Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
VIJAY @ BITTU - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 19 of 2011
Decided on : 25-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate (DHCLSC).
For the Respondent: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja
The credibility of witness testimony and the importance of corroborative evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in cases involving sexual offenses, especially those against minors.
Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 376(2)(f) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, which deals with the punishment for rape, and emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the credibility of witness testimony in cases involving sexual offenses against minors.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for raping a minor girl and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the victim and her mother, supported by medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the consistent and credible testimony of the victim and her mother, along with corroborative medical evidence.
Issues: The key issue was the credibility of the victim's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and corroborative testimony of the victim and her mother, as well as the medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offense of rape.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offense of rape.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Vijay @ Bittu assailing the judgment and order on sentence 14th May, 2010 and 17th May, 2010 respectively whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one year.
2. Briefly stating, the case of prosecution is that on 25th May, 2007 on receipt of DD No.25A regarding rape of a girl, W/ASI Sushila reached the spot where ASI Karan Singh, Ct.Suresh and W/Ct.Sharmila were already present. W/ASI Sushila recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A of Smt.Padma – mother of the child victim ‘P’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) aged about nine years wherein she stated that ‘P’ was studying in 1st Standard in a School (name of school withheld) in Ishwar Colony. Her husband was running a grocery shop in Ishwar Colony. On the date of occurrence at about 1.00 pm, her daughter ‘P’ came to the shop directly from the school. After sometime accused/appellant Vijay, who was their nephew (jeth ka ladka) also came there. The complainant asked him to accompany her to their house. She also made her daughter ‘P’ sit on the bicycle of accused/appellant and she followed them on foot. On the way, she met classmate of ‘P’ and while she was talking to her, the accused/appellant alongwith her daughter went ahead. When she reached home, she did not find her daughter at home. She searched for her daughter and accused and also informed her husband. After sometime, the accused/appellant was seen coming from the side of canal. When she asked appellant/accused as to where he was, he started looking here and there. Thereafter the accused/appellant went alongwith her husband to the shop. Suspecting something wrong, she checked the clothes of her daughter which she found to be stained with blood. ‘P’ informed her that the accused/appellant took her to a room near the canal and made her to remove her clothes and lie down on the grass. Then he did ‘galat kaam’ with her. The complainant took her to the shop of her husband and informed him about the incident. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police.
3. On the basis of above statement, FIR No.282/2007 under Section 376(f) IPC was registered against the accused/appellant at PS Bawana. Child victim was sent for medical examination. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
4. Accused/appellant was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. Accused/appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated by the family of the child victim due to enmity.
5. After trial, believing the coherent and cogent testimony of prosecutrix supported by the medical evidence, the learned ASJ, convicted the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal.
7. I have heard Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate (DHCLSC) and Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State.
8. Mr.M.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to note the material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which go to the root of the case and shake the foundation of the case. As per the MLC of the child victim, at the time of her examination she was conscious and oriented and there was no external injury on her private part. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the family of the child victim as the appellant had a fight
