The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence in cases of sexual assault, the need to test the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the potential for false implication. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the quality of evidence needed for conviction in cases of sexual assault.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 15.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.96/2013 arising out of FIR No.53/2013 PS Uttam Nagar by which the appellant – Narender @ Nikhil was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 420 IPC. By an order dated 16.05.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that in June / July, 2012 at B-456, Hastsal, J.J.Colony, Uttam Nagar, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) aged around 19 years on the false promise to marry and extorted Rs. 50,000/-from her. The incident was reported to the police on 30.01.2013. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined. Statements of the witnessed conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 420/376/384 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 420 IPC. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 384 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. 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 the prosecutrix and the appellant were acquainted with each other. The prosecutrix used to travel in a staff bus on which the appellant was a conductor. Friendship developed between the two and the appellant started visiting her house. Admittedly the prosecutrix was major on the day of incident and was working in a factory on daily basis at Manesar. She worked there for about a year.

5. In her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), the prosecutrix informed the police that the appellant developed friendship with her and started having acquaintance with her mother and other relations. He promised to marry her. One day when she was present at the residence of her maternal grandparents at B-456, Hastsal, J.J.Colony, Uttam Nagar, the accused came there in the absence of her family members and taking advantage of her loneliness established physical relations with her despite her objecting to it. Physical relations took place several times in the said house. She informed her mother about it. The appellant promised to marry her repeatedly. He also extorted Rs. 50,000/-from her on various occasions on false pretexts. On 04.07.2012 when she was present at ‘Dwarka Mor’ waiting for staff bus, she was abducted and gang raped by some boys who arrived there in Eco car. She lodged FIR No.147/2012 under Sections 365/376(g)/34 IPC PS Chawala. She was pressurized by the appellant to change her statement so that he could marry her. She exonerated the assailants in the said FIR. Subsequently, the appellant declined to marry her. She came to know that the appellant had married some other girl.

6. In her Court statement as PW-1, ‘X’ deposed that she joined the private job at Manesar on 15.06.2012. She used to travel from her office to her residence at Uttam Nagar in the company’s bus. The accused used to tr