DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Dinesh Singh challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 24.01.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.60/11 arising out of FIR No.75/2011 under Section 376/506 IPC registered at Police Station Ranhola, by which he was held guilty under Section 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 28.01.2013, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant in the charge -sheet were that on 10.04.2011 in the afternoon at H.No.B -43, Gali Matki Wali, Near Durga Chowk, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, he committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name) aged 8 years and criminally intimidated her. Daily Diary No.28 -A (Ex.PW -5/A) came into existence at 03:15 p.m. on 24.04.2011 at Police Station Ranhola, on receipt of information of commission of rape. The investigation was assigned to SI Ved Prakash who with Ct.Sanjeev Kumar went to the spot. After recording statement of the victim 'X' (Ex.PW - 1/A) FIR was lodged by sending rukka (Ex.PW -16/A). The prosecutrix was medically examined. She recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested. Statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted in the court against the appellant. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to establish the appellant's involvement in the crime. In 313 statement, the accused pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to the testimony of PW -4(Lakshmeshwar Singh), victim's father, who had categorically exonerated the accused. He further urged that there was unexplained delay of ten days in lodging the FIR. No physical injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no reasons to disbelieve the prosecutrix who in clear terms attributed specific role to the appellant and identified him to be the perpetrator of the crime.