NARENDER @ NIKHIL Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 15.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.96/2013 arising out of FIR No.53/2013 PS Uttam Nagar by which the appellant ­ Narender @ Nikhil was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 420 IPC. By an order dated 16.05.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.50,000/ -.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge -sheet was that in June / July, 2012 at B -456, Hastsal, J.J.Colony, Uttam Nagar, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (changed name) aged around 19 years on the false promise to marry and extorted Rs.50,000/ - from her. The incident was reported to the police on 30.01.2013. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW -1/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined. Statements of the witnessed conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 420/376/384 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 420 IPC. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 384 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of the prosecutrix 'X'. Needless to say, conviction can be based upon 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.