AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th September 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ("ASJ") in Sessions Case No. 5612 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 376, 448, 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 1st October 2013 sentencing him to seven year's rigorous imprisonment ("RI") with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment ("SI") for two years for the offence under Section 376 IPC, RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo SI for two months for the offence under Section 448 IPC and to RI for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 1,500 and in default, to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 506 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) At around 8.07 am, on 1st May 2012, a call was received in the Police Control Room ("PCR") from mobile phone 9891043809. The PCR form (Ex.PW-10/B) indicated the informant's name as Kamal Nath (PW-3). It extracted the message received from the prosecutrix in this case who was referred to by the trial Court as "A" (PW-2). The message was to the effect that the she stated that she was living with the Appellant, a resident of 420, Mantola, Pahar Ganj, Delhi for the past two years and that his second wife was also present. She alleged that she had been raped by the Appellant.

(3.) The genesis of the above call has been explained by PW-3 in his evidence. He stated that he was proceeding towards Pahar Ganj on 1st May 2012 between 7.30 and 8 am on his motorcycle. When he reached Ramdwar Road, Chheh Tuti Chowk, he made enquiries about the address he had to reach. At that time a lady along with boy aged about 10 to 12 years asked to borrow his mobile phone as she wanted to make a call to the police to inform them about her having been raped. She borrowed his mobile phone and made a call to the PCR. Thereafter, PW-3 left the spot. It is important to note that nothing has been elicited from this witness in his cross-examination to create any doubt about his version of the above events.