SUBHASH CHHABRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 23.12.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 65/06 emanating from FIR No. 269/02 registered at Police Station Mehrauli by which he was convicted under Ss. 376/354/506 IPC, the appellant Subhash Chhabra has filed the instant appeal. By an order dated 08.01.2007, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 25,000/ - under Sec. 376 IPC; RI for one year with fine Rs. 5,000/ - under Sec. 354 IPC and RI for one year with fine Rs. 2,000/ - under Sec. 506 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that in January 2001 at about noon time at 886/B, Mehrauli, the appellant outraged the modesty of her daughter 'Y' (assumed name). He also committed rape on her other daughter 'X' (assumed name) several times since the age of five years during the period from 1990 to 2000 in the said house and criminally intimidated Manju Chhabra, 'X' and 'Y'. FIR was lodged on 31.05.2002 on the basis of written complaint (Ex.PW - 1/A) given by 'X' on 24.05.2002 to the police. 'X' was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant could be arrested only on 11.03.03. Certain documents executed amongst the parties were seized. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of various offences mentioned previously. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and relied upon several documents to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW -1(Usha Chhabra), DW -2(Suresh Kumar Chhabra) and DW -3 (Pawan Arora) appeared in his defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty under Ss. 376/354/506 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal in question.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Counsel pointed out various contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have seriously affected the prosecution case. He contended that material improvements have been made by the prosecutrix ('X') and her sister ('Y'). There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The only motive of the prosecutrix and her mother to implicate the appellant in the crime was to grab his property. Documents (Ex.PW6/1, Ex.PW1/DX and Ex.PW1/DY) were never read by the appellant before putting signatures over them. 'X's mother had objectionable relations with one S.S. Chand and lived separate in his company. The appellant was falsely implicated so that he and his sons would not know about their activities. 'X' was also in relationship with one Prakash and when the appellant objected to that, in revenge, 'X' lodged the FIR in conspiracy with him. Medical evidence does not support the prosecutrix's version; no injuries were found on her body including private parts. The Trial Court ignored the defence version without cogent reasons. Reliance has been placed on State Vs. Ramesh, 1998(1) JCC (Delhi) 130; Samay Singh Vs. State, 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi) 217; Ronald Kiprono Ramkat Vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 181; Devender Singh & Ors.Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 (4) RCR (Crl.) (SC) 363; Ram Ratan Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (3) C.C.cases (HC) 171; Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (1) PCR (Crl.) 910; Hukkar @ Ismile & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana : 2003 (3) PCR (Crl.) 794; State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishan Lal, 2002 (2) RCR (Crl.) (SC) 852; Ajit Kumar Vs. State, 1998 (1) JCC 36 (Delhi); Dilip & Anr. Vs. State of MP : 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 236; Kanhai Mishra @ Kanhaiya Mishra Vs. State of Bihar, : 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 5; Ram Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (2) Criminal Code cases 238; Ota Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2002 (1) Crimes 771; State of Punjab Vs. Gurdeep Singh, 199(2) JCC (SC) 485; Subhakar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (6) SCC 671; Mania @ Manoj Kumar Behera Vs. State : 2001 (1) Crimes 554; Subhash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 332; Bhup Singh Vs. State of Haryana : 2005 (3) CC Cases (HC) 76; P.Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu : 2006(1) JCC (SC) 447 and Nasir Sikandar Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra : 2005 Crl.LJ(SC) 2621.