SURESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Suresh impugns a judgment dated 11.09.2001 in Sessions Case No.10/1999 arising out of FIR No.849/1998 under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station Sri Nivas Puri by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 14.09.2001, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 500/-.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 10.09.1998, he committed rape upon prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged six years inside her house. The appellant lived on the first floor of the premises in question. He had good terms with prosecutrix's family and was a frequent visitor to the house. On 10.09.1998 when Aklimo Nisa (PW-2), prosecutrix's mother, returned to home at about 12.30 P.M., she found that her two children were playing outside the house and the room was closed from inside. When she knocked at the door, the appellant opened it. She saw that appellant's pant and underwear were lowered down and he had put off 'chadhi' of her daughter 'X'. On seeing her, 'X' started crying and the appellant pulled up his pant. 'X' while pointing towards her private part, told her that Suresh uncle was doing 'batamizi' with her. Aklimo Nisa (PW-2) lodged First Information Report with the police. 'X' was medically examined. The appellant was arrested. The statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for committing the aforesaid offence. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in all to substantiate the charges. In his 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. He pleaded that 'X's father had taken Rs. 10,000/- as loan from him and when he demanded back the loan, a quarrel took place and 'X's father falsely implicated him in the case. He examined one witness in defence. After marshalling the facts and through scrutiny of evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offences mentioned previously and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel urged 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 interested and partisan witnesses. They gave inconsistent and contradictory version. No injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix was noticed. MLC (Ex.PX) did not observe any fresh injury and the hymen had old tear. It did not record in categorical terms that the prosecutrix was ravished or raped. It merely recorded an 'attempt to sexually assault' the prosecutrix. He further argued that the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) was not proved following legal procedure and was exhibited without examining the doctor who prepared it. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no valid reasons to discard the cogent testimony of the child witness which requires no corroboration. The prosecutrix was exploited for sexual gratification by the appellant for the last one and a half year. The prosecutrix and her parents had no animosity to falsely implicate their neighbour with whom they had no prior enmity or ill-will.