MOHD CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant regular appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant, who is convicted of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI for the offence under Section 376 IPC besides fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI for the offence under Section 376 IPC, assails the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2009 passed by the learned ASJ, District- South. Here itself, it may be noted that though the appellant is also convicted of the offence under Section 506 IPC, no separate sentence for the commission of the said offence, has been awarded by the Trial Court.

(2.) The Trial Court conducted the trial for the commission of the offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC by the appellant on the allegations that on 27.09.2007, at about 7.15 P.M., at House No.303, Gali No.5, Khatte Wali Gali, Subhash Camp, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi, the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix and thereafter threatened to kill her, in the event, she disclosed about the incident to anyone. As per the FIR, on the 7th day of Ramzan in the year 2007, on 27.09.2007, at about 7.15 P.M., the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, had gone to the house of her Nani (maternal grandmother), who used to live in the house in the backside of their house and there, her Nani informing her that she was to go for fetching vegetables and that she - the prosecutrix should watch TV sitting there, went to the first floor of the house with the cup of tea and in short time, the prosecutrix's mamu Chand - the appellant came in. On entering, he is said to have put on the latch from inside and immediately closing the prosecutrix mouth, made her lie on the bed and removing his own pants and underwear, proceeded to untie the nara (cord) and removing her salwar, committed rape on her. After the incident, the appellant is said to have threatened the prosecutrix to kill her if she informed of the incident either to her mother or anyone else. In the FIR, which came to be registered on the statement of the prosecutrix on 31.10.2007, it was also stated that on account of fear she returned back home at about 8 P.M. and on so reaching the house, she narrated the entire incident to her mother. On this, as per the contents of the FIR, the mother of the prosecutrix is said to have informed of the incident to the Nani of the prosecutrix and on that, Nani having scolded the appellant, assured the mother of the prosecutrix that they would now get the appellant married to the prosecutrix, to which the mother of the prosecutrix consented. In that direction, as per the FIR, three dates for marriage also came to be fixed and on 22.10.2007, when Nani told them that they would not marry the appellant with the prosecutrix, having discussed with the parents, the prosecutrix came to the police station on 31.10.2007 and on her statement, the FIR came to be registered the same day. On the conclusion of the investigations, charge sheet came to be filed for the trial of the offences under Section 376/506 IPC and charges came to be framed to that effect. Prosecution in support of its case, examined PW1 Ms.Shama Parveen - the mother of the prosecutrix; PW2 Feroz Khan - the father of the prosecutrix; PW3 - the prosecutrix; PW4 Dr.Rehan Nabi Khan; PW5 Dr.Shilpa Singhla; PW6 Head Constable Rambir Singh, PW7 Head Contable Hans Ras; PW8 Contable Komal; PW9 Constable Ombir Singh; PW10 Constable Devender; and; PW11 Inspector Sanghmitra and closed PE. Incriminating evidence was put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the statement so recorded, the appellant stated that his mother had told the mother of the prosecutrix to marry her, in case, the allegations were correct and in view of the fact that the allegations were false, the mother of the appellant declined his marriage with the prosecutrix. In his such statement, the appellant also stated that the prosecutrix was the daughter of his paternal aunt and thereby, his niece in relation and that he was falsely implicated at the instance of his Khala (Mausi) Ms.Jahan Ara, with whom, they were not having good relations. No evidence however came to be led by the appellant in his defence. The Trial Court returned the findings of commission of both the offences by the appellant and passed the impugned order on sentence. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the appeal in hand.

(3.) The appellant assails the impugned judgment of conviction and the order on sentence on the grounds viz. delay of more than one month in registration of FIR; depositions of PW1-the mother of the prosecutrix; PW2-the father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix PW3 being full of discrepancies, contradictions and not reliable; depositions of PW1 to PW3 being uncorroborated; and, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective.