BIRJU @ MATHUR BUX Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by a judgment dated 21.01.2013 in Sessions Case No.23/12 arising out of FIR No.145/11 registered at Police Station I.P.Estate by which the appellant Birju @ Mathur Bux was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376/363/506 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 24.01.2013, the appellant was awarded RI for eight years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year with Rs. 2,000/ - each under Sections 363/506 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on the night intervening 27/28.11.2011 in the area of Jhuggi No.CN -225, Takiya Kalekhan, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged 14 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and took her to his Jhuggi. She was sexually assaulted and criminally intimidated there. Police machinery swung into action when the incident was reported on 12.12.2011 and FIR was lodged on victim's statement (Ex.PW -5/A). She implicated the appellant by name and gave a vivid account as to how and under what circumstances, she was sexually assaulted by him. 'X' was medically examined and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was placed before the court. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication due to non -return of Rs. 13,000/ - given by him to 'X's father as loan. He did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and erred on relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. 12 days' delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. Absence of injuries on 'X's body at the time of her medical examination ruled out commission of rape. FSL report did not confirm her version. Reshma 'X's sister present in the jhuggi at the time of alleged kidnapping was not produced for examination. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the delay was satisfactorily explained and there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the prosecutrix.