The conviction for rape can be upheld even with witness inconsistencies if corroborative evidence, including forensic reports, offers comprehensive support.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2022 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2023 in Session Case No.56489/2016 arising out of FIR No. 01/2015 registered under Section 376 /34 IPC at P.S. Ranhola, Delhi.

Vide the impugned judgement, appellants stand for the offence punishable under Section 376D/120B IPC and vide order on sentence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years for the offence under Section 376D IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 6 months; appellants have been further sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years for the offence under Section 120B IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for 6 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been given to the appellants and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. While the sentence of appellant/Harvinder was suspended on 20.03.2025, sentence of appellant/Lalu was suspended on 05.05.2025.

3. The underlying facts leading to the registration of above FIR(Ex.PW- 2/A) were noted by the Trial Court are as under:-

“The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint made by prosecutrix “G‟(identity is withheld to protect the interest of prosecutrix) in police station on 01.01.2015, wherein it is stated that she received the call from unknown number on 23.12.2014 and on enquiry, caller stated himself Lalu son of chachia sasur of prosecutrix and told her that he would get her a job on which prosecutrix asked accused Lalu to come at her residence and accused Lalu along with accused Harvinder (son of mausisaas) came at her house i.e. Vikas Nagar at about 05.00 pm and both of them stayed there at night and on 24.12.2014, at about 9.30 am they left the residence of prosecutrix and on 29.12.2014, accused Lalu made a call to prosecutrix asking her to come near Uttam Nagar Metro Station as he wanted to talk with her for five minutes and but father of prosecutrix denied her to go there and after that prosecutrix left for her factory where she was working and while she was on the way, accused Lalu again made her call again asking her to come at Uttam Nagar Metro Station and when she reached there, accused Harvinder met and he asked her to accompany him to Bhajanpura and told her that he would get her employed and accused Lalu would also be present there and accused Harvinder took her the metro to Bhajanpura and when they reached at a room there, accused Lalu met them and accused Harvinder offered her hot milk that she refused as she was allergic to milk but at the insistence of accused Lalu, she consumed the same, due to which her stomach got upset and both the accused bolted the room from inside on the pretext of cold weather and thereafter accused Harvinder kept his hand on her mouth and opened her salwar forcefully and committed 'rape upon her without her consent and thereafter accused Lalu also committed rape upon her and on her asking to go at her house, both the accused told her to sleep and go on next day and on 30.12.2014, at 10.00 am, both of them made the prosecutrix sit in an auto and at 12.30 pm, she reached at her house where she told her father that she had gone for her tau house a