ATIQUR REHMAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 14.01.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 02/13 emanating from FIR No. 85/11 registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar by which the appellant-Atiqur Rehman was held guilty for committing offences under Sec. 376/366A/506(II) IPC. By an order dated 15.01.2013, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 376 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Sec. 366A IPC; and, rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000.00 under Sec. 506 (II) IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge sheet was that on 18.06.2011, at about 7:30 p.m. the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 16 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents; wrongfully confined her at Jaipur, committed rape upon her without her consent and criminally intimidated her . The incident was reported to the police on 20.06.2011. Efforts were made to find the whereabouts of the prosecutrix but to no effect. First Information Report was lodged under Sec. 363 Penal Code after recording statement of victim's father (Ex. PW-16/A). On 23.06.2011, the prosecutrix was brought to Delhi; she returned to her home. Her father took her to the Police Station. She was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. The accused surrendered before court on 11.07.2011 and then was formally arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-6/A); he was taken for medical examination. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigationally were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon completion of investigationally, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded innocence. He examined two witnesses in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and correct perspective and fell in grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of interested witnesses. There was inordinate delay of two days in lodging First Information Report which created doubt about the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. The prosecution was unable to establish the true and correct age of the prosecutrix. Reliance has been placed on Thulika Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 (3) SCC 393 ; Maharaj Singh Vs. State of UP, 1994 (5) SCC 188 ; Thanedar Singh Vs. State of MP, 2002 (1) SCC 487 ; Rajeevan Vs. State of Kerala, 2003 Cri.L.J. 1572 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh, 2005 (3) SCC 59 & Sujoy Sen Vs. State of West Bengal, 2007 (6) SCC 32.