BABLOO Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (North), Tis Hazari Courts in Sessions Case No.56/2010 arising out of FIR No.325/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali by which the appellant-Babloo was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. By an order dated 11.05.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to the case, as stated in the charge-sheet were that on 24.11.2009, the appellant and his associate Chhotu administered poisonous substance to 'X' (assumed name), aged 14 years and thereafter sexually assaulted her for two days. Police machinery swung into action when 'X' lodged complaint at 11:45 a.m. on 26.11.2009 against the appellant and his associate for committing rape on her person. Both the accused persons were arrested and at their instance, clothes of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of incident were recovered. 'X' was medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both of them for committing offence under Sections 328/376 (2) (g) IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to bring home the appellant's guilt. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to afford him opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. After considering the evidence and rival contentions of the parties, the trial resulted in the conviction of both Babloo and Chhotu. It is relevant to note that both of them were acquitted of the offence under Section 328/34 IPC and the State did not challenge their acquittal. It is unclear if co-convict Chhotu has preferred any appeal to impugn the judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the version given by the prosecutrix is improbable and it is unbelievable that she was continuously ravished for two days by the appellant and his associate. At no stage, the prosecutrix raised alarm. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. No injuries were noticed on her body at the time of her medical examination. Learned APP while supporting the judgment of the trial court urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the prosecutrix who had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused.