SACHIN Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated 2nd April, 2002, Sachin and Amit Yadav were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 341/34 and 506-II IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 21st May, 2002 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(g)/34 IPC, simple imprisonment for period of one month for offence punishable under Sec. 341/34 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Sec. 506 Part II/34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions vis-a-vis her statement recorded by the Investigating Agency. Variances in the version of the prosecutrix make it unsafe to act upon her testimony without corroboration. The testimony of PW-2, husband of the prosecutrix, also suffers from material improvements/contradictions vis-a-vis the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. Though it is the version of the prosecutrix that she was successively subjected to sexual intercourse against her will, however, she did not suffer any external injury and her clothes were not torn. The circumstances leading to the apprehension of Sachin are shrouded in suspicion. Placing reliance on the decisions reported as (2013) 9 SCC 113 Kaini Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 2 SCC 401 Lallu Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand and (2005) 9 SCC 769 State of Punjab Vs. Praveen Kumar, it is contended that when the oral testimony of the sole witness is found not to be wholly reliable, the Court can rely upon the same only after corroboration from an independent source.

(3.) Per contra learned APP for the State submits that though the prosecutrix was declared hostile, however, she stated that Amit, Sachin and 'P' had raped her and correctly identified them. The prosecutrix and her husband were consistent regarding the time and place of the incident. As per the FSL report, semen was detected on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. Relying on the decisions reported as 1991 (3) SCC 627 Khujii Vs. State of M.P., 1998 (8) SCC 624 Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and (2010) 8 SCC 536 Prithi Vs. State of Karnataka, it is submitted that the evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced altogether and the same can be accepted to the extent found reliable on a careful scrutiny. Referring to the decision reported as 1971 Crl.L.J. 305 Jadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. it is submitted that absence of test identification parade is not necessarily fatal and in the present case, till husband of the prosecutrix came back with police, the prosecutrix had enough time to have sufficient impression about the identity of the accused persons.