DHARAMBIR Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, Dharambir challenges the impugned judgment dated 23rd Jan., 2001 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366A/506(II)/342/376 Penal Code in FIR No. 884/1997 registered at PS Nandnagri and the order on sentence of the even date directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 366A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 506(II) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 342 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Dharambir contends that the age of the prosecutrix has not been duly proved. No bone x-ray was conducted despite the specific advise by PW-3 Dr. Manjusha. The knives used during the incident have not been recovered. The prosecutrix stated that the appellant and the other assailants were not known to her prior to the incident. The prosecution had failed to prove how the parents of the prosecutrix knew the names of the accused persons and had told her to take their names. No test identification parade was conducted and the accused were shown to the prosecutrix in the police station.

(3.) Per contra, learned APP for State states that the age of the prosecutrix was proved by the school leaving certificate which mentions the date of birth as 15th May, 198 As per the FSL report, semen was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix which corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. Furthermore, the consent of the prosecutrix was immaterial since her age was below 16 years.