Point of Law: Criminal Trial - Rape - Testimony of prosecutrix - Conviction upheld - Testimony of prosecutrix about stalking and offence of rape committed by appellant upon her not only inspires confidence, but is also held to be consistent, reliable and admissible.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order on sentence both dated 15.10.2020 passed by the learned ASJ, Special Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in case SC No. 9470/2016 arising out of FIR No. 312/2016 registered under Section 376 IPC at P.S. Sagarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted vide aforesaid judgment for the offence punishable under Sections 354D/376 IPC. Further, vide the aforesaid order on sentence the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.13,000/- in default whereof to undergo SI for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year along with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo SI for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 354D IPC.

2. For the sake of felicity, the brief facts as noted by the Trial Court are:-

“2. The brief facts of the present case are that prosecutrix namely ‘RS’ has alleged commission of rape and stated that she was the mother of three children, residing with her family in a tenanted premises and was doing the work of house maid. She further alleged that on 15.06.2016 she along with her niece (Bhanji) at around 9:00 pm went to Nasirpur Subzi Mandi to purchase vegetables. After purchasing the vegetables when they were returning to their house, she observed that one person was chasing them through out from the mandi itself. As soon as she reached the Budha Jayanti Park, the accused obstructed her way and stopped her. It was around 9:30-10:00 pm, by intimidating her, he forcibly took her behind the wall of the park. He gaged her mouth, forcibly committed rape upon her against her wishes. She somehow got herself released from the clutches of the accused, she reunited to her niece and informed her about the incident. They started moving towards their house. When they were going to their houses, complainant again noticed that accused was still chasing her. When they reached at Shani Mandir near Dasrath Pur, there she met Rajesh husband of her Bhanji and informed him about the entire incident who made a call at 100 number and accused was also apprehended from the spot and handed over to the police.

3. On the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her complaint, she also got her statement recorded by the Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.PC where she alleged commission of rape. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused against commission of offences.”

3. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 354D/376 IPC. In the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1; ‘KM’ (husband of the prosecutrix) was examined as PW2; ‘G’ (niece of the prosecutrix) was examined as PW3; ‘R’, (husband of the niece of the prosecutrix) was examined as PW4; Dr. Madhu and Dr. Dhananjay Kumar, who proved the MLC of the prosecutrix, were examined as PW9 and PW12 respectively; and W/SI Kamlesh was examined as PW13. The appellant examined himself as DW1.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP for the State and gone through the Trial Court Record. During the course of hearing, the MLC of the prosecutrix has been separately produced by the learned APP for the State.

MLC

5. The MLC (Ex. PW1/B) of the prosecutrix was recorded on 16.06.2016 at about 4 a.m. Dr. Madhu, who conducted the initial examination, recorded the alleged history and referred the prosecutrix to the Department of Gynecology.

6. Dr. Dhananjay Kumar, Sr. Medical Officer, DDU Hospital identified his signatures on the MLC of the prosecutrix. He deposed that during the medical examination, no fresh injury on the body of the prosecutrix was noticed. After initial examination, he referred the prosecutrix to DOD, Gynae. He a