SHABIR AHMAD Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - Shabir Ahmad challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.02.2004 in Sessions Case No. 23/01 arising out of FIR No. 341/2000 PS Badarpur by which he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 21.02.2004, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on and before 16.09.2000 in House No. A -58, Main Road, Alipur Extension, Badarpur, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around eight years and criminally intimidated her. Victim's aunt Omvati (PW -1) lodged report and the Investigating Officer registered First Information Report after recording her statement (Ex.PW -1/A) on 18.09.2000. 'X' was taken for medical examination. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. 'X' recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibits were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court for commission of the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to establish appellant's involvement in the crime. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) ANALYSING the statement of the child witness, it reveals that no vital infirmities could be elicited in her cross -examination. Material facts, stated by 'X' in examination -in -chief, remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. No extraneous motive was assigned to the little child to make false allegations against the appellant. Her testimony is consistent throughout. She has not deviated from her previous version recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. No compelling valid reasons exist to suspect reliability of her statement. She did not have strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Unless such an incident had really been happened, 'X' a little child of tender age around eight years would be highly reluctant to make such serious allegations of rape in the absence of any prior animosity against an old man who lived in the neighbourhood.