RAMESH Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 08.05.2009 and an order on sentence dated 13.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge("ASJ") in Sessions Case No.196/2007 FIR No.271/2005 P.S. Sultan Puri whereby the Appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376/363 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default to undergo SI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the Appellant raises a very short submission. He says that it was consensual sex as the prosecutrix was in love with the Appellant. Referring to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony in the Court as PW3, the learned counsel urges that there is material contradiction in the two versions as to the manner in which the prosecutrix was recovered and restored to her parents. The learned counsel states that the prosecutrix happily remained with the Appellant for over a month. She travelled to the Appellant's village and always had an opportunity to disclose to the passersby, to the neighbours and the villagers if she had been forcibly taken and sexual intercourse was committed on her without her consent. The learned counsel, therefore, argues that although the Appellant has already served his sentence of imprisonment but his stand has to be vindicated that he has not done anything wrong.

(3.) I have before me the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW3), her father Ghyasi Ram(PW4), her mother Shakuntala (PW5). The prosecutrix on the date of her examination in the Court on 01.12.2006 gave her age to be about 15 years. PW4 gave her age as 15 years at the time of the offence and PW5 gave the age as 12-13 years. No specific suggestion was given to either of these three witnesses that the prosecutrix was above 16 years. The prosecution also examined Smt. Vijaya Sikka(PW10), Principal, MCD Primary School who proved the Date of Birth Certificate as per the admission register to be 02.04.1992. Thus, on the date of the offence, that is, 06.01.2005, the prosecutrix was only about 13 years.