UDAI SHANKAR KUMAR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 24.02.2009 and an order on sentence dated 25.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ("ASJ") in Sessions Case No. 32/2006 FIR No. 163/2006 P.S. Mehrauli whereby the Appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - or in default to undergo SI for one year. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2006 Sanju Devi and her husband Manoj Mehto were out for their work while their four children were at home. Their third child, the prosecutrix aged eight years was tempted by the Appellant who was their neighbour to a vacant room in the same building. He took off the prosecutrix's panty. He (the Appellant) also took off his trousers and committed rape on the prosecutrix. The Appellant threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the factum of rape committed by him to anybody else. When they returned home, the prosecutrix, however, reported the matter to her father and then to her mother. The prosecutrix's parents initially preferred not to lodge the report out of shame. On 23.03.2006 Nirmala Devi (PW 9) (PW 5' brother's wife) visited the house of the prosecutrix's parents where Sanju Devi disclosed the factum of rape to her. She (PW 9) being their close relation advised them not to forgive the Appellant and to report the matter with the police. Thus, the matter was reported to the police. The police recorded statement of Smt. Sanju Devi (PW 2). During the course of investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ("M.M."). After completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the Appellant.

(2.) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. PW 1 (the prosecutrix), Sanju Devi (PW 2) (her mother), Manoj Mehto (PW 5) (prosecutrix's father), Dr. Anupama Bahadur (PW 6) and Nirmala Devi (PW 9) are the material witnesses examined by the prosecution.

(3.) ON appreciation of evidence, the learned ASJ found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be natural, convincing and worthy of reliance which was supported by the testimony of PWs 2, 5, 6 and 9. Relying on the same, the learned ASJ opined that the case under Section 376 IPC was proved against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The Appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.