RISHI KAPOOR ALIAS RISHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried in the court of the Sessions (in Sessions case 53/2000) on the charge for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the gravamen thereof being that on 14.03.1994, he with the assistance of co-accused Tinka had committed rape by engaging the prosecutrix, a girl aged 11 years to forcible sexual intercourse in Golta Park, Subzi Mandi area. By judgment dated 27.11.2000, he was held guilty, as charged, on the basis of evidence that had been led by the prosecution, it including the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother (PW-3) besides the medico legal record including MLC (Ex. PW14/A) prepared by Dr. H.K. Arora and gynae report (Ex. PW14/B) prepared by Dr. Sagarika Sarkar, each of whom had examined the prosecutrix as medical officers working at that point of time in Hindu Rao Hospital. By subsequent order dated 01.12.2000, the trial judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2500/- as the punishment with further direction that, in the event of default in payment of fine, he would undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The appeal against the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order on sentence came up before this court on 19.12.2000. Taking note of the fact that the learned trial judge had suspended the sentence under Section 389 Cr. PC, a learned single Judge of this court, by his order dated 19.12.2000, enlarged the appellant on bail pending hearing on the appeal. The appeal has come up for hearing almost 18 years after it having been admitted.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt to argue that the accusations against him should not be believed on the basis of testimony of PW-1 or PW-2 for the reason the co-accused (juvenile) had been acquitted in a separate inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board, the evidence of the same set of witnesses having been disbelieved, reliance being placed on the judgment dated 26.06.2000 of the said forum. At the same time, the learned counsel submitted that since the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant was 17 years old, at the time of the commission of the offence, the benefit of amended law relating to juvenile justice, where-under he would now be treated as a juvenile, he being a person below 18 years, should be accorded in the matter of consequences, placing reliance on the view taken by the Supreme Court in Abdul Razzaq Vs. State of U.P., 2015 15 SCC 637.