AVDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 21.01.2013 and 29.01.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stands convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. had been granted to him.

(2.) Nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. This reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of about almost 5 years which includes the remissions earned by him.

(3.) The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the prosecutrix examined as PW-2. She was a resident of Jharkhand and she came to Delhi and working as a maid servant in the house of Ms. Vidyut Gulati (PW-8). The appellant was also working as a cook in the said house. On the fateful day i.e. on 20.08.2011, when the family of her employer had gone out of station, the appellant had taken her in a room and had forcibly committed rape upon her. She had pleaded with him but he did not listen anything. She made a complaint to the father-in-law of her employer who was in Delhi namely Yashvant Malhotra (PW-11). The complaint was lodged at the police station and investigation was set into motion. Apart from the aforenoted witnesses, the driver working in the same family since the last 4 years Rajender Kumar was examined as PW-6. He had deposed that after he had returned from taking bath, the prosecutrix narrated to him that she had been raped by the appellant. He corroborated the version of PW-2 that she and the appellant were working in the same house and were alone at the time of the incident. Her statement was recorded by the learned MM Ms.Monika Saroha (PW-10) under Section 164 of the Cr.PC (Ex.PW2/B). The victim was medically examined by Dr. Nivedita Raizada whose signatures were identified by Dr. Nidhi Siddharth (PW-12). The exhibits which included the vaginal swab and salwar of the victim (Ex.PW-13/E) had also been sent for analysis but neither any semen and nor any blood could be detected on the said exhibit.