RUKSAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated Dec. 5, 2014, Ruksar, the appellant in Crl. A. 43/2015 was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 109/114 read with Sections 506 and 376 Penal Code and Abdul Wazid, the appellant in Crl. A. 404/2015 was convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 376/506 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated Dec. 19, 2014 Ruksar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376 read with Sections 109/114 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 506 IPC. Abdul Wazid was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 506 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for Ruksar contends that there is no evidence to corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecutrix. The medical evidence does not support the version of the prosecutrix. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the testimony of DW-1 father of the prosecutrix, who stated that PW-3 mother of the prosecutrix had animosity against the appellants. It was also contended that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the appellants at the behest of PW-3. There was delay in lodging the FIR and no explanation was given for the delay. Alternatively, it was submitted that Ruksar be released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned counsel for Abdul Wazid, apart from the above submissions, also contends that there are contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix and her previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Crimial P.C. The deposition of the prosecutrix that Abdul Wazid raped her in the presence of his wife Ruksar is totally implausible. It is further contended that no formal proof regarding the age of the prosecutrix has come on record, hence the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.