A victim's testimony alone can support a conviction in sexual assault cases if credible, without the need for corroboration, while considering mitigating circumstances in sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

1. Heard Shri Prem Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record.

2. Under challenge in this criminal appeal is the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.655 of 2000 arising out of Case Crime No.453 of 1999, under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , [hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”], Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow, whereby the appellant, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 14.12.1999 at about 7:00 P.M., when the victim, P.W.-2 aged about 7 years, daughter of P.W.-1 went out of the house to buy paan for her mother, the accused/ appellant, Bawua Gupta lured her with toys and clothes and took her to Birhana Park and thereafter he raped her there. When the victim started crying and screaming, the accused/ appellant threatened to strangle her. She remained unconscious in Birhana park and the next morning after reaching home, she told her mother about the said incident. P.W.-1, father of victim went to the Police Station, Wazirganj and gave a written report.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ext. Ka-1 submitted by the first informant, the first information report, Ext. Ka-7 came to be lodged against the accused/ appellant under Sections 376 I.P.C.

5. P.W.-3, Dr. Ratna Pandey had examined the victim, P.W.-2 at about 04:30 P. M. on 15.12.1999. The following injuries described by P.W.-3, Dr. Ratna Pandey, were found on the body of the injured :-

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C”]. He visited the places of occurrence and prepared two site plans thereof as Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11.

7. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet, Ext. Ka- 12 under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant.

8. Charge for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused/ appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home guilt of the accused/ appellant, the prosecution has examined the complainant, who is the father of the victim, as P.W.-1, the victim as P.W.-2, Dr. Ratna Pandey as P.W.-3, mother of the victim as P.W.-4, H.C. 187 Ashok Singh as P.W.-5 and Avinash Singh Thakur, S. I. as P.W.-6.

10. The accused/ appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated the prosecution story to be false. He has also stated to have been falsely implicated in this case. He also claimed to be innocent.

11. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused/ appellant before the learned trial court.

12. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, rendered the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2001 whereby the accused/ appellant came to be convicted as aforesaid.

13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid