SURENDER KRISHAN SETH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Surender Krishan Seth impugns judgment dated 07.12.2010 and order on sentence dated 20.12.2010 in Sessions Case No.270/2007 arising out of FIR No.451/2007 registered at Police Station Narela by which he was held responsible for committing rape and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 17.08.2007 in between 01.00 to 02.00 P.M. at House No.A-159, Phase-1, Metro Vihar, he committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name), aged 30 years. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused alleged that the complainant wanted to grab his plot of land and falsely implicated him. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction upon the sole testimony of prosecutrix 'X' without independent corroboration. Major discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without valid reasons. The prosecutrix alleged that she was dragged by the accused to his house but no injuries were noticed on her body in the MLC. The prosecutrix was a mentally challenged girl. No proper preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if she was competent to give evidence. She admitted to have given statement on the direction of her mother. The prosecutrix was major and vagina admitted two fingers (as noted in MLC) which indicated that the incident in question was not her first encounter. The prosecutrix did not disclose name of the rapist to the doctor. No injuries external or internal were found on her body. The prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent version whether she was fit to make statement; whether it was an attempt to commit rape or whether she had menstrual period. The Forensic Science Laboratory report did not establish appellant's involvement as no human semen on the clothes of the prosecutrix was found. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there was no delay in reporting the incident to the police. The prosecutrix categorically indicted the accused for committing rape upon her. The medical evidence corroborates her version. Her hymen was found ruptured.