The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and unassailable testimony, especially in cases of sexual offenses. The judgment emphasizes the need for corroboration in certain circumstances and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish each element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant – Hari Mohan Sharma has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 25.11.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.33/2013 arising out of FIR No.197/2011 PS New Friends Colony by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 13.12.2013, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs.5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that in December, 2010 or January, 2011 at House No.102, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name) during night time. The complainant lodged complaint (Ex.PW-4/A) dated 25.07.2011 before Chairperson SC/ST Commission, Khan Market implicating the accused for commission of rape upon her. She further informed that thereafter the accused established physical relations with her several times on the promise to marry as a result of which she became pregnant. When she informed the accused about her pregnancy, on 24.07.2011 at around 07.30 p.m., his father – Ved Prakash Sharma, brother – Gopal Sharma and mother arrived at her residence and gave her severe beatings. She was threatened to abort the child. On the intervention of one Manvir Singh Kohli, the assailants left the spot threatening her to abort the child within a week. On the basis of the said complaint, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on 29.08.2011. During investigation, ‘X’ recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C; she was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

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. Undisputably, ‘X’, a permanent resident of Shiv Nagar, Rudrapur (Uttrakhand) and was pursuing LL.B. from Chankya Law College, Rudrapur, while the accused was doing MBA. It is also not in dispute that both the prosecutrix and the accused were acquainted with each other for the last about three years before the incident and used to have conversation on phone. In 2010, the prosecutrix came to Delhi and lived in a rented accommodation at Shiv Nagar. The friendship between the two continued even thereafter.

5. In her complaint (Ex.PW-4/A), the prosecutrix did not reveal the exact date when for the first time, she was sexually assaulted by the accused at Delhi. She merely stated that after her coming to Delhi, the accused started visiting her at her Friends Colony residence and ‘one’ day after putting her in fear and pressing her throat, he committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he established physical relations with her several times after enticing her on promise to marry her. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-4/A), she disclosed that the accused was well known to her since 2010 as he lived as a tenant in their house. She got a job in Delhi. In January, 2011, the accused called her at New Delhi Railway Station. When she went there, the accused intended to take her to a hotel which offer she declined and returned to her r