NANNEY Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 17.2.2003 and Order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, New Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant-Nanney herein for the charge punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer a further simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The appellant was prosecuted by Police Station Sangam Vihar for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC on the allegations that on the evening of 10.5.2005 at about 7.00 P.M. he has taken away a female child namely Pooja daughter of Vimal and Sheela aged about three and a half years from near her house to a nearby isolated place and committed rape on her. The child was recovered from the company of the appellant around mid night. On a complaint lodged by Mr. Vimal Kumar (PW-4) father of Pooja a case was registered and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. At the trial prosecution examined nine witnesses in all including the father Vimal Kumar (PW-4) and mother Sheela (PW-5) of Pooja. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and came out with the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case by Vimal Kumar on account of some dispute over money relating to the hire charges of a rickshaw and on that account Vimal kumar quarreled with him six-seven days prior to the incident for which he had approached the Police but no action was taken against Vimal kumar and instead he has been falsely booked in the above case. He, however, did not produce any defence evidence. The learned trial court on a consideration of the matter has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned legal aid counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Sunil K. Kapoor learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have bestowed my anxious consideration to their respective submissions.