*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2016

DECIDED ON : 15^th FEBRUARY, 2016

+

CRL.A.700/2006

RAKESH RANJAN VERMA

..... Appellant

Through :

Mr.Mohit K.Shah, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through :

Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1.

Aggrieved by a judgment dated 01.08.2006 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.24/2006 arising out of FIR

No.454/2001 PS Kamla Market by which the appellant – Rakesh Ranjan

Verma was convicted for committing offences under Sections 376/342

IPC, the present appeal has been filed by him. By an order dated

04.08.2006, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine

`10,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year with fine `1,000/-

under Section 342 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2.

The case in brief as stated in the charge-sheet was that on the

night intervening 16/17.12.2001 at about 03.00 a.m. the appellant

committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) after wrongfully

confining her at his jhuggi No.C-51/R-126, Thomson Road, Railway

Colony, Delhi. The police machinery was set in motion on 18.12.2001 and

the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording

victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). ‘X’ was medically examined; she

recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested. Statements

of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits

collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory

for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against the appellant in the Court. The prosecution produced thirteen

witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied

his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. Sushil Kumar

Sahni appeared in defence as DW-1. The trial resulted in his conviction as

aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been

preferred.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material

contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the witnesses were

overlooked without cogent reasons. Initially, in her complaint (Ex.PW-

1/A), the victim had not alleged if she was subjected to rape. Later on, she

deviated from her earlier version and Section 376 IPC was added in the

FIR. ‘X’ even had attempted to implicate CRPF officials to have ravished

her and the victim’s father had taken her to the ‘camp’ where she was

asked to identify the perpetrator of crime. The FSL report (Ex.PW-3/A)

does not implicate the appellant as no sperms were seen in vaginal smear.

It was emphasized that ‘X’ was above 16 year of age on the day of

incident and as per the ossification report her age was in between 17 – 18

years. ‘X’ had alleged that at the time of commission of rape, string of her

salwar was broken. However, when the ‘salwar’ was produced before the

Court, the string was found intact. ‘X’ did not suffer any injury on her

private organs. The appellant had got no opportunity to make submissions

before the Trial Court at the time of final disposal due to absence of his

lawyer. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that ‘X’ was below 16

years of age as her date of birth was 12.10.1986 as proved by PW-10

(Harish Chander). ‘X’ had no ulterior considerations to falsely implicate

the appellant.

4.

Admitted position is that ‘X’ and the appellant were

acquainted with each other before the occurrence. The appellant lived in

the neighbouring jhuggi in the same locality. The occurrence took place

on the night intervening 16/17.12.2001 after ‘X’ had gone at around 03.00

a.m. to answer call of nature outside her jhuggi. It is alleged that the

appellant dragged her to his jhuggi and a