KRISHNA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to a judgment dated 06.04.2013 in Sessions Case No. 07/13 arising out of FIR No. 33/10 registered at Police Station K.N.Katju Marg by which the appellant -Krishna was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 458/324/376/506/392 IPC. By an order dated 12.04.2013 he was awarded various prison terms with fine. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant, as projected in the charge - sheet were that on 20.02.10 at 11:30 p.m. after committing lurking house trespass in House No. 635, Sector 26, Rohini, he sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name) , aged 13 years, putting her in fear and inflicted injuries on her person with a blade. He also committed robbery of cash Rs. 3,000/ - and jewellery articles. Police machinery swung into action on getting information on 21.02.2010 at about 11:25 a.m. about a quarrel at House No. 635, Sector 26, Rohini. DD No. 15/A (Ex.PW -14/A) and 16A (Ex.PW 14/B) came into existence. The investigation was assigned to SI Sandeep Yadav who went to the spot. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW - 2/A) , he lodged First Information Report under Section 376 IPC. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The prosecutrix was medically examined. She recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. The accused was arrested and at his instance, pursuant to his disclosure statement, mobile phone was recovered. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) THE appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the testimony of the prosecutrix 'X'. The occurrence took place on the night intervening 20/21.2.2010 at around 11:30 p.m. when victim's parents had gone to see off Anara Devi -her grandmother, to Railway Station. They had locked the door of the house from outside. However, on return, they found it broken. The prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to them then and there. Efforts were made by her parents to ascertain the identity of the culprit. When the appellant was identified to be the author of the crime, he was beaten by the public and was handed over to the police. Daily Dairy (DD) No. 15 -A and 16 -A were recorded at 11:25 a.m. and 11:26 a.m. respectively. Soon thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and rukka was sent for lodging First Information Record at around 02:30 p.m. The prosecutrix in her statement gave graphic details as to how and under what circumstances she was sexually assaulted by the appellant. Apparently, there was no slackness on the part of the family members to report the incident to the police.