ABODH Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 30.01.2016 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.80/2012 arising out of FIR No.251/2012 PS S.P. Badli by which the appellant - Abodh was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/318 IPC, instant appeal has been preferred by him. By an order dated 03.02.2016, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000.00 under Sec. 376 Penal Code and RI for two years with fine Rs.10,000.00 under Sec. 318 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge sheet was that the prosecutrix 'X' (changed name) aged around 15 years was resident of A-354, Raja Vihar, S.P.Badli. The appellant, a married man, lived in the said premises in an adjacent room. In 2011, he established physical relations with the victim and threatened her not to disclose it to anyone; he continued to ravish her for about a year. Due to fear, 'X' did not reveal anything and eventually became pregnant. After carrying baby for 5-6 months, on 20.07.2012 she felt pain in her abdomen and the baby got aborted. She threw the foetus in the dumping area nearby; some passerby noticed it. Information was conveyed to the police and DD No.16A (Ex.PW-4/A) came into existence on 21.07.2017 at around 09.00 a.m. Finally, it was found that the foetus belonged to the prosecutrix 'X'. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded 164 Crimial P.C. statement. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. To prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation. The prosecutrix has given divergent statements at different stages of investigation / trial and she cannot be relied upon. The prosecution was unable to establish as to what was the exact age of the prosecutrix on the day of crime. Learned APP urged that no valid reasons exist to disbelieve the prosecutrix who was a child aged around 15 years prior to the commission of offence.