RAKESH Vs. THE STATE OF (NCT) DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 12.12.2005 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 81/04 arising out of FIR No. 57/04 PS Seemapuri by which the appellant - Rakesh was held guilty for committing offences under Ss. 363/366 & 376 IPC, the instant appeal has been filed to challenge its legality and correctness. By an order of the even date, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 5,000/ - each under Ss. 363/366 and 376 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge -sheet was that on 17.02.2004 at about 09.00 p.m. the appellant kidnapped 'X' (assumed name), a minor, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed rape upon her in a jhuggi. X's father suspecting appellant's involvement lodged report with the police on 20.02.2004 that her daughter who had left the house on 17.02.2004 at around 09.00 p.m. to answer call of nature had not returned to the house. First Information Report under Sec. 363 IPC was registered on 20.02.2004. The prosecutrix was recovered on 21.02.2004; she recorded her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. She was medically examined. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed; the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied the allegations and stated that 'X' had accompanied him with her free consent and she was not sexually assaulted. He examined Hari Singh as DW -1 in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions opted to accept the findings of the Court below on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence in custody and is a first time offender. The prosecutrix was a consenting party throughout. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecutrix was minor and there are no reasons to modify the sentence order.