DEWAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 366 and 363 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are recapitulated as under: Pradeep Kumar filed a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Civil Lines, Delhi on 16.11.19975 in which he mentioned that on 15.11.1975 his sister Arunima Saxena aged 15/16 years had gone to Balak Ram Hospital to bring medicine but did not return. On 15th November, 1975 his elder brother Mukesh Kumar had lodged a report with the Police Station that his sister is not traceable. It is mentioned that on search they came to know that one Dewan Singh who was known to the family and had been working in Khyber Pass near the Petrol Pump was also missing from his house during the same period. It is further mentioned that Dewan Singh had been roaming about near his house for a few days. The complainant had an apprehension that his sister Arunima had been kidnapped by Dewan Singh. After the investigation, a case was registered against Dewan Singh. He was arrested near the Khyber Pass. On the basis of the statement made by Dewan Singh Arunima was traced out in the village Pillanji in the presence of Badley and Chhotay. S.I. Sham Lal recorded Arunima's statement in which she stated that Dewan Singh met her outside Balak Ram Hospital at about 10:00 a.m. and informed her that her brother Rakesh had met with an accident and on that pretext took her to village Pillanji and had threatened her. She further stated that at Pillanji the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She was traced from the village Pillanji by the police on 16.11.1975. Apart from the medical examination the prosecutrix was also examined by a Radiologist. According to the Radiologist, she was above 15 years and below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to strengthen its case.

(3.) The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .denied having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in a room at village Pillanji. The appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix's parents insisted that the appellant should marry her but he refused to marry her because she had a bad reputation in the locality.