RAJ KISHORE Vs. THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 07.11.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 18/2012 arising out of FIR No. 53/2012 PS Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant - Raj Kishore @ Raj Kumar was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Ss. 342/354 and 376 IPC read with Sec. 511 IPC. By an order dated 17.11.2012, he was awarded RI for one year under Sec. 342 IPC; RI for two years under Sec. 354 IPC and RI for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 29.02.2012 at around 01.30 p.m. at Jhuggi No. 150, Dharna Camp, Haiderpur, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 14 years after wrongfully confining her there. 'X' made statement (Ex.PW -11/A) and the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on 01.03.2012 at around 01.00 a.m. 'X' was medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge - sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offences under Ss. 342/376 IPC. The appellant was charged for commission of the said offences by an order dated 24.07.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses in all. It is relevant to note that when the statement of the prosecutrix was underway, additional charge under Sec. 354 IPC read with Sec. 325 IPC were framed by an order dated 12.09.2012 to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for commission of the offences mentioned previously. State did not challenge appellant's acquittal under Sec. 376 IPC. Aggrieved by the said orders, 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 statement of the prosecutrix 'X' which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. 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.