BIJENDER Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 01.08.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 107/11 arising out of FIR No. 145/2011 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which the appellant - Bijender was held guilty for committing offences under Section 363/376 IPC. By an order dated 27.08.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI for four years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 363 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) In nutshell, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on the night intervening 27/28.05.2011 at about 01.00 / 01:30 A.M., the appellant after kidnapping the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) from the lawful guardianship of her parents took her to his house after administering stupefying substance and committed rape upon her. Investigating Officer after recording victim's complaint (Ex.PW-3/B) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 363/376 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining 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. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix 'X'. It is settled position that the testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to base conviction and it needs no corroboration provided it is found credible and inspires confidence. The Court may, however, if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence.