JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. Amar Kumar Pandey challenges the impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2015 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 376/307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 11th September, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-13) by itself shows that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as she herself stated that the appellant never refused to marry her. Promise to marry was only incidental. With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. The CDRs available on record are for the period from 17th August, 2013 to 20th August, 2013 which belie the version of the prosecutrix. No independent witness was associated with the recovery of knife and the knife in question has not been put to the prosecutrix, thus, it cannot be said that it relates to the offence. Knife was not recovered from/near the spot. No fingerprints were taken. When Ct. Monu (PW-9) and SI Satish Kumar (PW-11) went to the spot, nothing was found. Neither the crime team visited the spot nor were the photographs taken. As per the MLC, only injury no. 4 was caused by a sharp weapon, rest all were caused by a blunt weapon.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the prosecution case stands proved not only on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix but also by the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since nothing was visible on the spot, the crime team could not recover anything from the spot. Appellant has been rightly convicted by the Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record and the appeal be dismissed.

4. Process of law was set into motion on 15th September, 2013 around 8:23 P.M. when information was received regarding one handicapped lady lying in a pool of blood near the T point, main road, Nav Jeevan Camp, Govindpuri. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 43A and was assigned to SI Satish (PW-11). He went to the spot along with Ct. Monu (PW-9). He made enquiries at the spot and came to know that the injured had been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by the PCR van. No witness could be found at spot. He then went to the Trauma Centre and collected MLC (Ex.PW-13/A). The victim was declared not fit for statement by the doctor. FIR No. 649/2013 (Ex.PW-5/A) was registered at PS Govindpuri for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. He then returned to the place of incident, however, no further information could be gathered from the spot.

5. On 17th September, 2013 SI Satish (PW-11) again went to the hospital when the victim was fit for statement. On enquiries from the victim, it was revealed to be a case of sexual harassment. Consequently, W/SI Seema (PW-17) came to the hospital who recorded the statement of the injured/prosecutrix. On the basis of her statement, Section 376 IPC was also added.

6. Pursuant to the statement of the victim search for the appellant was conducted however, he was not traceable. On an information received, the appellant was apprehended near petrol pump and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-1/A Disclosure statement of appellant vide Ex.PW-1/C was also recorded, whereafter he was medically examined and brought to the police station.

7. On 18th September, 2013, the appellant led the police to the place of incident. A pointing out