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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against a judgment dated 07.04.2010 in Sessions Case No.81/09 arising out of FIR No.247/09 PS Palam Village by which the appellant - Ashok was held guilt for committing offence under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 12.04.2010, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 24.07.2009 at about 02.15 P.M. at House No.RZ - D1A/145, Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, the appellant sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name) , a minor child, aged about 12 years. Police machinery came into motion when information about the incident was recorded vide Daily Diary (DD) No.29A (Ex.PW -13/A) at 05.00 P.M. at PS Palam Village. The investigation was assigned to SI Hansraj who went to the spot. First Information was lodged on the statement of victim's mother - Janki Devi. She disclosed as to how and under what circumstances, 'X' her daughter was sexually assaulted by the appellant. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The accused was arrested and medically examined. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against him in the Court. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) ADMITTED position is that 'X' is a mentally retarded girl aged about 12 years. She is unable to speak but understands questions and is capable to respond. It is also admitted that the appellant lived along with his wife in the premises in question and is related to X's mother (being brother of her 'devrani'). It is also not denied that on the day of incident, X's mother had handed over key of the room after locking it from outside to the appellant. 'X' was in the said room when her mother - Janki Devi had gone to attend her job as maid in various houses and her father was away to his native village. PW -7 (Janki Devi) , X's mother deposed that her other children had gone to attend school that day and her daughter 'X' was alone in the house. She had left for her job at 08.00 A.M. that day leaving 'X' at home and had locked the house from outside. She had handed over the key of the room to the appellant with a request to open it after arrival of her children from the school. In 313 statement, this fact stands admitted by the appellant.