BALBIR CHAND Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - Balbir Chand impugns a judgment dated 01.05.2008 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 41/07 arising out of FIR No. 122/05 PS Vivek Vihar by which he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 05.05.2008, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the chargesheet was that on 13.02.2005 and 03.04.2005, the appellant committed rape upon her daughter "X" (assumed name) aged around 16 years against her wishes. "X" filed a complaint case in the Court and under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the instant case was registered. "X" was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant in the Court for committing the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses to bring home its case and to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and claimed himself to be innocent. He examined S.P.Singh as DW-1 and S.K.Nigam as DW-2 in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and ignored vital discrepancies, contradictions and omissions emerging in the statements of prosecution witnesses. "X" is not a reliable witness and her statement has not been corroborated from any other source. She lodged the instant case to falsely implicate the appellant who did not permit her to marry one Deepak with whom she had affairs and was found in physical relation. To get rid of him, "X" in connivance with her stepbrother PW-2 (Deepak), PW-3 (Khajan Singh) and Brijesh levelled false allegations against him. Learned counsel urged that "X" was habitual to sex and avoided pregnancy test deliberately; she did not bear good character. On the pretext to attend school, she used to bunk her classes.