JAGMOHAN @ JAGGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Jagmohan @ Jagga questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 11.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.83/09 arising out of FIR No.112/09 registered at Police Station Khyala by which he was convicted under Section 367/377/307 IPC. By an order dated 27.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine Rs. 20,000/- each under Sections 367/377 IPC; and RI for ten years with fine Rs. 50,000/- under Section 307 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge-sheet, was that on 19.05.2009 at about 10:00 pm at Gali No.1, Vishnu Garden, Delhi, the appellant kidnapped Chaman, aged 12 years, and committed carnal intercourse behind the bushes situated on the road leading towards Paschim Vihar. He also inflicted injuries to the victim in an attempt to murder him. Daily Dairy (DD) No.4A (Ex.PW-8/A) was recorded at Police Station Khayala at 12:15 (night) on getting information about a quarrel at RZ-T-156, Vishnu Garden. The investigation was assigned to SI Narayan Singh. At 12:40 (night) DD No.5A was recorded to the effect that Chaman has been admitted in DDU hospital in an injured condition. SI Narayan Singh went to the spot and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to Safdarjung hospital from DDU hospital. On 22.05.2009 after recording victim-Chaman's statement (Ex.PW-5/A), FIR was lodged by sending rukka (Ex.PW-8/D). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant was arrested on 23.05.2009 and pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-4/B), clothes which he was wearing on the day of incident were recovered. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution produced nine witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his complicity in the crime without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) The appellant's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of a child witness tutored by his brother and relatives. The prosecution did not explain the undue delay in lodging the FIR. Initially, the victim did not disclose commission of offence under Section 367/377 IPC. Subsequently, he improved the version at the instance of his family members and one Bijender with whom the complainant had a quarrel few days before. No statement of the child was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellant was unknown to the victim and the Investigating Officer did not move any application for holding Test Identification Proceedings. No injuries were found on the body of the victim or of the appellant to infer commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the child witness has fully supported the prosecution and there are no sound reasons to disbelieve him.