BADARI MEHTO Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 05.7.2013 and 06.7.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. has been granted to the appellant.

(2.) NOMINAL roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. As on date the appellant has undergone 5 years of incarceration which includes the remissions earned by him. His jail conduct has been satisfactory.

(3.) AT the outset learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant submits that this case rests upon the sole testimony of the victim; there are three versions recorded of the victim i.e. her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which had formed the basis of the FIR; her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also her statement on oath in Court. There are inherent contractions in these versions. Such material contradictions cannot be ignored; they go to the root of the matter; the witness is not credible. It is pointed out that whereas in one version the victim had stated that she was enticed by the appellant to go to the poultry farm where the act had been committed whereas in her version under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she had been dragged, forced and coerced to go there. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the first time she had introduced in her version that Rs.50/ - had been given to her by the appellant. This did not find any mention in the FIR. Her statement that blood was oozing out from her private parts was not supported by the medical evidence and not only her hymen was found intact but there was also no blood detected on her private parts or upon her clothes. The defence sought to be set up by the appellant was not examined in the correct perspective; this was a case of false implication as there was a money dispute between the father of the victim and the appellant. A sum of Rs.4000/ - had been owed by PW -4 (father of the victim) to the appellant and when the appellant asked for the money this false case has been planted upon him. There is also no explanation for the inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as : (2011) 7 SCC 130 Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana to support his submission that inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of the prosecutrix cannot form the basis of a conviction and such a dicey witness cannot be relied upon.