VIKRAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant impugns the judgment dated 12th November, 2010 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f)/377/376 read with Sections 511/506/323 IPC. The Appellant also impugns the order on sentence dated 18 th November, 2010 whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 14 years for offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years; Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable under Section 377 IPC with fine of Rs. 50,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months; Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC with a fine of Rs. 30,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each for offences punishable under Sections 506 IPC and 323 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the result of DNA figure printing clearly shows that no offence of rape was committed by the Appellant on the three prosecutrix as no seminal discharge of the Appellant has been found on the clothes and the vaginal slides of the three prosecutrix. Reliance is placed on Bhagwan Das and another vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 589. In Kamti Devi and another vs. Poshi Ram, AIR 2001 SC 2226 the Honble Supreme Court held that the result of DNA test is scientifically accurate and the same supports the innocence of the Appellant. The learned Trial Court also failed to notice from the kind of injuries suffered by the prosecutrix PW1 and PW2 that the Appellant would have also suffered injures on the pennies if he had committed the rape. As there are no injuries on the Appellant, the prosecution version is belied. (Mohd. Habib vs. State, 1982 (2) RCR 150). The Prosecutrix have admitted that they were tutored by the police officials and hence no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. (Samay Singh vs. State 1998 RCR (Criminal) 369). Further it has been held that even if the factum of rape is established beyond reasonable doubt, unless there is evidence to show that the accused committed the rape, he could not be convicted (State of Assam vs. Mafizuddin Ahmed, 1983 (2) SCC 14). The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the evidence shows that there were other boys who have been let off and the Appellant has been falsely implicated. The Appellant confronted the prosecution witness with the counseling report of the NGO Swanchetan wherein it was written that there were four people who abducted the young girls and kept them in captivity. The Appellant has been falsely implicated, thus he be acquitted. The learned Trial Court has failed to direct that the sentence awarded on different counts should run concurrently. In the alternative the sentences imposed be reduced and be directed to run concurrently.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.