Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
State (N.C.T of Delhi) – Petitioner
Versus
Ramphal – Respondent
Crl. L.P. 474 of 2017
Decided On : 13-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP. for the State along with Inspector Devendra Singh Oberoi, P.S. Nangloi
The testimony of a victim should be of sterling quality, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence to inspire confidence and form the basis for conviction.
Headnote:
Delay in Filing Leave to Appeal - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - IPC Section 376 - The court condoned the delay in refiling the appeal but found no sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the leave to appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in a case of rape under IPC Section 376. The victim, a minor, alleged that her maternal uncle had raped her, and the prosecution presented 19 witnesses to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the victim to be inconsistent and contradictory, and it did not inspire confidence. The medical evidence showed a torn hymen, but there was no opinion on whether the tear was fresh or old. The court also noted that the victim's conduct after the incident was against natural behavior. The court concluded that the testimony of the victim was not believable and contradicted by other prosecution evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the medical evidence, and the conduct of the victim and her family after the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the testimony of a victim to be of sterling quality and to inspire confidence. It also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for consistency in the victim's statement. The court applied the principle that an appellate court may only interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the leave petition, finding no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
CRL.M.As. 13510/2017 (delay) & 13511/2017(delay in refiling)
1. These two applications are filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 75 days delay in filing the leave to appeal and 404 days delay in refiling the appeal. Although, Courts have been liberal in condoning the delay in filing the leave to appeal and particularly in refiling, but in this case there has been inordinate and unexplained delay of 404 days in refiling the appeal. We do not find sufficient grounds to condone the delay in refilling the leave to appeal, however, since we have examined the case on merits, delay of filing the leave to appeal and refiling are condoned.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CRL. L.P. 474/2017
3. The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 53/13 arising out of the FIR No. 162/2011 registered at Police Station Nangloi under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted.
4. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Trial Court, is reproduced as under:
“1. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the accused Ramphal is charge-sheeted by the police of PS Nangloi for the offence punishable U/S 376 of IPC, as the FIR in the case in hand has been registered on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix 'N' (presumed name of prosecutrix. The real name of the prosecutrix is withheld to protect her identity). The prosecutrix has alleged in her statement recorded by the police on 08.06.2011 which is Ex.PW1/A that she is 14 years of age. She lives with her parents and studies in 6th class. When, she was 6/7 months of age. The accused who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix adopted her, as he was not having any child and when his son was born, then, the accused started beating to the prosecutrix and she started living in the house of her parents and further alleged that on 22.05.2011 at 4.00pm, Rohit i.e. son of her maternal uncle, (i.e accused) had come to the house of the prosecutrix and her mother had asked him the reason for weeping and master Rohit told that he has been beaten by the children and his mother had gone to the village to attend some condolence and Rohit asked to the prosecutrix to go the house of the accused for cooking the meal and also cleaning his house and the mother of the prosecutrix had send to the prosecutrix along with her sisters “P” and “B” who returned to their house, after leaving the prosecutrix in the house of the accused. She has further stated that the accused came to his house at 11.00pm. She prepared BHUJIA of eggs and took the dinner together and slept and at about 1.00/1.30am the accused started doing GALAT HARKAT with the prosecutrix and removed her SALWAR and when she resisted and cried, then, the accused put a cloth on her mouth and pressed the same. So she could not cry and the accused raped to the prosecutrix and in the meantime she became unconscious and she regained her consciousness at 9.00am in the next morning and she went to her house and apprised to her elder sister and they did not tell to any person in view of fear of damage to their reputation and in view of pressure of the relatives and after due deliberation they have dialed 100 number on 07.06.2011. 2. On recording of such statement of the prosecutrix on dated 08.06.2011 the FIR no.162/11 was registered on dated 08.06.2011 and she was medically examined her the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded and the accused has surrendered in the court on dated 08.06.11. On completion of the investigation the chargesheet was filed U/S 376 of IPC and on finding of the primafacie case, the charge U/S 376 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”
5. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecutio
