TASLEEM @ PAPPU Vs. STATE (NCT GOVT. OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2006 and order on sentence dated 01.05.2006, whereunder the appellant was convicted under Sections 376 IPC in S.C.No. 168/05 arising out of FIR No. 242/2003 registered with PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay fine of '3,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months under section 376 IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and pay fine of '2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months under section 506 part (II) IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant for the period already undergone by him during the trial.

(2.) The incident, subject matter of the impugned judgment, occurred on 23.09.2003, when, as per the prosecutrix, the appellant, who was a neighbour, entered her house at 11 am, when she was alone, on the pretext of borrowing a screwdriver, and bolted the door to her room. He, thereafter threatened her with a knife picked up from the room itself and committed rape on her. On 24.09.2003, information of the incident was given to the police and at 1.55 pm, FIR no. 242/03 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered at PS Subzi Mandi against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on the next day i.e. on 25.09.2003. Both the prosecutrix and the appellant were medically examined and swab slides and clothes were sent to the FSL for examination.

(3.) After the investigation was completed, a challan was filed before the court of the learned MM, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant/accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, 13 prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix and her husband, PW-2 were examined. Though an opportunity was afforded to him, the appellant did not lead any defense evidence. On an examination of the evidence which came on record, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the said evidence was sufficient to hold the appellant/accused guilty of rape and criminal intimidation and convicted him for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 (II) of the IPC.