VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Vinod Kumar to impugn a judgment dated 12.03.2012 of learned Additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.02/2011 arising out of FIR No.226/2010 registered at Police Station Ranhola by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376/506 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and RI for one year with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 506 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as projected in the chargesheet was that on 28.10.2010 at about 12.00 noon at House No.68, Road No.8, Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged, 15/16 years and criminally intimidated her. Soon after the incident, 'X' apprised her mother about the incident. Police was informed and the Investigating Officer recorded victim's statement (Ex.PW2/A); lodged FIR by making endorsement (Ex.PW-10/B) over it. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was apprehended and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to FSL. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the Court. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. Ms.Chandrawati appeared in defence as DW-1. After appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contention of the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The incident took place at around 12.00 noon on 28.10.2010. Soon thereafter 'X' was taken for medical examination at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangolpuri at 4.25 p.m. MLC (Ex.PW-5/G) records the alleged history of 'sexual assault'. The appellant was specifically named before the doctor by the victim for 'sexual assault'. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded promptly and FIR was lodged at 6.30 p.m. Apparently, there was no delay in setting the police machinery into motion. In her statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the victim gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant had committed rape upon her after alluring her to his house. Since the incident was reported without any delay and the appellant was named to be the author of the crime, there was least possibility of the child victim and her mother to concoct a false story against him in such a short span of time.