PREM SINGH Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is directed to impugn a judgment dated 17.07.2012 in Sessions Case No. 235/09 arising out of FIR No. 241/2009 PS Sultanpuri by which the appellant - Prem Singh was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 20.07.2012, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 20,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case in the charge -sheet was that in between 14.08.2008 to December, 2008 at various places including A -158, Raj Park, Sultan Puri, and Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (Assumed name) aged around 13 years and also criminally intimidated her. Information about the sexual abuse was reported to the police on 04.07.2009. Investigating Officer after recording X's statement (Ex.PW -2/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon completion of investigation, a charge - sheet was filed in the Court. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication; no defence evidence was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) ON scrutinising the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it stands established that 'X' was a willing and consenting party throughout to have physical relations with the appellant. Both were neighbours and acquainted with each other. They used to remain in regular touch with each other on mobiles. On the day of incident i.e. 14.08.2008, 'X' visited appellant's house to collect certain old newspapers where physical relations took place. In the statement (Ex.PW -2/A) given to the police at the first instance, 'X' gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, physical relations were established by the appellant in his house on 14.08.2008. She further informed that on two other occasions also, she was sexually assaulted. She further informed that the accused had taken her nude photographs and used to criminally intimidate her. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW -1/B), the prosecutrix reiterated her version given to the police and implicated the appellant for sexual abuse. In her Court statement as PW -1, she deposed that when she had gone at the appellant's residence to collect old newspapers, she was sexually abused after administering 'something' in a drink. After consuming it, she became unconscious. In the cross -examination, she revealed that the accused was 'alone' in the house that time. Needless to say, complete and entire version given by 'X' to the police in her statement (Ex.PW -2/A) and the one recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been proved. She omitted to testify if on any other occasion too either at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital or in a lady's house, rape was committed upon her. Certain discrepancies have emerged in her statements recorded at various stages of the investigation / trial. She made improvement in Court Statement alleging that physical relations were made after administering 'something', as a result of which, she became unconscious.