The judgment emphasizes the need for unimpeachable testimony of the prosecutrix, the importance of corroborating evidence, and the significance of delay in lodging the complaint.

G.S. Sistani, J.

Crl. M.A. 10404 of 2017

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 123 days delay in filing the present leave to appeal.

2. We find the reasons so mentioned in this application be stereotyped and although, there are no cogent reason which would convince us to condone the delay, but since we have heard the matter on merits, the delay is condoned.

Crl. L.P. 364 of 2017

3. The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2016 in Session Case 113/2014 arising out of the FIR No. 86/2014 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar under Section 342, 376D, 506 IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is that on 16.02.2014, the prosecutrix came to the police station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and gave a complaint alleging therein that she worked as Administrative Assistant (Field) with Micro Nutrient Research at Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi from 06.12.1999 to 20.05.2002. She then worked as Community Health Worker w.e.f. 21.05.2002. Her services were terminated on 21.03.2013. She alleged that the respondent no.1/Dr.Jitender Kumar, Administrator of the Centre had an evil eye on her since long. He in order to succeed in his illegal design, contacted her somewhere in the first week of January, 2014. He lured her under the pretext that he would arrange to reinstate her in the organization on the post of Project Officer. He assured her of a meeting with the respondent no.2/Dr.Sunil Sajawal, Director of the organization. He advised her to reach the office at 214-A Basement, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi at 6:45 PM on 22.01.2014 for the meeting. Thereafter, the prosecutrix, without smelling any bad intention of the accused persons, reached the office at 6:45 PM where both the respondents were present. Initially, they talked about her job and then, all of a sudden, respondent no.2 started pressing her breast. When she objected, they threatened her that in case she would make any noise, she would be eliminated. Respondent no.1 locked the door from inside and both of them committed rape upon her. She was also threatened not to lodge any complaint lest they would get her minor daughter kidnapped and killed. Due to fear and terror, she could not make any complaint. She alleged that the accused persons have raped and intimidated her.

5. On her complaint, the case was registered under section 376(2)(g)/342/506 IPC vide FIR No.86/2014. The prosecutrix was taken to AIIMS, where also she narrated the history of the incident to the doctor. The doctor did not observe any trauma, bite marks and abrasions on her person. Her hymen was found torn. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded wherein she stated that she was called at about 6:00 PM. on 22.01.2014 in the office for a meeting. Both the accused persons called her in the cabin and asked her to do the work as they wanted. The respondent Sunil caught her from behind and asked to please both of them. When she refused, they caught her forcibly. When she raised an alarm, they told her that no one would hear her noise. First of all, respondent no.2 raped her and then respondent no.1 raped her. When she came out, they threatened her to kidnap her daughter and get both of them killed if she would tell it to anyone. She took her daughter to Ballabhgarh without telling anyone. After some days, she came to her house at Sangam Vihar, called her relative and told him the incident. He took her to the advocate whom she told everything and then her case was registered at the police station.

6. By order dated 27.01.2015, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 342, 376D, 506 IPC against the accused/respondent. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 14 witnesses. The respondents herein led defence evidence and examined five witnesses. Statements of the respondents were recorded und