Consent is pivotal in sexual assault cases, and testimony indicating mutual consent can overturn initial accusations, impacting victim compensation processes and judicial scrutiny over public fund usage.

ORDER :

1. This criminal appeal assailing conviction on charge of rape, notwithstanding the testimony of the prosecutrix conceding the relationship to be consensual, has led to revelation of a pattern of irresponsible exercise of jurisdiction vis-a-vis victim compensation scheme necessitating measures to be taken so as to curb misuse of public money.

2. The appellant was brought to trial in the court of Sessions (Case No. 28940/2016) in the wake of report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 23.08.2016 submitted by the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station Pahar Ganj upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (no. 247/2016), on the accusations of his complicity in certain acts of commission or omission, the same statedly constituting offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) and (f) 313 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) The Additional Sessions Judge presiding over the trial, by his judgment dated 27.12.2017, held the appellant guilty and thus convicted him, as charged, for the said offences.

3. By order dated 06.01.2018, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded as the punishment for offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) and (f) and Section 313 IPC respectively. In addition to this, the trial judge also awarded imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 506 (Part-I) . The order on sentence further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for one year on the first three counts and simple imprisonment for six months on the last count. The benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for the period of detention already undergone was also accorded. The trial court, accepting the application of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), further directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation to the prosecutrix.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appeal at hand was filed alongwith an application for suspension of sentence.

5. The application for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending hearing on the appeal came up before this court on 19.11.2018 which was allowed by a detailed order, pursuant to submissions made at which stage it was also deemed proper that report be called from DLSA with regard to the release of compensation to the prosecutrix, it at the same time being directed that in the event of the compensation not having been released, it to be ensured by suitable steps that no such release was allowed till further directions from this court. The proceedings recorded in the wake of the said directions shall be noted later at appropriate stage in the course of this judgment.

6. It is essential to take note of the background facts before proceeding further.

7. The prosecutrix (PW-2) is the daughter of the elder brother of the appellant, she being one of the five siblings which include two brothers and two sisters, her father concededly