Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
BADARI MEHTO - Appellant
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A. 1094/2013
Decided on : 19.11.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate.
Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP
The testimony of the victim in sexual assault cases is entitled to great weight, and absence of corroboration is not a requirement for conviction in a rape case.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Rape - IPC - [375, 376] - The court found the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The court granted the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. to the appellant. The judgment discusses the testimony of the victim, contradictions in her statements, medical evidence, and the defense's argument of false implication. The court relied on the unamended definition of rape and the Supreme Court's stance on the testimony of the victim in sexual assault cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC for raping a 12-year-old girl. The victim's testimony, medical evidence, and the defense's argument of false implication were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony clear, cogent, and unblemished, falling within the parameters required for conviction under Section 376 of the IPC. The court rejected the defense's argument of false implication and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, contradictions in her statements, the defense's argument of false implication, and the applicability of the unamended definition of rape.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unamended definition of rape, the Supreme Court's stance on the testimony of the victim in sexual assault cases, and the lack of evidence supporting the defense's argument of false implication.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the IPC were upheld.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 05.7.2013 and 06.7.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-,in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. has been granted to the appellant.
2. Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. As on date the appellant has undergone 5 years of incarceration which includes the remissions earned by him. His jail conduct has been satisfactory.
3. The version of the prosecution was disclosed in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which had formed the basis of the FIR and which was to the effect that at about 4.00 p.m. in the afternoon on 26.4.2011 while she was playing outside her house the accused who was known to her had taken her to a poultry farm where, in a room he had committed rape upon her. She informed her father pursuant to which the present FIR had been registered. The victim was medically examined and her MLC was proved as Ex.PW-1/A. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned M.M. and was proved as Ex.PW-7/A. Her father Dinesh was examined as PW-4. The appellant was also medically examined and his MLC Ex.PW-11/A suggested that there was nothing which indicated that he could not have performed the sexual act. Exhibits which were seized included the clothes of the victim as also her blood sample and vaginal swab were sent to the FSL for examination and the FSL has submitted its report (Ex.10/G).
4. At the outset learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant submits that this case rests upon the sole testimony of the victim; there are three versions recorded of the victim i.e. her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which had formed the basis of the FIR; her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also her statement on oath in Court. There are inherent contractions in these versions. Such material contradictions cannot be ignored; they go to the root of the matter; the witness is not credible. It is pointed out that whereas in one version the victim had stated that she was enticed by the appellant to go to the poultry farm where the act had been committed whereas in her version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she had been dragged, forced and coerced to go there. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time she had introduced in her version that Rs.50/-had been given to her by the appellant. This did not find any mention in the FIR. Her statement that blood was oozing out from her private parts was not supported by the medical evidence and not only her hymen was found intact but there was also no blood detected on her private parts or upon her clothes. The defence sought to be set up by the appellant was not examined in the correct perspective; this was a case of false implication as there was a money dispute between the father of the victim and the appellant. A sum of Rs.4000/-had been owed by PW-4 (father of the victim) to the appellant and when the appellant asked for the money this false case has been planted upon him. There is also no explanation for the inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (2011) 7 SCC 130 Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana to support his submission that inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of the prosecutrix cannot form the basis of a conviction and such a dicey witness cannot be relied upon.
5. Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted.
6. Record shows that the witness was examined in Court as PW-3. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which had formed the basis of the FIR has been perused. It was stated that at 4.00 p.m. on 26.4.2011 while she was playi
