VIKAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment 26.11.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.211/2013 arising out of FIR No.55/09 at Police Station Vivek Vihar by which the appellant Vikas was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/174A IPC. By an order dated 5.12.2015, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000.00 under Sec. 376 Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 1,000.00 under Sec. 174A IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 1.4.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellant in a vehicle in front of Reliance Fresh, committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'X'(assumed name), aged around 14 years. The incident was reported to the police on 4.4.2009. After recording statement of victim's mother Rekha (Ex.PW- 3/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. The exhibits collected during investigation were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Efforts were made to arrest the appellant but he could not be found. Finally, he was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' on 16.12010. A charge-sheet was filed on 3.6.2011 and after recording statements of the witnesses under Sec. 299 Crimial P.C. the file was consigned to the record room. On 15.4.2013, the appellant was arrested at Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan. He was brought to Delhi on 16.4.2013. On completion of investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him in the court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in conviction, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the prosecutrix and the appellant had affairs which were not liked by the victim's parents. They have falsely implicated the appellant for commission of rape though no such incident had taken place. The prosecutrix used to write love letters to him. She further urged that 'X'was more than 18 years of age on the day of occurrence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that no valid reasons exist to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix who was aged around 14 years on the day of occurrence.