ASGAR ALI Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Asgar Ali impugns his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.113/2008 arising out of FIR No.193/2007 PS Welcome by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 25,000/- under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. Both the sentenced were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Allegations against the accused were that on 17.03.2007 at about 08.00 P.M. at Fakiri Wali Gali, behind Shanta Colony Police Booth, he committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name) aged about 11 years and threatened her to kill. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. The accused was arrested. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. After completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 376/506 IPC. The accused was duly charged and brought to trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the findings of the Trial Court and urged that it did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother without independent corroboration. She pointed out various vital discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix was not produced. The doctor who appeared in her place deposed facts which were not mentioned in the MLC (Ex.PW-12/A). The prosecutrix was unable to clarify what 'wrong act' was done with her. PW-4 (Saira) admitted in the cross-examination that she had visited the accused in Tihar Jail. Only purpose the prosecutrix's mother to visit Tihar Jail was to persuade him to permit his son Dildar for marriage with her. The exact age of the prosecutrix could not be ascertained. The Trial Court did not give due weightage to the defence version without any valid reasons. Forensic Science Laboratory report did not find any semen and blood. Learned APP urged that the judgment is based upon fair appraisal of the evidence and no interference is called for. The prosecutrix had supported the prosecution in its entirety and her testimony requires no corroboration.