JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By the present appeal, Nirmal challenges the impugned judgment dated 18th March, 2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 417/376 IPC and the order on sentence dated 24th March 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted that the sexual intercourse was consensual. The prosecutrix further stated that when she called on the mobile phone of the appellant on 7th May 2013 the call was attended by a lady but she has failed to place on record any Call Detail Record to prove the same. She has also failed to place on record the call detail record with respect to the call on 100 number. He further submits that there is a delay of four days in filing the complaint. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also not been recorded. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement stated that when her sister called the police on 100 number they came to their house and took everyone to the police station whereas Pinki deposed that police apprehended the appellant from his office. The prosecutrix has alleged that the appellant had beaten her but there is no external injury on the body of the prosecutrix as per the MLC.

3. Per contra, Learned APP for the State submits that that the impugned judgment and the order on sentence suffers from no illegality.

4. Police machinery was set into motion on 13th May 2013 when the prosecutrix came to the police station informing that she had been raped. Case was assigned to SI Kusum Dangi who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix wherein she stated that she was working in the Company as an Office Assistant. In the first week of February 2013 she had gone to Rudrapur for some office work where she met the appellant. In a few days they became close friends and started meeting each other. The appellant asked her to marry him and she agreed. After staying in Rudrapur for a week she returned to Delhi and they continued talking on the phone. In the last week of February 2013, the appellant came to Delhi for some personal work and stayed with her in her rented accommodation. During that time, he forced her to make physical relations with her against her will on the pretext that they were going to get married soon. Later on, the appellant came to Delhi multiple times in a span of a month and a half, stayed in her flat and made physical relations with her multiple times on the assurance that he would marry her soon. On 8th May 2013, the appellant came to her house as they had decided to go to his native place in Assam to discuss their marriage with his family but he refused to go there and told her that they could not get married and he was going back to Rudrapur. On that day itself when she was going to Govindpuri Police Station to make a complaint against the appellant he also reached there, apologized to her and told her that he would get married to her so she returned home. The appellant left the next morning without informing her and his mobile phone was also switched off. She tried contacting him multiple times but he was deliberately running away from her. He had physical relations with her on the false pretext of marrying her. Aforesaid statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-5/A. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No. 322/2013 (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered at PS Govind Puri for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

5. SI Kusum Dangi sent the prosecutrix to AIIMS for medical examination with Lady Ct. Suman who got the prosecutrix medically examined.

6. On 26th May 2013, SI Shrikrishna alongwith Ct. Mahender arrested the appellant from his house at S-86, Sanjay Nagar Khera, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/A. His personal search was done vide pers