SHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 13.9.2001 and 14.9.2001 respectively wherein he had been convicted along with his co -accused Shail Kumar for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 366 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC; for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution has been unfolded in the testimony of the prosecutrix „VL?examined as PW -3. She had deposed that on the intervening night of 26 -27th of August, 1992 when she was on her way in a mini bus from Okhla Mandi to Lajpat Nagar, while she was sitting in the front row she dozed off. At the Fountain bus stand accused Shankar (present appellant) woke her. PW -3 asked him as to whether the bus had reached Lajpat Nagar; she was told that the bus was at the Fount bus stand. There were 2 -3 passengers in the bus; they got down at ISBT. PW -3 remained sitting in the bus. The bus was taken behind the Red Fort. It was 1.00 a.m.; PW -3 has categorically deposed that she was raped by Shankar by spreading four seats of the bus on the rear portion of the bus. Shail Kumar (co -accused) thereafter attempted to commit rape upon her but then the police arrived. PW -3 and both the accused persons were taken to the police station. Statement of PW -3 Ex.PW -3/A was recorded. Salwar of PW -3 was taken into possession. She was medically examined.

(3.) AS pointed out by learned public prosecutor keeping in view the trauma suffered by the victim -physical, emotional and psychological -as also the fact that the incident was of the year 1992 and she had appeared thereafter on several occasions and being grilled by the defence counsel minor discrepancy in her statement at one point of time that it was Shail Kumar who had committed rape upon her is an argument of little value.