MAINUDDIN Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by a judgment dated 09.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 02/2009 arising out of FIR No. 240/2008 PS Sadar Bazar by which the appellant - Mainuddin was convicted under Sections 363/376(2)(f) IPC, he has filed the instant appeal. By an order dated 18.08.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 50,000/ - under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and RI for seven years with fine Rs. 50,000/ - under Section 363 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge - sheet was that on 06.09.2008 at around 08.15 P.M. within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Bazar, the appellant and co -convict - Mohd.Mukeem @ Buchi kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged 4 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and committed rape upon her. 'X' had gone outside her house to take some eatables from a shop on 06.09.2008 at about 08.15 P.M. When she did not return as usual, Usman (her brother) went to search her. He brought the child at around 10.45 P.M. She was bleeding from her private parts. The incident was reported to the police. 'X' was taken to Lady Harding Medical College for examination. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording statement of the victim's mother (Ex.PW -3/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. 'X' recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She also participated in the Test Identification Proceedings and identified co -convict - Mohd.Mukeem @ Buchi in Tihar Jail. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant and co - convict in the Court. The prosecution examined twenty -five witnesses to establish their complicity in the crime. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, they denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. It is relevant to mention that co -convict - Mohd.Mukeem @ Buchi was acquitted of the offence under Section 363 IPC and the said acquittal was not challenged by the State. It is unclear if co -convict - Mohd.Mukeem @ Buchi has challenged the impugned judgment.

(3.) APPELLANT 's contention primarily is that he was not the perpetrator of the crime and has been falsely implicated. He, however, did not give any reasons for his false implication in the incident. He and Co -convict lived in the neighbourhood of the complainant and were acquainted with them. Nothing has surfaced to show if there was any previous animosity or ill -will between the complainant and her family members with the convicts to falsely rope them in this incident. The complainant and her family members had suffered immensely due to horrible incident of rape upon child aged 4 years and were really interested to bring the real culprit to book. They were not expected to falsely implicate the appellant and his associate and to let the real offenders go scot free. The complainant had even not named them initially in the FIR.