BIHARI MUKHIYA Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 25.10.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.17/2013 arising out of FIR No. 163/2009 PS Shahbad Dairy by which the appellants - Bihari Mukhiya (ACrl. A-1) and Chaudhary Mukhiya (A-2) were convicted for committing offences under Sections 376(2)(g) IPC, they have filed the instant appeals. By an order dated 29.10.2013, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000.00 each.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge sheet was that on 04.07.2009 in the fields of Alipur, the appellants in furtherance of common intention with accused Raju Mukhiya (since Proclaimed Offender) committed gang-rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) aged around 17 years. On 05.07.2009 PW-15 Seema, Para Legal Worker in Nav Srishti NGO while going to her office in the morning noticed a girl sitting at Metro Vihar bus stand. In the evening, again she found the said girl still sitting at there. Suspecting something amiss, she enquired from the said girl as to why she was sitting there. She informed that Raju had gone in search of rented accommodation and had left her there. She further informed her that Raju had brought her on 04.07.2009; kept her in Alipur during the night and had left her in the morning at bus stand Metro Vihar. Since no lady police official was available at the police post, she took the prosecutrix to her house. On the next day, she along with PW-9 (Najma Khan) went to the police station. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants were arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Efforts were made to find out Raju but he could not be traced and was finally declared Proclaimed Offender. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred by them.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellants’ counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell in grave error to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. Considerable delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. Number of glaring infirmities and inconsistencies emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without cogent reasons. ‘X’ was major and a married lady. None of the appellants was present at the spot. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix.