The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of trustworthy and reliable evidence, the duty of the prosecution to prove each ingredient of the offence, and the need for the evidence to be consistent with the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal was instituted in September, 2001 to assail the judgment dated 10.08.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.257/1996 and the order on sentence dated 31.08.2001 passed in its wake whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted on the charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), he having been awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- - in default further simple imprisonment for three months, with benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

2. The appeal has come up for final adjudication before this court seventeen long years after it was presented. During the interregnum, the appellant died (on 16.02.2018). On her application (Crl.M.A.33211/2018) his widow Anita Beri was permitted, by order dated 28.09.2018, to prosecute the appeal further in terms of proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 394 Cr.P.C.

3. The record of the appeal shows that the trial court record was requisitioned and placed before the court. The appeal, however, was admitted and put in the list of „Regulars? the sentence having been suspended by order dated 26.11.2001. The appeal came up for hearing before the court thereafter only on 22.09.2010. By this time, the trial court record was lost by the registry. Pursuant to the directions which appear to have been issued on the administrative side, efforts were made to retrace the missing record, but to no avail. Pursuant to further administrative instructions, the trial court has reconstructed the record, with the assistance of both sides, to the extent possible. The same has been presented and placed before the court. The arguments of both sides have been heard on the basis of available record.

4. The Sessions case against the appellant had arisen from the report (charge sheet) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which had been submitted by the police on the basis of evidence gathered during investigation of first information report (FIR) No.25/1996 of Police Station Delhi Cantt, the said FIR, it may be noted, itself having been registered on 13.01.1996 on the basis of statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of the prosecutrix, described to be a girl then aged 16 years, Sub-Inspector Durga Lal (PW-11), posted in the Police Station on the relevant date having made the endorsement (Ex.PW-11/A), leading to such action at 4:00 p.m. for getting the case registered, the prosecutrix having been brought to the Police Station by Ms. Cicily Francis (PW-1), a person connected to a non-governmental organization (NGO) styled as Women Action for Development (WAFD) having their office in Vikas Puri, New Delhi. The prosecutrix, it must be mentioned here, is the daughter of the appellant, he, during the relevant period, having been employed in government service as an electrician and posted earlier in the organization of Garrison Engineer (Air Force) at Udhampur (Jammu & Kashmir) and later transferred to the office of Garrison Engineer (West) at Delhi Cantt. On the date of the registration of the FIR which led to the Sessions trial, and for a quite long period prior thereto the family was living in a house described as 139, Panchwati, Delhi Cantt.

5. The FIR (Ex.PW-4/A) itself showed, it being revealed in the statement of prosecutrix forming the contents thereof that she was pregnant with a foetus of about three months duration at that point of time, the evidence also disclosing that she delivered a girl child in due course. It also may be noted here itself that prior to the registration of this FIR (Ex.PW-4/A), the prosecutrix had been missing from her house, this having been reported to the police by her father, i.e. the appellant, FIR No.480/1995 having been registered in the same Police Station (Delhi Cantt) at 22:45 hours on 21.12.1995 at the instance of the appellant, allegations having been made about commission of an offence under Section 363 IPC, the first informant (the appellant) hav