RANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 09.10.2012 in Sessions Case No. 120/11 emanating from FIR No. 144/11 PS Ghazi Pur by which the appellant - Ranjan Kumar was convicted under Sec. 376 IPC, he has preferred the instant appeal to challenge its legality and correctness. By an order dated 17.10.2012, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 1,000/ -. Vide order dated 04.01.2013, this Court issued show cause notice to the appellant as to why the sentence awarded by the Trial Court be not enhanced. Response to it has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge -sheet was that on 19.05.2011 at about 07.10 p.m. in the toilet of a house belonging to Rakesh Mehto, Sapera Basti Chowk Village Ghadoli, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around two years. Intimation of the occurrence was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No. 31A came into existence. SI Kuldeep Singh along with Const. Ravinder Pal and Lady Const. Preeti Yadav went to the spot and came to know that the victim 'X' had already been taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital (In short 'LBS Hospital') by PCR officials. After collecting victim's MLC and recording her father's statement (Ex. PW -9/A), he lodged First Information Report. During investigation, the prosecutrix recorded her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was laid before the Trial Court against the appellant for commission of offence under Sec. 376 IPC. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, held the appellant guilty for commission of rape. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. It committed grave error in relying upon the uncorroborated testimonies of the child witnesses. Significant contradictions and discrepancies emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without cogent reasons. Conflicting versions have been given by the prosecution witnesses about the presence of the accused at the spot soon before the occurrence. Relevant and material witnesses were not examined to establish appellant's presence at the spot. 'X' did not suffer any external injuries on her body and it ruled out commission of rape. No witness from the neighbourhood was examined. It is not believable that the appellant would spare the elder sisters of the prosecutrix and ravish a little child aged around two years inside the toilet. 'X' aged about two years was unable to comprehend and her statement is a tutored one. Per contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons exist to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses including the victim who had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused.