GANGA SHARAN @ CHOTU Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants- Ganga Sharan @ Chotu (A-1) and Surender Kumar (A-2) impugn judgment dated 16.05.2001 and order on sentence dated 26.05.2001 in Sessions Case No.152/2000 arising out of FIR No. 37/2000 PS Kapashera by which A-1 was held guilty under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone by him and A-2 was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 4,000.00.

(2.) THE present case was registered on 18.02.2000 on the statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name). She disclosed that on 05.01.2000 when she was alone in the house, at about 01.00 P.M. A-2, her brother-in-law (jeth), committed rape and threatened to kill her. During investigation, both A-1 and A-2 were arrested. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506/202/201 IPC. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted A-2 under Sections 376/506 IPC and acquitted A-1 of all the charges except Section 506 IPC. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. It is not in dispute that A-2 is the brother-in-law (jeth) of the prosecutrix. Undoubtedly, relations between the prosecutrix and her husband A-1 were strained. The prosecutrix was married to A-1 on 11.07.1993. She lodged complaint in Crime against Women Cell, East Delhi against her husband and in-laws for harassing her. The said complaint was settled/ compromised subsequently. In her statement in the Court, she further disclosed that her husband deserted her and rejoined her company after three years. Thereafter, he filed a case against her for misappropriating articles worth Rs. 50,000.00. The matter was settled due to the intervention of her mother-in-law in 1998. It is also not disputed that the A-2 never lived with the prosecutrix and had come to Delhi from village in search of a job on 03.01.2000. The alleged occurrence happened on 05.01.2000. However, the prosecutrix did not lodge First Information Report that day or soon thereafter. The present case was registered on her statement, after a delay of 42 days. The prosecutrix did not give plausible explanation for not lodging the report with the police promptly. She had attended the marriage of her sister with her husband at her parents' house CRL.A.464/2001 Page 3 of 10 on 08.01.2000. Even that time or soon thereafter, she did not lodge any complaint with her parents or the police. Complaint (Ex.PW-5/C) made to CAW Cell is dated 19.01.2000 where there is overwriting on date