SHER SINGH Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code Sher Singh challenges the impugned judgment dated 13th July, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 2nd Aug., 2001 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Sher Singh contends that the application for medical examination of the prosecutrix was filed after 12 weeks from the registration of FIR and thereafter, the prosecutrix declined to undergo medical examination. Furthermore, the FIR was initially registered for offence punishable under Sec. 354 IPC, however, Sec. 376 Penal Code was added later, on the basis of a subsequent statement made by the prosecutrix. There is contradiction in the testimony of PW-1, mother-in-law of the prosecutrix and PW-2, the prosecutrix. PW-1 stated in her testimony that the prosecutrix was sleeping alone on the roof, however, PW-2 stated that at the time of incident, PW-1 was also sleeping on the roof with her. PW-1 also stated that she saw the prosecutrix throwing bricks at Sher Singh, however, no bricks were recovered during investigation. Further PW-2 stated that PW-1 threw the bricks on Sher Singh. No injury was found in the MLC of the prosecutrix to fortify the allegations of rape. No pieces of bangles were recovered though the prosecutrix stated in her testimony that her bangles broke during the struggle. None of the neighbours who were sleeping on the roof as admitted by the prosecutrix were examined. No alarm was raised so that she could be rescued. Lastly, the prosecutrix was not sure about the identity of the assailant as there was no electricity.

(3.) Per contra learned APP for the State submits that the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality. The conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which is cogent and convincing.