SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 2874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
SURENDER GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) - Respondent
CRL. APPEAL 395 of 2014
Decided on : 08-08-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Azhar Qayum, Advocate with Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP

The unimpeached testimony of the prosecutrix, when corroborated by other evidence, can be relied upon for convicting the accused in cases of sexual assault/rape.

Headnote:

RAPE - Conviction under section 376 IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [376 IPC, 374(2) CrPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the conviction of an accused based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault/rape, the importance of corroborating evidence, and the caution required when evaluating the evidence of a child witness. The court emphasized that injuries are not a sine qua non to prove a charge of rape, especially in the case of a child. The judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the unimpeached testimony of the prosecutrix, which found thorough support in the evidence led by the prosecution.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for raping a 7-year-old girl. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother, as well as medical evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 376 IPC based on the unimpeached testimony of the prosecutrix, which was corroborated by the evidence led by the prosecution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and other evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that injuries are not a sine qua non to prove a charge of rape, especially in the case of a child. It also highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence and the caution required when evaluating the evidence of a child witness.

Final Decision: The judgment and order on conviction dated 10.01.2014 and the order on sentence dated 13.01.2014 were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

1. The present criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) assails the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.2014 and order on sentence dated 13.01.2014, passed by the Ld. ASJ-01 (West), Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 22/12, in FIR No. 20/2012, registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and payment of a fine of Rs.5000/- with a stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is, for having committed rape on the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 7 years (at the time of commission of the offence) on 18.01.2012.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as are relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:

(i) The prosecution case, as unfurled, is that on 18.01.2012, Smt. Sujata (PW-1)/the complainant, mother of the prosecutrix, alongwith the prosecutrix, went to the police station to inform the police that the appellant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix at his house (jhuggi). Upon the statement of Smt. Sujata (PW-1)/complainant, DD Entry No. 43A dated 18.01.2012 (Ex. PW 6/A) was recorded. SI N.L. Yadav (PW-10) accompanied the prosecutrix with her mother, to the appellant’s house where the appellant was not found and the house (jhuggi) was found closed.

(ii) On the same day, i.e. 18.01.2012, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to DDU Hospital where she was admitted for 15 days.

(iii) Thereafter, on 21.01.2012, FIR No. 20/2012 (Ex. PW-3/A) was registered at Police Station-Kirti Nagar, West Delhi, under section 376 IPC, against the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject FIR’).

As per the subject FIR, the incident occurred on 18.01.2012 at the house (jhuggi) of the appellant, who was residing in the same neighbourhood as the prosecutrix. Smt. Sujata (PW-1), alongwith her family of three children and her husband, was residing at B-588, Chunna Bhatti, Jawahar Camp, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, at the relevant time. On 18.01.2012 at around 04:00 P.M., the appellant approached Smt. Sujata (PW-1), seeking permission to take the prosecutrix, who was playing outside her house, with him on the pretext of giving the latter a toffee. Thereafter, the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant to his house (jhuggi). Later, on the same day, Smt. Sujata (PW-1), becoming worried that the prosecutrix had not returned home for a long time, went to the house of the appellant. She found the door of the house of the appellant locked from inside and heard the prosecutrix screaming from inside. After her vain attempts at knocking and pushing open the door of the house, she started weeping loudly. After some time, the appellant unlocked the door, pushed her and ran outside. She tried to apprehend the appellant but he managed to escape. Inside the house, she saw that the prosecutrix was weeping and that the undergarments of the prosecutrix were stained with blood, whereafter she took the prosecutrix with her to the police station and got DD entry No. 43A dated 18.01.2012 (Ex. PW 6/A) recorded against the appellant.

(iv) The detailed medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 21.01.2012.

The medical opinion in the MLC report, dated 21.01.2012, (Ex. PW-13/A), qua the prosecutrix, returned a finding to the effect that, “no tear, fresh injury or bleeding seen; hymen was found to be torn; no tear/bleeding seen inside the vagina”.

(v) Subsequently on 21.01.2012, at the instance of Smt. Sujata (PW-1), a site plan (Ex. PW 1/B) was prepared. On the same day, at the instance of the former, the appellant was arrested at 8.30 P.M., vide arrest memo dated 21.01.2012 (Ex. PW1/C). The
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top