Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.P. Garg, J.
Raghuvinder Harna - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Resopndent
Crl. A. 1177/2011
Decided On : 05-11-2015
Rape - Criminal Law - IPC Section 376 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the importance of prompt lodging of FIR, the credibility of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, and the significance of corroboration. It highlighted the principles of consent, criminal intimidation, and the relevance of post-event conduct. The court also emphasized the need for thorough investigation and the impact of compromise between the parties on the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping the prosecutrix. The delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, and her post-event conduct were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, and her post-event conduct raised doubts about the credibility of her testimony. It also noted the compromise between the parties as a factor influencing the decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the significance of prompt lodging of FIR, and the impact of compromise between the parties on the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt lodging of FIR, the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the impact of compromise between the parties on the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence order under Section 376 IPC were set aside.
S.P. Garg, J.:-
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 03.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 1126/2010 emanating from FIR No. 357/09 registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant Raghuvinder Harna was convicted under Section 376 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 24.08.2011, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 1,00,000.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 13.11.2009 at around 9.30 a.m. at House No. 550, C&D Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name), aged around 41 years and criminally intimidated her. Information about the incident was conveyed to the police on 06.12.2009. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex. PW-5/A) lodged First Information Report on 07.12.2009. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. To establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his involvement in the crime. The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously under Section 376 IPC. It is relevant to note that the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal.
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’. Needless to say, conviction can be based upon 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. Admitted position is that ‘X’ and her family members were acquainted with the appellant for about 12/13 years prior to the incident. Victim’s husband PW-3 (Balbir Singh), Assistant Manager, Reserve Bank of India, lived along with his family comprising of he himself, his wife (‘X’) and two children since June 2009 at Shalimar Bagh. The appellant was Chief Manager, Allahbad Bank, Baroda House at the time of occurrence. Earlier before his transfer to Kolkata in 1997, he used to work at Parliament Street Branch. In 2009, he was again transferred from Kolkata to Delhi. Both the family had maintained their good relations since then.
5. It is also not in controversy that on 12.11.2009, the appellant had visited ‘X’s house at Shalimar Bagh in the evening and had stayed there overnight. It is alleged that on 13.11.2009, next morning, after the departure of her husband and children to office and school/college respectively, the appellant sexually assaulted ‘X’ against her wishes. She was threatened of dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to her husband.
6. The alleged incident of rape occurred on 13.11.2009 in the morning. Intimation about the crime was conveyed for the first time to the police on 06.12.2009. Inordinate delay of about 23 days in lodging the report has remained unexplained. Daily Diary (DD) No. 22A (Ex. PW2/D) came into existence at 9.30 p.m. at Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 06.12.2009. The information conveyed to the police that time was of commission of rape by a ‘boy’ upon the victim on 03.12.2009. On receipt of the information, the investigation was assigned to SI Baljeet Singh (PW-7) who with Constable Krishan Gopal went to the spot and met ‘X’ and her husband there. After making inquiries, he came to know that it was a case of sexual assault and vide DD No. 23A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
