The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration in cases based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, emphasizing the need for assurance and the potential doubts that may arise in the absence of corroboration.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 07.11.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.18/2012 arising out of FIR No.53/2012 PS Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant – Raj Kishore @ Raj Kumar was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 342/354 and 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC. By an order dated 17.11.2012, he was awarded RI for one year under Section 342 IPC; RI for two years under Section 354 IPC and RI for five years with fine Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 29.02.2012 at around 01.30 p.m. at Jhuggi No.150, Dharna Camp, Haiderpur, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix “X” (assumed name) aged around 14 years after wrongfully confining her there “X” made statement (Ex.PW-11/A) and the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on 01.03.2012 at around 01.00 a.m. “X” was medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offences under Sections 342/376 IPC. The appellant was charged for commission of the said offences by an order dated 24.07.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses in all. It is relevant to note that when the statement of the prosecutrix was underway, additional charge under Section 354 IPC read with Section 325 IPC were framed by an order dated 12.09.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for commission of the offences mentioned previously. State did not challenge appellant’s acquittal under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix “X” which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. Needless to say, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case, the Court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.

4. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at around 01.30 p.m. on 29.02.2012. The FIR was not lodged promptly. Only during the night intervening 29.02.2012 and 01.03.2012 at about 01.00 a.m. after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-11/A) the Investigating Officer registered the case under Sections 342/376 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that at not stage prior to that, the prosecutrix or her family members had reported the incident to the police. No DD entry to that effect came into existence. In the complaint (Ex.PW-11/A), “X” gave detailed account of the incident and informed the Investigating Officer that when her mother had gone outside to work as “maid” and her siblings were playing in the park, her neighbour – Raj Kishore called her inside his jhuggi to clean it. When she went inside the jhuggi, the accused closed its gate and switched off the light. She was made to lie on the bedding on the floor and after putting off her salwar, he committed rape upon her. Apparently, “X” was very categorical that the accused had established physical relations with her forcibly against her wishes. “X” was taken for medical examination on 29.02.2012 at 10.40 p.m. No external injuries were seen on her body including private parts at the time of her examination;