RAHUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rahul challenges the impugned judgment dated 29th November, 2013 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 376/323 IPC and the order on sentence dated 9th December, 2013 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Azhar Qayum contends that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix as deposed by her in Court and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 she does not state that she had earned around Rs. 300/- by selling rags. Further even from the evidence of prosecutrix it is evident that she had been roaming around the area with the appellant for quite some time and the act was thus consensual in nature as was also the defence taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He further states that from the conjoint reading of the deposition of the prosecutrix and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 it is evident that she was not lost on the way, she knew the appellant from before and was thus comfortable in his company.

(3.) Learned amicus curiae Mr. Bharat Chugh, Advocate adding to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant states that the consent of the prosecutrix is evident from the place where the appellant and the prosecutrix were allegedly found. In case there was no consent between the two they would not have been found at a place underneath the bridge which could not be reached easily. Further immediately after the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was medically examined wherein she was found to be conscious and oriented. Thus it cannot be said that her consent was taken under the influence of drugs. Learned counsels thus pray that the appellant be acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.