The conviction for sexual assault can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, provided her deposition is found to be consistent, trustworthy, and of sterling quality, with no requirement under law to Mandate corroborative evidence.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Since both the criminal appeals (supra) arise from a common verdict made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence they are amenable for a common verdict being made thereupon.

2. Both the above appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 05.5.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon in case FIR No. 294 dated 08.11.2001, registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 109 and 506 IPC, at Police Station Sohna. Through the above said verdict, the learned trial Court concerned, convicted the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g) IPC. Appellant Khusi Ram was further convicted under Section 506 IPC. However, the other co-accused Dharamwati was acquitted of the charges framed against her. Through a separate sentencing order dated 07.5.2004, all the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment along with fine as under:-

3. Appellant Khusi Ram was further sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 506 of IPC.

Factual matrix

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.11.2001, the complainant, who is the mother of the prosecutrix, got recorded her statement with the police to the effect that her daughter, aged 15 years, had gone to look for her brother Manoj in the house of Dharamwati on 03.11.2001. However, she did not return back and had been missing since then. She also stated that there were about five tenants residing in the house of Dharamwati, and that one person namely Khusi Ram, who was also found missing, must have kidnapped her daughter by enticing her. On the basis of the above statement, formal FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.

5. During the course of investigation, on 13.11.2001, at about 2.30 P.M., the police party received a secret information on the basis of which, accused Khusi Ram and the victim were apprehended from the bus stop. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The medical examination of both the prosecutrix as well as accused Khusi Ram was conducted. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Report of the FSL was also obtained. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against accused Khusi Ram before the Court of learned Court concerned.

6. Since the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order dated 06.2.2002 committed the case to the Court of Session.

7. Later on, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning Yunus, Jamshed and Dharamwati as additional accused. The said application was allowed by the learned Court concerned on 17.12.2002 and the above-stated persons were ordered to be summoned as additional accused to face trial along with accused Khusi Ram.

8. Charges were framed against the appellants herein under Sections 376(2)(g) and 363 IPC. In addition, accused Khusi Ram was also charge sheeted under Sections 376, 109 and 506 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.

10. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. The accused