The testimony of the prosecutrix/PW-6 can be totally relied upon as she remained categorically clear that rape was committed upon her by the appellant. The absence of any injury on the body of the prosecutrix 'S' would not be of much consequence if the other evidence on record supports the case of the prosecution. Mere absence of vaginal injury would not absolve the appellant from his liability for offence under Section 376 IPC.

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2013 and order on sentence dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, (FIR No. 99/2012, P.S. Dwarka North, New Delhi), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.30,000, and in default, to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution as observed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 16.12.2013, is that:-

“As per the prosecution case, information was received at the police station on 07.05.2012 at about 2:35 p.m. regarding a quarrel at House No. A-489, near Mother Dairy, Sector-15, Dwarka. Same was reduced into writing as DD No. 15A and was marked to SI Umesh Kumar for suitable action. Accordingly, SI Umesh Kumar reached the aforesaid spot and met the informant Arun Kumar, who told him that the victim girl has gone to House No. E-202, Bharat Vihar. SI Umesh Kumar reached the House No. E-202, where he met the prosecutrix ‘S’ (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity), who told her that she along with two other girls namely ‘SR’ and ‘G (real names withheld in order to conceal her identity) have been raped.

He brought all the girls to police station and produced them before the SHO. The SHO handed over them to SI Nirmal Sharma for further inquiries. SI Nirmal Sharma recorded the statement of prosecutrix ‘S’ who stated that she along with the prosecutrix ‘G’ had come to Delhi about ten days ago with a lady named Sunita in search of a good job and on reaching Delhi, Sunita took them to a house in Mahavir Enclave, where Kishan and his wife Monika were staying.

On 03.05.2012 the landlord of the house evicted them from the house. Monika took her along with the prosecutrix ‘SR’ as well as ‘G’ to Shani Bazar and left them on Shani Bazar road. After sometime, Kishan reached there and called his friend Balram. Balram reached there in his Maruti car and took three girls to a house where he committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘S’ and Kishan committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘SR’ and ‘G’. She further stated that Kishan and Balram had threatened them not to narrate the incident to anybody or otherwise they would be killed. They became frightened as they did not know anybody in Delhi.

In the morning, Kishan brought them to Sector-14, Dwarka Metro Station, from where he took them to Pooja’s house in Sector-15, Dwarka, on foot. After sometime, Kishan took ‘G’ and ‘SR’ to his room and left the prosecutrix ‘S’ at the house of Pooja. In the house of Pooja, ‘S’ was raped by a person on 04.05.2012 whom she did not know. She had refused to permit that person to have intercourse with here but was threatened by Pooja. Thereafter, ‘S’ went to the house of Monika. Meanwhile, Monika had come to know that her husband Kishan had raped ‘G’ and ‘SR’ and upon this a quarrel took place between her and her husband. ‘S’ and ‘G’ told Monica that they want to go to their native village but she told them that they will have to compensate her for the expenses of these days by earning for her and confined them inside her house. In the morning, ‘S’ got an opportunity to come out of the house and asked a person to make a call at telephone no. 100, upon which the police reached that house and recovered them.”

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined 23 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and claimed his false implication in the case.

4. After considering the evidence on record and the contentions of the parties, the Trial Court held the appellant gu