Point of Law: Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Appeal against conviction - Rape of Minor girl - Reliability of testimony - Statement made by prosecutrix and her failure to give any details of the previous places that she had worked at and yet disclosing the complete details about the appellant, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant without any material to corroborate her testimony - More so, where the prosecution could have with reasonable efforts, garnered the necessary corroborative evidence - Appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he is charged

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, inter-alia, impugning a judgment dated 25.05.2017, passed by ASJ-01(South), Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby he was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’). The appellant also impugns an order on sentence dated 31.05.2017, whereby he was sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to serve simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR no. 145/2013 registered with PS Sangam Vihar. The said FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by the prosecutrix - a girl aged about sixteen years at the material time. In her statement to the police recorded on 07.04.2013, she stated that she had come to Delhi from her village with one Shivani in the month of January 2012. She had been left at the Shakarpur office for work. She stated that she had been placed in a house, where she had worked for six months. Her employers left her at the same office in Shakarpur. She had been taken to an office in Moti Nagar by Shivani to search for her next job. Thereafter, from that office, she was sent to the office of the accused (Kumod Mishra) at Sangam Vihar. She stated that she had spent the night at his office. She further stated that when she was sleeping, the accused came beside her on the bed and when she woke up, she realized that the accused was taking off her clothes. She asked him what is he doing (bhaiya yeh kya kar rahe ho) and he told her to continue lying down on the bed and also, threatened to slash her with a knife (chaku se kaat dunga). She stated that she had kicked the accused but he slapped her several times and committed wrong acts with her (mere saath galat kaam kiya hai). She stated that one boy named Sachin came in the morning and took her to a kothi to work there, however, she did not remember the address of this kothi. She worked there for about two months and thereafter, Sachin called her back and she came to Sachin’s house and stayed there for two-three days. Thereafter, Sachin handed her over to one Sunil bhaiya and Sunil handed her over to Saroj didi for the purpose of working at her house on 06.04.2013. She stated that Saroj had asked her as to why is she upset and waking slowly and she, then, disclosed about the aforesaid incident with the accused to her. She stated that Saroj had thereafter, taken her to the police station. She disclosed that Kumod Mishra had forcefully hit her and committed rape on her.

3. In her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 08.04.2013, she stated that in the month of January, 2012, she had come to Delhi from her village with one Shivani and she had been left at an office that would have found a workplace for her. She stated that one Mishra had committed wrong acts with her about two months back (Mishra ne mere saath galat kaam kiya hai, do mahine pehle kiya tha). She stated that the full name of the accused is Kumod Mishra. She stated that he had hit her with his leg and had threatened to kill her with a knife (Aur mere laat mara fir voh bola chaku se kaat dega). She also stated that he had committed rape on her (mere peshab karne vali jagah par usne apni peshab karne vali jagah dali). She further stated that she was under a lot of pain for about one-two weeks. She also stated that he had raped her twice or thrice on one night.

4. The petitioner was charged with committing offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and the defence did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court had evaluated the evidence available and had found the appellant guilty of the offences f