Credibility of witness testimony and the presence of overwhelming evidence can outweigh the defense of false implication.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present appeal Sikandar @ Babu challenges the impugned judgment dated 11th May 2017, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354/451/506(I) IPC and the order on sentence dated 12th May 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs.1000/- , in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 (I) IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of father of the prosecutrix who was an alcoholic and used to fight with the father of the appellant. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. There are discrepancies qua the place of incident. The appellant has not been connected with the offence. No overt act has been attributed to him, hence is liable to be acquitted.

3. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the appellant based on the testimony of material witnesses, that is, the victim and the complainant, hence the appeal be dismissed.

4. Process of law was set into motion on 26th December 2011 at around 6:20 P.M., when telephonic information was received from the control room stating ‘H.No. 108, Sherpur Gaon, Shiv Mandir, ek aadmi ne 10 saal ki ladki ke saath galat kaam kiya hai’. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 26A (Ex.PW-11/A) and was entrusted to SI Amit Prakash. He along with lady Ct. Aarti proceeded to the spot. Ct. Tejveer was also informed and was asked to reach the spot. On reaching Gali No.1, Village Sherpur they met the complainant (Aunt of victim) who produced her niece (victim herein). Statement of complainant was recorded wherein she stated that her Mausi resided near her house situated in Gali No.1, Sherpur Gaon on rent along with her son and his family. Her husband used to go for work and since she used to be alone at house she used to go to her Mausi’s place for lunch. On 26th December, 2011 around 3:30 P.M. when she went to her Mausi’s place to have lunch, she found that the door was closed but not latched. When she opened the door and went inside, she saw that one person Sikander @ Babu, whom she knew, was doing wrong act with her niece who was lying on the bed. On seeing her, Sikander @ Babu ran away and while running he threatened her that if she informs anyone she would face dire consequences. She consoled her niece since nobody was present at the house at the time. Thereafter, her Mausi came and she called on 100 number. Aforesaid statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-7/A. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No.434/2011 (Ex.PW-4/A) was registered at PS Khajuri Khas for offences punishable under Sections 342, 354, 506 IPC.

5. Thereafter, W/Ct. Aarti along with Ct. Tejveer took the victim to GTB Hospital for her medical examination. In the meantime, parents of the victim also reached the hospital. Thereafter, SI Amit Prakash went to the place of the incident and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-7/B) at the instance of the complainant Uma. He along with Ct. Tejveer and Uma conducted a raid at the house of Sikander @ Babu and apprehended him at the instance of the complainant. He arrested him vide memo Ex.PW-7/C, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-7/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW-7/E. On 27th December 2011, statement of victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-1/A).

6. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 342, 354, 376, 506, 511 IPC. Vide order dated 16th September 2013, charge was framed for the offences under S