The judgment emphasized the need for corroboration and reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony in cases of rape, cautioning against conviction based solely on the victim's testimony.

ORDER :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the lower court record.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Aligarh, in Sessions Trial No. 933 of 2010 (State vs. Puneet and Others) convicting and sentencing the appellant to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, on failure to deposit the fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, on failure to deposit the fine to undergo four months additional imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 03.10.2009 at about 5:00 p.m in the evening minor daughter of informant (hereinafter referred to as 'victim') aged about 15 years had gone to collect cow dung. In the field of Janki Prasad, appellant, Puneet, was sitting and he forcibly dragged the victim to the field and raped her. When she screamed his son, Chintu Singh, aged about 17 years, who was going to his field on bicycle reached the scene of incident, where the appellant after threatening his son on gun point escaped. His daughter came to the house and informed about the entire incident. Six months ago the appellant had tried to rape the victim, report whereof was registered at Police Station-Pali Mukimpur on 26.03.2009. The informant informed, Nandan and Kanchan and then accuseds, Yashpal and Khushi Pal and other persons entered his house and threatened his son, Chintu Singh, of life and beaten him. When the informant protested Yashpal Singh pointed his country made pistol and abusing him stated that he will see how they will go to lodge the report since he will not permit him to reach there.

4. Report in this regard was registered by the Police Station-Palimukimpur as Case Crime No. 256 of 2009, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. and entered in the general diary.

5. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan and after recording evidence of the witnesses submitted charge sheet under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C.

6. On committal, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 366, 376, 452, 506, 323/34 I.P.C. Appellant denied the charges and sought trial.

7. P.W.-1, informant, reiterated the contents of the FIR in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination he stated that he earlier lodged a report regarding incident of rape on 26.03.2009 at Police Station. He then stated that it was only report of teasing wherein final report was submitted by the inspector after taking money and he filed protest petition against the same which is still pending. He informed this fact to the investigating officer but why he did not mention it in his statement he does not knows. He has no document of the proof of age of victim and he is stating her age on the basis of information given by his mother. He stated that the accuseds had beaten his son and daughter and they were injured but he did not got them medically examined.

8. P.W.-2, the victim, stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of incident she was aged 15 years. She had gone to dump the garbage at about 4:30 p.m. when the appellant came out from the field of Janki Prasad and after gagging her mouth dragged her to the field. She knows him since he belongs to her village and is her neighbour. The appellant threatened her by country made pistol of life. Thereafter he dragged her to the field and after putting his hand over her mouth committed rape on the pistol point. She screamed and her brother, Chintu, hearing the same came on the spot. Brandishing the country made pistol the appellant ran away. Her brother chased him. She came to her house along with her brother and narrated the entire incident to her father. She, her brother and father went to the house of the appellant for making his complaint to his father and thereafter they came back. After