MOHD BILAL QURESHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 12.09.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 27/14 arising out of FIR No. 113/14 PS Sadar Bazar by which the appellant Mohd. Bilal Qureshi was convicted for committing offences under Sections 366/376(2)(n)/506 IPC. By an order dated 12.09.2014 he was sentenced to undergo various prison terms.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge - sheet was that the appellant repeatedly committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name) against her consent. Written complaint (Ex.PW -2/A) lodged by 'X' on 28.02.2014 formed the basis of First Information Report registered on same day. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 366/376(2)(n)/506IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313Cr.P.C statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He admitted about his friendship with the prosecutrix. He stated that he had no physical relations with the prosecutrix. On 26/27/02/2014 he was noticed by husband of the prosecutrix when he was roaming with the prosecutrix. He did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary testimony of 'X'. 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.