* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 19.11.2025

Pronounced on : 21.11.2025

Uploaded on : 21.11.2025

+     CRL.A. 689/2016

RAM RATTAN          .....Appellant

Through: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with WSI Neha Tyagi P.S. Harsh Vihar, Delhi.

Mr. Kunal Sharma Bhargava, Advocate (Amicus Curiae, Pro Bono) for victim.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal pertains to the challenge made to the judgment of conviction dated 13.05.2016 and order on sentence dated 31.05.2016 rendered by the Sessions Court in the context of trial held in relation to FIR No. 07/2014 registered under Sections 376/354/323/341/34 IPC registered at P.S. Harsh Vihar.

While acquitting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 354/354B/341/34 IPC, the Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with payment of fine of Rs.4000/-, in default of which he would have to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also granted. Pertinently, the appellant was tried along with one co-accused/Udaivir @ Udai Mota, who was acquitted by the Trial Court.

The appellant’s sentence was suspended during pendency of the present appeal vide order dated 02.08.2017.

2. The investigation in the present case pertained to an incident of 31.12.2013 which was reported on 02.01.2014 vide DD No. 21A. The said DD was recorded at 4.43 PM at P.S. Nand Nagri and pertained to an incident of quarrel. As the incident occurred in the jurisdiction of P.S. Harsh Vihar, the said DD was transferred and re-recorded as DD No. 20A at 7.55 A.M.

3. SI Vinita, the Investigating Officer, reached the spot and took the prosecutrix (PW-4) for medical examination. Her statement was recorded (later exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A), wherein she alleged that she got married 10-11 years back and has two children; her husband and children had been residing separately for one year as her husband had solemnized second marriage. The prosecutrix claimed to be working as labourer/maid depending on availability of work. On 31.12.2013, while she was on her way back home at about 8.00-9.00 PM and reached near Prem Nagar Chowk, an unknown person came from the back side, pulled her chunni, and dragged her inside a godown, where he tore off her clothes. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, the unknown person ran away. While the prosecutrix was sitting in a corner of the godown as her clothes were torn, one Udaivir @ Udai Mota came inside the godown and started misbehaving with her. Udaivir also slapped her, pressed her breasts, and further tore her clothes. The prosecutrix again raised an alarm, upon which Udaivir ran away. After Udaivir left, another person i.e., the chowkidar (name not known) of Prem Nagar factory area came and committed sexual assault upon her, after which she somehow managed to come back home. Next day, i.e., on 02.01.2014, she came to P.S. Nand Nagri to lodge a complaint.

4. At the time of her medical examination, while she stated in the history of assault that 5-6 men had raped her in the night of 31.12.2013, she did not name any of them.

5. During investigation, the MLC of the prosecutrix was collected and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On identification of the prosecutrix, Udaivir was arrested, whereafter the present appellant was arrested on 04.01.2014. The appellant refused TIP, stating that he had already been shown to the complainant. The identity of the first assailant remained unknown. On filing of chargesheet, charges under Sections 354/354B/341/376D/34 IPC were framed against Udaivir and the appellant herein. Udaivir was also additionally charged for commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the ac