PARDESI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.1999 and order on sentence dated 30.11.1999 in Sessions Case No.63/1996 arising out of FIR No.175/88, PS Gandhi Nagar by which the appellant- Pardesi was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 4,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the accused were that on 21.07.1988 at about11.00 P.M. at House No.213, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, he committed rape upon "X? (assumed name), aged about 11 years. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Munna Lal) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the accused and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother without corroboration. The accused was falsely implicated in this case as he had objected sale of liquor by the prosecutrix? mother in the house. Counsel pointed out that the accused was arrested vide Daily Diary (DD) No.6A dated 22.07.1988 and a "Kalandra? under Sections 91/93/97 Delhi Police Act was prepared on 22.07.1998. He was produced before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, and was directed to deposit a fine Rs. 100 each under the said Sections. Subsequently, in connivance with the police, a false case was registered under Section 376 IPC. He further pointed out that in the MLC, no fresh injuries were noticed on the body of the prosecutrix. There was no fresh tear in the hymen. Learned APP urged that the statement of the prosecutrix "X? needs no corroboration. In the MLC of the prosecutrix, hymen was found torn.