The main legal point established is that the presence of DNA evidence, immediate distress of the victim, and lack of credible defense led to the conviction under Section 376 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 27.02.2016 passed by the Ld ASJ, Saket whereby the appellant was convicted of the offences under Sections 376(1) and Section 506-Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant also impugns an order dated 05.03.2016, whereby he was sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506-Part II of the IPC. Both sentences would run concurrently.

2. The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 583/2013 under Sections 376/506 of the IPC, registered with PS Ambedkar Nagar. The said FIR was registered with PS Ambedkar Nagar on 03.12.2103. The name of the complainant at whose instance the said FIR was registered is withheld and she is hereafter to as ''the prosecutrix''.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was living with her husband and children at a jhuggi at Shaheed Camp, Dakshin Puri. She would also intermittently reside with her mother as she was anemic and not keeping good health. On 01.12.2013, she had gone to her mother''s house. It is alleged that on 03.12.2013, her husband went to his workplace and told her that he had got her medicine, which was lying at their home. It is alleged that when she came to her house to take the medicine, her neighbour (the appellant herein) was standing outside. He caught hold of her by her hand and pulled her inside. He pressed her neck and pushed her and made her lie down on the bed forcibly and raped her. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her children if she reported the said incident.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and the defence examined five witnesses. The Trial Court evaluated the evidence and found the appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged.

5. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment, inter alia, on the ground that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. It is further contended that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence substantiating the alleged incident.

Evidence

6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly examine the evidence led by various witnesses.

7. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-2. She deposed that she lives along with her family in a jhuggi at Dakshinpuri. She further deposed that she did not remember the date of the alleged incident due to her ailments from which she had been suffering for about one and half years. No evidence has been produced before the Court regarding her ailments. She deposed that about one week prior to the incident, her husband had left her at her parents'' house. On the day of incident, her husband called her and told her that he had brought some medicine for her and had asked her to come at their house and collect the same. She testified that when she reached near her paternal house at about 11/11:30 am, the accused caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and forcibly took her inside his house, bolted the door of his room, pinned her down on the floor of the room and forced her have her a sexual intercourse. She deposed that she tried to resist him and hit him with fists and kicked him but since she was ill, she could not prevent him from forcing himself on her. She alleged that the accused also tore her clothes and he broke the string (naada) of her salwar. When she raised an alarm, the accused gagged her mouth. She deposed that the accused further threatened to kill her and her children if she decided to raise an alarm. She testified that after the incident, she again tried to raise an alarm. The accused opened the gate and let her go out and furthe