Page 1 of 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.A. 215/2013

KRISHAN KUMAR

.... Appellant

Through :

Appellant is produced from J/C.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through :

Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the

State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

1. Being conscious of misuse of the provisions of rape and the impact it

can have on the accused, in the context of evaluating the testimony of rape

victim, following observations were made by the Supreme Court in Rajoo &

Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 858 :

embellishment or exaggeration.’

2. The

Appellant

Krishan

Kumar,

who

is

father-in-law

of

Complainant/Prosecutrix ‘R’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) has

been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 376

IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs.20,000/-.

Page 2 of 21

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed on

him, the Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and

sentence awarded to him for committing the offence punishable under

Section 376 IPC on the following grounds :

(i)

That the Appellant was falsely implicated in this case as the

Prosecutrix had made complaint at the instance of her jija and deposed in

the court at the instance of her father and jija.

(ii)

That the only eye witness PW-11 Ved Prakash i.e. Chachia Sasur of

the Prosecutrix had not supported the case of the prosecution.

(iii)

That there is inordinate delay of one week in reporting the matter to

the police.

(iv)

That the statement of the Prosecutrix has been recorded without oath

by the Learned Trial Court as she could not even understand the meaning of

oath.

(v)

That the statement of the victim has not been corroborated by any

other evidence and the Court committed grave error in convicting the

Appellant on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the victim which was

in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses.

4. In order to appreciate the contention of the Appellant in the backdrop

of testimony of Prosecutrix who is a sole witness to the incident, a brief look

at the facts of the case is necessary. The complaint Ex.PW1/A which

formed basis of registration of FIR No.189/2011 under Section 376/506 IPC,

PS Baba Hari Dass Nagar reveals that on 16.11.2011, the Prosecutrix

alongwith her father visited PS Baba Hari Das Nagar. The father of the

Prosecutrix informed the police that her daughter had been sexually

assaulted by her father-in-law on 10.11.2011 at about 3.30 pm. He further

Page 3 of 21

informed that his daughter is mentally retarted.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix

wherein she stated that she was residing at Gopal Nagar alongwith her two

children aged about four years and three years respectively. On the date of

occurrence i.e. 10.11.2011 at about 3.30 pm, her mother-in-law had gone to

the neighbouring house for some local treatment of ‘naabhi’ (Dharan

Uthhwane). Her father-in-law called her in his room at upstairs. At that

time, there was no male member in the house. She visited the room of her

father-in-law on the first floor. Her father-in-law removed her clothes and

forcibly did ‘galat kaam’ with her. While her father-in-law was doing ‘galat

kaam’, brother of his father-in-law, who name is Ved, happened to come

upstairs and through the window, he saw his brother doing ‘galat kaam’.

Thereafter her father-in-law started quarrelling and opened the cylinder

threatening to set on fire and run away. She requested for legal action

against her father-in-law.

6. After the registration of FIR, the Prosecutrix was taken to RTRM

Hospital, Zafarpur where her MLC was prepared. During investigation, the

Prosecutrix was also produc