Raj Kumar vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 2192 Del

                                                                     R-20

*                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

             Judgment Reserved on: May 20, 2009
           Judgment Pronounced on : May 21, 2009

+                            Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000

%        Raj Kumar                   ...   Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma, Legal Aid
                           Counsel

                                      versus

         The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)         ...   Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional
                              Public Prosecutor for State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.       Whether the Reporters of local
         papers may be allowed to see
         the judgment?

2.       To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.       Whether the judgment should be
         reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Appellant has been tried and convicted for

commission of offence of rape. A young girl of eighteen

years or so, had left her parental house on 10th June, 1998,

as she was beaten by her alcoholic father and she boarded

the train from Agra and came to Delhi and at the railway

station, she is said to have met the appellant/accused,

who took her to his house at Sagarpur by alluring her with

a job in a factory. It is said that the appellant/accused had

Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000 Page 1 raped the hapless illiterate girl (hereinafter referred to as

the Prosecutrix (PW-1)) on 17th and 21st June, 1998 and

when her confinement in the house of the appellant/

accused was noticed by the land-lord, prosecutrix (PW-1)

was allowed to go and she reported this matter to the

local police on 24th June, 1998 and thereafter, she was got

medically examined wherein, in the alleged history given

by her, as recorded in her MLC (EX. PW3/A), she had

named the appellant/accused as the person who had

raped her.

2. During the investigation of this case, the

appellant/accused was arrested and he was got medically

examined. After the investigation of this case was

complete, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant

for the offence of wrongful confinement of the prosecutirx

(PW-1) and of raping her.

3. Appellant was put to trial for the offence under

Section 344 of the IPC and also for the offence under

Section 376 of the IPC. Out of the eight witnesses, two had

deposed at trial. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is

crucial. The remaining evidence consists of deposition of

Doctors and other police officials. SI Neeraj Chaudhary

(PW-6) is the Investigating Officer of this case. The plea

taken by the appellant/accused before the trial court was

Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000 Page 2 of denial. However, the appellant/accused had got his

mother-in-law examined in his defence. As per the

deposition of mother-in-law (DW-1) of the appellant, he is

innocuous. All that she states is that appellant brought the

prosecutrix (PW-1) and had left her at her house and the

prosecutrix (PW-1) had stayed with her for two days and

later, she got a job and thereafter, she trapped the

appellant in this false case.

4. The trial culminated in the conviction of the appellant

for the offence of rape and vide impugned order of 16th

September, 1999, the trial court sentenced the appellant

to RI for seven years, with fine of Rupees two thousand,

with default clause.

5. In this appeal, submissions have been advanced by

Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Manoj Sharma as well as by Mr. Amit

Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

and with their assistance, the evidence and record of this

case has been scrutinized.

6. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant

were that the prosecutrix (PW-1) did not complain to

anyone about she being raped by the appellant/accused. It

is pointed out that neither the land-lord nor the factory

owner, where the Prosecutrix was employed, nor Asha

who used to work with the prosecutrix (PW-1), at the

Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000 Page 3 factory, have been examined in this case to corroborate

the version of the prosecutrix (PW-1), which according to

Counsel for the appellant is not reliable.

7. On the other hand learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State submits that the prosecutrix (PW-

1) has truthfully deposed and her deposition is consistent

and reliable and it is stated that this appeal is devoid of

merit.

8. What is required to be seen in this appeal is whether

the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is reliable or not.

It is settled legal position that once the deposition of the

prosecutrix is found to be reliable, then corroboration

need not be insisted upon. In the case of "State of Punjab

Vs. Gurmeet Singh and Ors." AIR 1996 SC 1393, the

pertinent observations made by the Apex Court, are as

under:-

Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000 Page 4 fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.

9. The testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1), when read

in its entirety, reveals that she has deposed in a straight

forward manner and her deposition has got a ring of truth

in it. It is found that the cross-examination of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) by the defence mainly centres around

the prosecutrix leaving her house and regarding her

wrongful confinement. There is no worthwhile cross-

examination of the prosecutrix (PW-1) regarding the main

incident, i.e. rape. The suggestion put to the prosecutrix

by the defence is that she was a consenting party. Why

she would consent when she knew that appellant is a

married person and his wife was living with him. In any

case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was in an alien environment

and the circumstances of this case indicate that her

consent to the sexual intercourse was not voluntarily one.

Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000 Page 5 Non-examination of the land-lord, neighbor or the factory

owner, is inconsequential as the testimony of the

prosecutrix (PW-1) alone is found to be sufficient to justify

the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence of

rape.

10. Upon indepth analysis of the evidence on record, I

find that the impugned conviction and the sentence

imposed upon the appellant by the trial court, is fully

justified and it calls for no interference in this appeal. This

appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

11. Appellant is in custody in some other case. He be

apprised of this order through the concerned Jail

Superintendent and the Compliance Report be submitted

to this court by the Jail Authorities, within two weeks.

12. This appeal stands disposed of in terms, as aforesaid.

Sunil Gaur, J.

May 21, 2009
rs




Crl. Appeal No. 62 of 2000                                                     Page 6