SONI @ MEHTAB Vs. THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated 17th Nov., 2015 Soni @ Mehtab, Jahid @ Banti, and Saleem @ Mendak were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 366/34 IPC. Soni @ Mehtab and Saleem @ Mendak were also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354/34 IPC. Soni @ Mehtab was also convicted under Sec. 506(1) IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 21st Nov., 2015, Soni @ Mehtab, Jahid @ Banti and Saleem @ Mendak were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sections 366/34IPC. Soni @ Mehtab and Saleem @ Mendak were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 for offence punishable under Sections 354/34 IPC. Soni @ Mehtab was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of two years for offence punishable under Sec. 506(1) IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for Soni @ Mehtab contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the apprehension of Soni @ Mehtab was solely based on the disclosure statement of one of the co-accused and name of Soni @ Mehtab was disclosed on interrogation. While placing reliance upon the decision reported as 1964 SCR (6) 623 Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, it is submitted that the disclosure statement of the co-accused cannot be used as incriminating evidence. There are contradictions in the testimony of police officials. The manner of arrest of Soni @ Mehtab itself casts a doubt on the prosecution case. There is no evidence on record to corroborate the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix that Soni @ Mehtab misbehaved with her.

(3.) Learned counsel for Saleem @ Mendak in addition to the above also submits that the identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix was highly improbable as she states in her deposition before the Court that she identified the appellants in Karkardooma Court when she had gone there. The site plan exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D, though prepared at the instance of the prosecutrix, has not been signed by her. There is no site plan of the place from where the prosecutrix was recovered.