AMAR PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 11.08.2005 in Sessions Case No. 10/05 arising out of FIR No. 582/99 registered at Police Station Timarpur by which the appellant -Amar Pal Singh was convicted under Section 452/376/506 -II IPC. By an order dated 20.08.2005 he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 452 IPC; RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 506 -II IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as projected in the chargesheet was that on 01.12.99 at about 2:30/2:45 p.m. the appellant committed rape upon prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged 14 years, in her house No. 1466, Street Peeli Kothi, Nathu Colony, Nathupura, Delhi after putting her in fear. The police machinery was set in motion when the incident was reported and DD No. 14 (Ex.PW -13/A) came into existence at Police Post Burari, Police Station Timarpur at 03:12 p.m. The investigation was assigned to HC Devender who with Ct.Satish Kumar went to the spot. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW -1/A); she was medically examined. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement denying the allegations, the appellant pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE appellant has opted to give up challenge to the findings recorded by the trial court on conviction. The trial court believed the victim's version and convicted the appellant for committing rape upon her after putting her in fear. On perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the reasoning given by the trial court to convict the appellant under Section 376, however, cannot be sustained. From the statement of the proseuctrix and other materials on record, it can safely be inferred that physical relations between the two were with victim's consent. Since the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, her consent to have physical relations was inconsequential. On that aspect, conviction under Section 376 is to be maintained.