GAMBHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons Gambhir Singh Negi, appellant, Balraj alias Pappu, Ramesh Kumar and Kishan Lal were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 366/34 and section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on the first count while sentence in respect of the offence under section 376 I.P.C. imposed is 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine further six monthsT imprisonment was imposed. The sentences were made concurrent.

(2.) Stating, briefly the case against the appellant and his accomplices is that on 17th of July, 1983 they abducted the prosecutrix one Kaushalya from the house of her maternal uncle and thereafter took her to a secluded field where she was allegedly raped. Stating the case in a little detail the allegation against the appellant and his accomplices is that on the night of the incident at about 11 p.m. two persons, namely, Balraj and Ramesh Kumar came to the kotha of the house where the prosecutrix was sleeping along with some other ladies and at the point of knife kidnapped her after giving threats to the landlady and others not to make noise. It is stated that both of these accused persons were under the influence of liquor and that the appellant and one Kishan Lal who were also convicted were standing on the ground floor of the house from which the prosecutrix was abducted. The case of the prosecutions as it transpired at the trial further is that in the ground floor of the house the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix is running a Dhaba, while the first floor is occupied by the landlord, the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and two more tenants. I am stating this on the basis of the evidence in the case with a view to test the case of the prosecution in respect of abduction in the light of these facts. Now the other three convicts have also filed appeals, which are connected with this appeal.

(3.) The entire case of the prosecution in fact rests on the testimony of the prosecutrix Kaushalya (P.W.1) and the evidence of P.W.9 Dr R. Rangras as also the testimony of P.W. 10 Mrs. Kamla Aggarwal who proved the age certificate of the prosecutrix. This is in so far as the prosecution case in respect of actual rape of the prosecutrix is concerned. The prosecution is also relying on P.W.3 Bal Kishan, P.W.4 Leelawati, P.W.5 Sulochana Devi, landlady and landlord respectively in respect of the fact of abduction of the prosecutrix. All these prosecution witnesses P.W.3 Bal Kishan, P.W.4 Leelawati, P.W.5 Sulochana Devi have deposed that on the night of the incident the prosecutrix was abducted from the roof of the house by two persons where they were sleeping but they have refused to identify anyone of the appellants as being involved in the case. It is only the prosecutrix who has identified the appellant and his accomplices even though upto 21st of July, 1983 when the accused persons were arrested for the first time she admittedly was not aware of the names or even addresses of all the accused persons excepting Gambhir Singh Negi about whom she has said that he was a, neighbour and used to frequently visit the house of her mother. P W.1 prosecutrix Kumari Kaushalya says that, she was raped by these four persons including Gambhir and that this was done against her will. That she was raped is evidenced also by the testimony of P.W.9 Dr. R. Rangras. This fact admits of no doubt.