RAJESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 04.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.44/10 arising out of FIR No.87/10 PS Dabri by which the appellant Rajesh was convicted for committing offences under Sections 376/506 IPC, he has preferred the instant appeal to challenge its legality and propriety. By an order dated 18.08.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that before registration of the FIR, the appellant sexually assaulted and abused the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) at House No.RZ-372, Gali No.14A, Durga Park, Sagar Pur, New Delhi, for about six months and criminally intimidated her. The police machinery came into motion when information was conveyed by Duty Constable Manjeet Singh at DDU Hospital about admission of a girl 'X' aged around seventeen years in an injured condition by her mother. Daily Diary (DD) No.33A (Ex.PW-13/A) came into existence at 02.30 p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Anil Kumar who with Constable Rakesh went to DDU Hospital and found 'X' admitted there. He moved an application (Ex.PW-7/A) to seek permission from the doctor to interrogate 'X'. 'X' revealed that she was being continuously raped by her step-father for the last five or six months. SI Anil Kumar apprised the SHO concerned on telephone and the investigation was taken over by W/SI Asha (PW-14). After recording X's statement (Ex.PW-9/A), she lodged First Information Report. During investigation, 'X' recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court against the appellant. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement the appellant pleaded false implication without producing any witness in defence. The trial resulted in conviction for the offences as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed by him.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undisputably, PW-10 (Santosh), victim's mother, was earlier married to one Babu Lal and six children were born to her out of the said wedlock. When Babu Lal deserted her around five or six years before, she married the appellant and started living along with her children with him in the premises in question. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant admitted that Santosh (X's mother) used to live with him as his wife without marriage along with her children, husband and mother.