LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-25

RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Decided On May 08, 2014
RAM CHARAN Appellant
V/S
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these appeals the Appellants challenge the judgment dated 28th October, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (g)/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th October, 2014 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five months each.

(2.) Learned counsels for the Appellants contend that the testimonies of the Prosecutrix and her mother are inherently contrary and are contradicted by the other evidence and material on record. Though the Prosecutrix and her mother state that the statement was recorded at the Police Station however, the police witnesses state that the statement was recorded at the spot. Though PW1, the Prosecutrix states that on the arrival of her mother the Appellants fled away, however PW2 testifies that when she arrived she found no one over there. The claim of PW1 that she went to work and other labourers were there, is falsified from the evidence of police witnesses PW13 SI Nahar Singh and PW15 W/SI Savita who stated that being an independence day there was no one at the site. The version of the Prosecutrix is not corroborated by medical or forensic evidence. Even the MLC of the Appellants does not support the version of the Prosecutrix though she states that both the Appellants were drunk, Appellant Babloo was arrested on the spot and was medically examined. There is no material to show that he was intoxicated. Though the alleged incident took place around 10 clock in the morning however, they went to the police station after 12 clock. The ruqqa was sent only at 5.20 p.m. There is material contradiction as to the time of registration of the FIR. The first information to the police, resulting in the registration of DD entry is at 2.20 p.m. Thus the claim of the Prosecutrix that the police reached earlier is not correct. Though the floor of the toilet where the alleged rape took place was unpaved, however there are no injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix. The Prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she scratched Appellant Babloo with her nails, the Appellant Babloo was arrested on the spot immediately after the incident and was medically examined, however, he had no injuries on his body. The MLC of the Prosecutrix has not been proved as PW7 Dr. Vijay Kumar has stated that he could not identify the handwriting of Dr. Anju Garg who examined the Prosecutrix. Further the FSL report has not been put to the Appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence the same cannot be used against him. The defence of the Appellants that the mother of the Prosecutrix had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- and when the same was demanded back, this false case was foisted on them has not been considered. Reliance is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and another, 2011 8 SCC 80; State vs. Dasharath, 1991 ILR(Kar) 1542 and Ikramuddin vs. State, 2009 110 DRJ 174.

(3.) Learned APP for the State submits that the suggestion regarding loan and the consequent false implication on the said count has not been put to the witnesses and is thus an afterthought. PW7 has identified the signatures of Dr. Anju Garg and thus MLC stands proved. As per the FSL report semen was detected on the vaginal swab of the Prosecutrix. Contradictions with regard to the time in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are bound to take place as they were examined after four years. The FSL report has been put to the Appellants in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus the appeals be dismissed.