The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consistency and trustworthiness of testimonies, along with supporting medical and scientific evidence, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in the presence of delay in FIR registration and investigative irregularities.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) and is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2004 and order on sentence dated 09.03.2004 passed by Additional Session Judge, Delhi in Session case No. 171/2001 in FIR No. 1489/1996, registered under Sections 302/376/506-II of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) at PS, Sultanpuri, whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty and has sentenced him as follows:

“I, therefore, sentence the convict Ichcha Ram to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 376 IPC.

I also sentence convict to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.

I also sentence the accused to undergo RI for the period of seven years with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one year, for the offence punishable U/s 506-II IPC.

All the 3 sentences shall run concurrently, subject to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

“(i) That DD No. 7-A was registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, on 27.12.1996, in receipt of the information that some incident has occurred at H. No. A-33, Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar. The said DD was marked to SI Ram Pal Singh(PW-14), and accordingly SI Ram Pal Singh along with the other police staff arrived at the spot. On their arrival, a semi naked dead body of a girl named Deepika was found lying on a bed with injuries present on her neck. Statement of all the family members were recorded wherein Diwakar (brother of the deceased) deposed that on 26.12.1996, he along with his sister Deepika and his brother Amit were sleeping in H.No. A-33 Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar and the accused Ichcha Ram was sleeping in another room of the same house. During the night, he heard the noise of his sister wherein he saw that the accused Ichcha Ram was lying on his sister and was committing penetrative sexual assault with her. On the following instance when he tried to intervene, the accused throttled his neck and threatened to kill him, due to which his body became insensate.

(ii) Based on his statement recorded and the inspection of the dead body, FIR No. 1488/1996, was registered under Section 302/376/506-II of the IPC. On the same day, accused Ichcha Ram was arrested, his underwear was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D and was thereafter medically examined.

(iii) After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges u/s 302/376/506-II IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

3. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant chose to produce DW-1 Ms. Suman in his defence.

4. Mr. Bipin Kumar learned counsel for the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2004 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law; that the learned Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidences and has disregarded the cogent evidences in favor of the appellant; that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-3(Amit Pandey) and PW-5(Diwakar); that the conduct of PW-5 (Diwakar), the brother of the deceased is most unnatural and has been wrongly relied upon by the trial court; that it is highly unrealistic