Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence and is reliable, and minor contradictions in the victim's statement should not discredit the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. - Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned ASJ/ Special Judge (NDPS) (West Delhi) in Sessions Case No.47/2010, arising out of FIR No.45/2010 under Sections 376/377 IPC registered at Police Station - Nabi Karim, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the State. By way of the impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused/respondent by granting him benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.04.2010, at about 2.00 PM, the victim while returning from school wanted to ease herself and had gone to the public toilet situated at Multani Danda, Paharganj, Gali No.6. The accused followed her and forcibly took her to male toilet, where he removed her underwear and frock (top) and made her to lay down on the floor and committed rape upon her. The accused put his hand on the mouth of the victim and did not allow her to scream. In the meantime, one lady, PW9 heard the noise from the male toilet. She came to the male toilet and saw the accused being held by one 'K', who was known to PW9, being a resident of the same neighborhood in the area. She saw that blood was coming from the private parts of the victim. Accused succeeded in making himself free from the clutches of 'K' and ran away. The accused was apprehended on 29.04.2010 and taken to police station. The matter was not reported to the police before 29.04.2010. The clothes worn by victim at the time of the incident were not traceable as the same were allegedly thrown away by paternal Aunt of victim, PW8.

3. Charge was framed against the accused/ respondent herein for committing an offence punishable under Sections 376/377 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined in total 14 witnesses. After trial, the learned Sessions Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused on the ground that there were glaring discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix and that her deposition does not find corroboration from the deposition of PW9 and other witnesses. Further, other evidence i.e. clothes worn by the victim at the time of alleged rape have not been produced in evidence and there is no satisfactory explanation for their non-production, as the witnesses in that regard have contradicted with each other as to where those clothes have gone and as to why, the same were not traceable during investigation. There is no medical evidence on record which may support the version of the victim that she was raped by the accused. Further, there is no explanation for 7 days' delay in reporting the matter and not getting the victim medically examined. Thus, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused, he was acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

5. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the statement of the victim, PW6, who was minor at the time of the incident. The Court has erred in holding that the statement given by the victim was false and that she had deposed the same because she was asked to do so by her Aunt and the police officials, but has failed to appreciate the fact that the victim has further deposed that her deposition was being given of the circumstances in the same manner as had occurred. He argued that the victim both in her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the statement made in the Court had deposed the same material facts and had clearly explained the role of the accused. Further, the victim had also identified the accused in the Court. He further relied upon the deposition of PW5, Dr. Ratana Mani, who had examined the victim and had clearly mentioned in her report that the hymen of the victim was torn.

6. On the other hand, the present appeal was opposed by learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Inderjeet