LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-37

KEDAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On July 25, 1995
KEDAR NATH SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-1-91 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicting the appellant for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,0001- and in default in payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of 2 years.

(2.) Brefly stated, the facts giving rise to this case are that the prosecutrix Kumari Bimla aged about 12 years had been residing with her parents at premises No. H-3/3 at PS Defence. Colony, New Delhi. Both her parents along with their other two children had gone to their village Chakrapur in district Nainital on 15-5-87 and returned on 8-6-87, and she was left behind alone under the care of the wife of the accused Kedar Nath Singh, who was living with her family in quarter No. J-1/3, PS Defence Colony, New Delhi. The prosecutrix and the daughter of the accused, Rakhi were students of same school and were friends and visiting the house of each other. During this period of her parents absence in the begnning at nights, Kumari Bimla stayed at and slept at the house of the accused. The house consisted of two rooms. In one room the prosecutrix and Rakhi slept on a cot while in the other room the accused along With his other family members slept. On one night while she was so sleeping with Rakhi in one of the rooms during the night, the accused came to her and awakened her from sleep. He made himself lie with the prosecutrix and tried to open the string of her salwar. In the meantime, Sanju (son of accused sleeping in adjoining room) .started taking turns on which the accused went . away to the other room. She continued staying at the house of the accused during nights. After about two nights, while the prosecutrix was sleeping in the room With Rakhi, the accused again came to her and awakened her. On this, Bimla poured down water on her cot from a water bottle kept nearby. At this. the accused got up and went to the kitchen. Due to falling of the said bottle, Rakhi woke up. The prosecutrix told Rakhi that somebody was in the kitchen to which the accused said that it was he who had gone there to drink water. Keeping in view these overtures of the accused, Bimla told Rakhi on the next day that she will not sleep in her house taking the plea that her house was lying vacant and theft might be committed at any time in her house. Thereafter, she along With Rakhi started sleeping at her own house.

(3.) On 31-5-87 it was Sunday, Bimla was present in her house alone when at about 3.45 P.M., the accused knocked at the door of her house. She enquired as to who he was, to this the accused replied that his motor cycle had gone out of order and that he had come to take the key of her cycle. As soon as she unbolted the door, the accused immediately entered the house and bolted the door. She had asked him to unbolt the door but he threatened her that in case she cried or raised an alarm or told anybody, she would be defamed and that she will be beaten by her parents' and also by him. She was frightened and then the accused caught her both hands, laid her on a charpai, untied her salwar, removed his pants and forcibly committed rape on her and due to fear, she could not do anything but kept weeping. The accused had also told her then that she was suffering from leprosy (perhaps meaning leucederma) and that no body will marry her and that he will get her married to a good boy and her life would be settled and had further asked her not to say anything to anybody. In the meantime, her neighbour Smt. Poorna knocked at the door of the house. He concealed himself in the bathroom. Pooma came in and went towards bathroom, asked her to give her 'neel' but it was not available in the house and Poorna went away. At about 5.30 P.M., the accused went away from her house. Due to fear of defamation, she did not tell about this incident to anybody and even to her parents who returned after 8 or 9 days of this incident.