CRL.A. 230/2016

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.A. 230/2016

AMAR KUMAR PANDEY

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Gautam Khazanchi with

Mr. Udit Arora, Advocates

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the

State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1.

Amar Kumar Pandey challenges the impugned judgment dated 27^th

August, 2015 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section

376/307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 11^th September, 2015 directing

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to

pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable

under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight

years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of the

prosecutrix (PW-13) by itself shows that the offence under Section 376 IPC

2019:DHC:2472

CRL.A. 230/2016

Page 2 of 9

is not made out as she herself stated that the appellant never refused to

marry her. Promise to marry was only incidental. With respect to recovery

of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not

identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not

exhibited. The CDRs available on record are for the period from 17^th

August, 2013 to 20^th August, 2013 which belie the version of the

prosecutrix. No independent witness was associated with the recovery of

knife and the knife in question has not been put to the prosecutrix, thus, it

cannot be said that it relates to the offence. Knife was not recovered

from/near the spot. No fingerprints were taken. When Ct. Monu (PW-9)

and SI Satish Kumar (PW-11) went to the spot, nothing was found. Neither

the crime team visited the spot nor were the photographs taken. As per the

MLC, only injury no. 4 was caused by a sharp weapon, rest all were caused

by a blunt weapon.

3.

Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the

prosecution case stands proved not only on the basis of testimony of the

prosecutrix but also by the statement of the appellant recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since nothing was visible on the spot, the crime team

could not recover anything from the spot. Appellant has been rightly

convicted by the Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record

and the appeal be dismissed.

4.

Process of law was set into motion on 15th September, 2013 around

8:23 P.M. when information was received regarding one handicapped lady

lying in a pool of blood near the T point, main road, Nav Jeevan Camp,

Govindpuri. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 43A and was

assigned to SI Satish (PW-11). He went to the spot along with Ct. Monu

2019:DHC:2472

CRL.A. 230/2016

Page 3 of 9

(PW-9). He made enquiries at the spot and came to know that the injured

had been taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by the PCR van. No witness could

be found at spot. He then went to the Trauma Centre and collected MLC

(Ex.PW-13/A). The victim was declared not fit for statement by the doctor.

FIR No. 649/2013 (Ex.PW-5/A) was registered at PS Govindpuri for the

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Exhibits were seized vide

seizure meme Ex.PW-4/A. He then returned to the place of incident,

however, no further information could be gathered from the spot.

5.

On 17^th September, 2013 SI Satish (PW-11) again went to the hospital

when the victim was fit for statement. On enquiries from the victim, it was

revealed to be a case of sexual harassment. Consequently, W/SI Seema

(PW-17) came to the hospital who recorded the statement of the

injured/prosecu