SARVAR JAHANGIR @ RAJA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to a judgment dated 21.04.2005 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.161/01 arising out of FIR No.146/2001 PS Mayur Vihar by which the appellant ­ Sarvar Jahangir @ Raja (A -1) was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and appellant ­ Ameen (A -2) was held guilty for committing offences under Section 363/366/34 IPC. By an order dated 23.04.2005, they were awarded various prison terms with fine. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge - sheet was that on 11.06.2001 during day -time, the appellants along with their associate ­ Munna Khan (since acquitted) kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 14 1/2 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Subsequently, A -1 committed rape after criminally intimidating her. On 11.06.2001, 'X' went missing from her home; her parents searched her at various places but in vain. 'Missing Person Report' was lodged on 12.06.2001 and the investigation was assigned to ASI Nahar Singh. Since 'X' was un -traceable, the Investigating Officer lodged FIR on 15.06.2001. On 16.06.2001, 'X' was found in A -2's company. A -1 was arrested on 18.06.2001. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 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 the investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against A - 1, A -2 and Munna Khan. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW -1 (Shamida) appeared in their defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellants ­ A -1 and A -2 for the above said offences and acquitted Munna Khan of all the charges. It is relevant to note that State did not challenge his acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeals.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for A -1 would submit that 'X' and A -1 were in love. 'X' wanted to marry him and for that purpose had visited him with cash and jewellery at his house. When his mother objected to that relationship, A -1 was falsely implicated when he was going to leave 'X' at her house. Counsel further urged that 'X' was 'major' on the day of incident. Reliance on the birth certificate to determine her age by the Trial Court is misplaced as there are material discrepancies in it. Counsel for A - 2 urged that no role was assigned to him in the crime and he was convicted merely because of his presence along with A -1. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons prevail to disbelieve the prosecutrix.