MOHD MOIM Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was arrested on 14.11.2011 during the course of investigation of first information report (FIR) No.503/2011 (Ex.PW8/A) registered by Police Station Mandawali at 22:55 hours on the basis of statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of Raju Sahi (PW-2). On the basis of evidence which was collected during the said investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was presented on which the appellant stood summoned and eventually put on trial in sessions case No.18/2012 on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 363/376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as it stood prior to its amendment in 2013. The trial culminated in judgment dated 20.01.2014 whereby the appellant was found guilty, as charged. By order dated 24.01.2014, he was sentenced by the trial Judge to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 363 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/-for offence under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC, it having been directed that in case of default he would undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively, the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) By the present appeal, challenge is brought to the judgment and order on sentence passed by the court of sessions, it being the submission of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion, there being no complicity in the crimes for which he has been found guilty on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the two home guard constables - Constable Brahm Jeet (PW-4) and Constable Satish (PW-5) their testimonies being incredible. It is also the submission of the appellant that the medical and forensic evidence do not conclusively prove any penetrative sexual assault and, in this context, reliance is placed by him on the decision of a division bench of this court in Pappu vs. State of Delhi, 2009 CrLJ 3342.

(3.) The submissions of both sides have been heard and the trial court record, which has been called for, carefully perused.