IRFAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants - Irfan (A -1), Salim Khan @ Sallu (A -2) and Laeek Ahmad (A -3) have preferred the instant appeals to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 19.07.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 03/2010 arising out of FIR No. 132/2009 PS New Usmanpur whereby A -1 and A -2 were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Ss. 376(2) (g) /506/34 IPC and A -3 was convicted under Sec. 506 IPC. The appellants were awarded various prison terms with fine.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 14.04.2009 and 16.04.2009, A -1 and A -2 committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (changed name), aged around 14 years, at a toilet on the ground floor at Anish Thelawal's house, Gali No. 8, Jagjeet Nagar, Usman Pur. After the incident, A -3 and their relatives criminally intimidated the victim and her parents to prevent them from approaching the police. The incident was reported to the police on 25.04.2009 and the Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW -9/A) lodged First Information Report. During investigation, 'X' recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement; she was medically examined. Appellants were arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. DW -1 (Naresh Kumar Saini) and DW -2 (Mohd.Rashid) appeared in their defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix 'X' which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. Needless to say, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. In case, the Court has reasons not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration.