CRL.LP. 494/2018 Page 1 of 13

$~10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.LP. 494/2018

STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) ....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State

with Inspector Surender Chahal,

PS-Vijay Vihar.

Versus

MANISH

....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajeev Mohan, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

07.12.2018

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (1) (a) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), the

State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.04.2018

passed by the learned Trial Court in Session Case No. 60/13 arising

out of FIR No. 84/2013 under Section 376/363/366/506 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), whereby the

respondent (accused before the Trial Court) was acquitted for the

offences punishable under Section 363/366/376/506 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 5 (1) & 6 of the POCSO Act.

CRL.LP. 494/2018 Page 2 of 13

2.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as

under:-

CRL.LP. 494/2018 Page 3 of 13

CRL.LP. 494/2018 Page 4 of 13

not guilty and claimed trial.”

3.

To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has

examined 19 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the

charges framed against him and claimed that he has been falsely

implicated in the case. The respondent chose not to lead any

evidence in his defence.

4.

After hearing the counsels on both sides and on appreciation of

entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court

acquitted the accused for the charged offences.

5.

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that

the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2018 is based on conjectures

and surmises; that the Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony

of the prosecutrix in its right perspective ignoring the well-settled

proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim of sexual

offence is sufficient to base conviction of the accused.

6.

Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment

passed by the learned Trial Court and no interference is called from

CRL.LP. 494/2018 Page 5 of 13

this Court. He further contended that the testimony of prosecutrix

is bristled with a lot of contradictions, inconsistencies and

improvements. She has given different versions in her statements

recorded at different stages. Counsel admitted that it is true that

sole testimony of the prosecutrix in a case of rape can be based for

conviction of the accused subject to same inspires confidence of

the Court, but in instant case, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix

is not sufficient to establish the case of rape against the accused as

the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral testimony of the

prosecutrix.

7.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully

examined the impugned judgment and the material available on

record as well.

8.

Admittedly, the case of the prosecution rests on the sole testimony

of the prosecutrix. It is a settled law that the court can base the

conviction of the accused solely on the evidence of prosecutrix, if

it is found trustworthy and worthy of credence. If th