RAJENDER GUPTA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 01.06.2010 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.04/2008 emanating from FIR No.33/2008 registered at Police Station Timarpur by which the appellant - Rajender Gupta was convicted under Sections 376/506/342 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 05.06.2010, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 2,000 under Section 376 IPC; SI for one year under Section 506 IPC and SI for three months under Section 342 IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 11.01.08 at around 7.30 a.m. in a Blind Hostel located at B-2544, Street No.66, Sant Nagar, Burari where the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), a visually impaired girl, aged around twenty years used to study and live, the appellant committed rape upon her after criminally intimidating her. Subsequent to that, she was not prevent to go out of the hostel and was confined there against her wishes. Police machinery came into motion on getting telephonic information about commission of rape from one Nirmala Sharma of Jagriti Mahila Samiti and DD No.40 (Ex.PW-8/A) dated 15.01.2008 came into existence at 8.45 p.m. at PS Timarpur. Nirmala Sharma conveyed to the police that a blind girl 'X' along with her sister was present in her office and she had complained to be the victim of sexual assault by the appellant in the Blind Hostel. The investigation was assigned to SI Sanjeev Verma who with Constable Rajender and Lady Constable Sunita went at Nirmala Sharma's office. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by ASI Mithlesh Yadav. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), she lodged First Information Report on 16.01.2008. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the Court against the appellant. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and alleged false implication. He examined five witnesses in 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 for the commission of offences 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. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix 'X'. It has not been corroborated in material particulars from any other independent source.