CHANDER DEV Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by a judgment dated 12.01.2011 in Sessions Case No. 168/09 arising out of FIR No. 184/07 registered at Police Station Mayapuri by which the appellant Chanderdev @ Karu @ Dada was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 376 (2) (f) IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 14.01.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 16.05.2007 in between 9:30 a.m. to 10:41 a.m. at H.No.WZ -553, E/2, Nangalraja, Ambedkar Basti, New Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around four years. Police machinery swung into action when DD No. 12A (Ex.PW -2/A) was recorded at Police Station Mayapuri on getting PCR call regarding the incident at about 10.41 a.m. on 16.05.2007. The investigation was assigned to SI Sukhbir Malik who with Ct.Satyawan went to the spot. 'X' was medically examined. FIR (Ex.PW3/B) was lodged on the statement of victim's mother Smt. Manju (PW -3). The accused was arrested and medically examined. During investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. 'X' recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was laid against the appellant before the court. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication due to strained relations between the complainant and his nephew. He did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) THE appellant was named in the FIR lodged promptly soon after the incident. He was known to PW -3 (Manju) and PW -4 (Rajender) before the occurrence. In fact, he belonged to the PW -4's native place and he knew him since his childhood. 'X' had taken PW -3 and PW -4 at the residence of the accused where the occurrence had taken place. He was apprehended on the pointing of PW -4 (Rajender). In her Court statement, 'X' identified him to be the perpetrator of the crime without any hesitation though she was unaware of his exact/full name. She described him by the name he was known i.e. Karu @ Dada by the children of the locality. Dock identification of the appellant by the prosecutrix 'X', PW -3 and PW -4 leave no doubt about his identity. Admitted position is that the appellant's nephew lived on the third floor of the premises in question. The appellant used to visit him frequently there. So there was no question of mistaken identity.