RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Ravinder Kumar is aggrieved by a judgment dated 30.11.2005 in Sessions Case No.04/05 emanating from FIR No.564/02 registered at Police Station Anand Vihar by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 366/376 IPC. By an order dated 06.12.2005, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 366 and 376 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as projected in the chargesheet was that on 16.10.2004 at about 07:30 a.m. at bus stop, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi, the appellant abducted 'X' (assumed name), aged around 20 years, and sexually assaulted her till 21.10.2004 in a room located in Indira Puri, J.J.Colony, Gaziabad (U.P.). When 'X' did not return as usual from her college on 16.10.04, her father Ved Parkash searched her at various places. In the FIR lodged on 17.10.2014, appellant's involvement in kidnapping 'X' was suspected. The investigation was assigned to WSI Kaushal Pandey. On 21.10.2004 at ISBT, Anand Vihar, the prosecutrix and the appellant were apprehended during their presence at platform No.C-126. Victim's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the appellant was arrested. The prosecutrix was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court against the accused. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. 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 record. The appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. In her deposition (Ex.PW-1/1), she implicated the appellant for committing rape upon her after putting her in fear and threat.