Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
In The Matter Of :
Rudal Mandal - Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. 75 of 2013
Decided On : 04-03-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Shaad Anwar and Ms. Shabnam, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP
The sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be the basis for conviction if it is trustworthy and credible.
Headnote:
rape - conviction under Sections 313/342/201 IPC - [363/342/376/313/201/506/34 IPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the testimony of the prosecutrix, the credibility of her statements, and the trustworthiness of her testimony. It highlighted the principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be the basis for conviction if it is trustworthy and credible.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant under Sections 313/342/201 IPC for his involvement in the confinement, rape, and abortion of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, was brought to Delhi under false pretenses and subjected to rape and forced abortion by the appellant and his co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be consistent, trustworthy, and credible. It upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the prosecutrix's testimony and dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the involvement of the appellant in the confinement, rape, and abortion, and the trustworthiness of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can be the basis for conviction if it is trustworthy and credible. It also considered the consistency of the prosecutrix's statements and the circumstances surrounding the confinement, rape, and abortion.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present proceedings impugn judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2012 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in FIR No. 701/2007 registered under Sections 363/342/376/313/201/506/34 IPC at P.S. Punjabi Bagh.
2. The appellant was convicted under Sections 313/342/201 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years u/s 313 IPC read with Section 109 IPC along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default whereof he was directed to undergo SI for three months, RI for two years u/s 201 IPC read with Section 109 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof, he was directed to undergo SI for one month and RI for one year u/s 342 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The co-accused Kamlesh Kumar Gop @ Deepak preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 826/2013 against the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.01.2014 wherein his conviction was upheld.
4. Briefly, the facts as noted by the trial court, are as follows:-
“1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23-10-2007, Prosecutrix "V" went to PS Punjabi Bagh and gave her complaint regarding rape, in her complaint, Prosecutrix disclosed that she is aged about 14 years old and resident of village Butung, Post Bachrao, PS Narayanpur. Distt. Jabhpur, Chattisgarh. On 01-07-2007, she came to Delhi on being misguided by accused Sangeeta and Kaleshwar @ Deepak both agents of Ritu Placement Service, A-199, Lai Quarters, Delhi-63 and the Agency was run by Rudal and Anima. Sangeeta told her that it feels very good in Delhi and they both will live in Delhi. The complainant was reluctant to come to Delhi but Sangeeta and Kaleshwar told her that they will leave her at Punjabi Bagh Convent. She spent the night in placement Agency. In the morning, when complainant asked to go to Convent, the door was closed and her belongings were hide. Thereafter, Prosecutrix spent the night in Placement Agency. On 06-07-2007 at about 10:30 pm, accused Kaleshwar was drunk and he forcibly took prosecutrix to a small room and raped her there. The clothes of Prosecutrix were burnt. Whenever, Prosecutrix asked to go to her house, she was beaten by Kaleshwar and threatened to burn the family of Prosecutrix, Instead of sending Prosecutrix to her house, she was sent to work forcibly. When Prosecutrix came to know that she was carrying three months pregnancy and disclosed this fact to the owner of placement agency namely Rudal, he brought medicine and gave it to Prosecutrix, On 23-09-2007, prosecutrix took the medicine. After four days, Prosecutrix was sent to do work in Kirti Nagar. Accused Kaleshwar threatened Prosecutrix that if she disclosed these things to anyone, her family would be killed.' On this complaint, FIR was registered u/s 363/342/376/313/201/ 506/34 IPC and investigation was entrusted to ASI Urmil Sharma. During investigation, Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri. Accused Kamlesh Kumar Gop @ Deepak, Sangeeta Minz and, Rudal, Mandal were arrested. Statement of Prosecutrix was got recorded on 27-10-2007 and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 363/342/376/313/201/506/34 IPC.”
5. The Trial Court, vide order dated 20.03.2008, framed the following charge against the appellant:-
“That you on or before the date of kidnapping of prosecutrix you being Convener of Ritu Placement Services, had conspired with your co-accused to abet an illegal act i.e. to facilitate the offence of miscarriage of the pregnancy of prosecutrix and offence of rape committed by your co-accused Kaleshwar @ Kamlesh @ Deepak. In pursuance of this abetment your co accused Kaleshwar committed rape upon the prosecutrix in a room of placement agency and you were present near the room. You also gave some medicines to prosecutrix due to which
