MD. TASKEEN Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order of sentence dated 22nd March, 2012 and 23rd March, 2012 in Sessions Case No. 15/2011 arising out of FIR No. 375/2010 under Sections 363/376/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ,,IPC) registered as Police Station Sarai Rohilla vide which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and a fine of Rs 5000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

(2.) THE prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 11th November, 2010, Complainant Rama Anuj came to the police station Sarai Rohilla and lodged the missing report of his daughter aged about 15 years i.e. the prosecutrix (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) since 8th November, 2010. He further raised his suspicion upon one Sunil who used to live in the same house as the complainant as a tenant and stated that his daughter may have been taken away by the said Sunil by enticing her. On the statement of the complainant, case under Section 363 IPC was registered. During investigation of the case, on 13th November, 2010, accused/appellant Mohd. Taskeen was apprehended from Old Delhi Railway station and prosecutrix was recovered from his custody. Investigating Officer of the case recorded the statement of prosecutrix wherein she stated that accused Md. Taskeen had committed rape upon her by threatening her. Medical examination of both the prosecutrix as well as the accused was conducted. Sections 376/506/34 IPC were added in the chargesheet. During further investigation of the case, Investigating Officer of the case got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, prepared site plan, obtained the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix, sent the exhibits to FSL. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 363/376/506/34 IPC was filed in the court.

(3.) IN order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses.Prosecution basically relied upon the testimony of PW -1 i.e. the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was aged 15 years and 7 months at the time of the incident. She has deposed that on 8th November, 2010, she had left with one Sunil and was taken by him to the railway station where they boarded the train for going to Saharanpur. However, they boarded the wrong train which went to Ghaziabad and thereafter they came back to Delhi and then again boarded the train which reached Saharanpur. At Saharanpur Railway Station, they met the appellant who also boarded the train in which the prosecutrix and the said Sunil were travelling. Sunil got down from the train by stating that he was going to exchange the railway ticket whereas the prosecutrix and appellant remained in the train. As the train was about to move, the appellant told the prosecutrix that she was alone and he would take her to Sunil, after which both of them got down from the train. They searched for Sunil at Saharanpur Railway station but he was not found. According to the prosecutrix thereafter she was taken by the appellant to the house of his friend where he committed rape upon her. Appellant had taken her on his motorcycle and they travelled around the city on his motorcycle but again in the night hours, appellant took her in a lonely jhuggi and there again he committed rape upon her. On the next day morning, appellant took the prosecutrix on his motorcycle to the house of one female whom he addressed as Didi but that woman told the appellant that she would not keep the prosecutrix in her house because the prosecutrix was a minor and so the appellant was forced by that woman to leave the prosecutrix and at her instance, appellant agreed to leave the prosecutrix. Thereafter both of them boarded the train for Delhi and reached the Old Delhi Railway station where her father and the police were present and the appellant was apprehended by the police. The entire facts were narrated by the prosecutrix to her father and to the police and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The statement of prosecutrix to the extent of her leaving from her parental home and having been found at the Delhi railway station along with the appellant is corroborated by her father and other police witnesses. Medical evidence also corroborates the version of prosecutrix as scratch marks just below the left anteriorilia, abrasion on left thigh as well as abrasions on posterior commissure were found on her body. Prosecutrix was a girl of tender age of 15 years only.