RAM NANDAN Vs. STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 09.03.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 96/08 arising out of FIR No. 940/07 PS Uttam Nagar by which the appellant Ram Nandan was convicted for committing offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 11.03.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the chargesheet was that on the night intervening 21/22.12.2007, the appellant committed rape upon "X" (assumed name) aged about seven years. Daily Diary (DD) No.42A (Ex.PW-4/A) came into existence at 06.40 p.m. at PS Uttam Nagar on 22.12.2007 on receipt of information about a child sitting abandoned at M-48, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. The investigation was assigned to ASI Sanwar Mal who went to the spot. "X" and her brother PW-2 (Sajjan Kumar) present there apprised the Investigating Officer about the commission of rape. "X" was taken for medical examination to DDU Hospital. After recording statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of victim's brother Sajjan Kumar, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. "X" recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ram Nandan was arrested and medically examined. The exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the Court. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to prove the appellant's guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and took the defence that he was falsely implicated by the victim's brother when he declined to lend Rs. 15,000/- to him. He did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell in grave error to rely upon the testimonies of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. Material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored and overlooked by the Trial Court. The medical evidence did not corroborate "X" 's version as she did not sustain any visible injuries on her body. In the FSL report, "semen" detected on the clothes did not match with that of the appellant. In the initial information conveyed to the police there were no allegations of sexual assault upon the child. The prosecution witnesses have made vital improvements in their deposition. It is unclear as to why PW-2 (Sajjan Kumar), victim's brother preferred to inform the landlady instead of reporting it to the police. Delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. PWs have given conflicting statements as to what was the relationship between "X" and the appellant. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that "X" aged around seven years has fully supported the prosecution case and no reasons exist to disbelieve her.