LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-261

DINESH Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

Decided On January 28, 2013
DINESH Appellant
V/S
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Dinesh impugns the judgment dated 09.10.2009 and order on sentence dated 13.10.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged three years in his house on 22.03.2008 at about 04:00 P.M. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded false implication. He examined himself in defence and stated that he had taken 'X' to his house on 22.03.2008 at about 11:00 A.M. Since his parents and nephew were present in the house, he took her to an abandon house situated near his residence and there inserted finger in the vagina of the girl. She cried and the blood oozed out from her vagina. He left her to her house. After seeing the blood coming out from the vagina, her mother thought that he committed rape/sexual assault upon her.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper prospective and fell in grave error in relying upon the testimony of PW-3 who was an interested witness. The Trial Court ignored the vital discrepancies emerging in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent version whether the prosecutrix was conscious or unconscious at the time of occurrence or if there was blood/stool at the spot. No injuries were found the body of the prosecutrix and the accused's genetalia. Had the accused, a grown up adult to raped the prosecutrix, she must have sustained vital internal injuries. It was a case of outraging the modesty of the child. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged not to interfere in the impugned judgment as it is based upon cogent appraisal and appreciation of the evidence brought on record. Testimony of the prosecutrix's mother is in consonance with medical evidence.