the age of the victim to be 15-16 years and giving the benefit of two years she was not considered as a minor.
8. PW-7 had on oath deposed that on the fateful day while her parents had gone for their work she was alone in her house and was watching T.V.; her mother was working in a factory; her father used to do ironing of clothes; her brother had gone to the house of her Bua in the neighbourhood. The appellant entered her room. He forcibly removed her clothes and after clamping her mouth he committed rape upon her. He had thrown a white discharge upon her. She did not disclose this incident to her brother when he came back. She reported the incident to her father when he returned back to the house. Her father informed her mother (PW-8) about the incident. In her cross-examination PW-7 stated that her father normally used to return home from his work at 9.00 p.m. She has two brothers including Shivam. Her mother works in a factory and she normally returns home at about 7.00 p.m. The accused also has a daughter aged about 7 years. PW-7 could not raise an alarm as her mouth had been pressed by the accused. She denied the suggestion that she had not been raped. She a
