RAGHUVINDER HARNA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 03.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.1126/2010 emanating from FIR No.357/09 registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant Raghuvinder Harna was convicted under Section 376 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 24.08.2011, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 13.11.2009 at around 9.30 a.m. at House No.550, C&D Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 41 years and criminally intimidated her. Information about the incident was conveyed to the police on 06.12.2009. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-5/A) lodged First Information Report on 07.12.2009. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. To establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied his involvement in the crime. The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously under Section 376 IPC. It is relevant to note that the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix 'X'. Needless to say, conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case, the Court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.