Delhi High Court
Hardya Dass vs State on 23 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23rd November, 2017
+ CRL.A. 679/2017
HARDYA DASS ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Ajay Verma, Mr. Narsingh
Narain Rai and Mr. Upendra
Yogesh, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for State
with SI Satyawan, PS Uttam
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction for offence
punishable under Sections 342/376/506 IPC vide the impugned Judgment
dated 7th May, 2014 and the order on sentence dated 8th May, 2014 directing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence punishable
under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence
punishable under Section 506 (II) IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was falsely
implicated at the instance of mother of the prosecutrix on the instigation of
her previous husband. The recoveries are false and fabricated and cannot be
relied upon.
3. FIR No. 630/2011 under Sections 342/376/506 IPC was registered on
the complaint of prosecutrix, who was brought to the Police Station by her
mother and after she was medically examined in the hospital on 25 th
December, 2011. The prosecutrix stated that on 16th August, 2011 at about
1.30 PM the appellant committed rape on her and also threatened to kill her
and her mother. Thereafter appellant continued to rape her and she became
pregnant on account of the sexual act of the appellant. After investigation
charge sheet was filed and the report in respect of the exhibits was sought
from the FSL.
4. In the deposition before the Court the prosecutrix reiterated her
statement made in the FIR and stated that she was aged 13 years and was
studying in 5th class. Her real father died six years ago and appellant started
residing thereafter with them. Her mother earned her livelihood by selling
articles in various houses. On 16th August, 2011, she returned from her
school when her mother was not at home. She went upstairs to change the
school uniform when appellant entered the room and bolted it from inside.
Thereafter he made her to lay on the cot by pushing her. When she started
screaming, appellant pressed her mouth and committed sexual intercourse
without her consent. The appellant threatened her not to disclose this to
anybody or else he would kill her and her mother. Thereafter appellant
continued to rape her every day for about 3-4 months. When she became
pregnant she told the incident to her maternal grandmother who told the
whole incident to her mother. Nothing material has been elicited in the
cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the conviction of the appellant can
be based on her testimony alone.
5. Further evidence for corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix, is
the statement of PW 16, Dr. A.K. Srivastava who has deposed that the DNA
was isolated from the foetus of the prosecutrix and from the blood sample of
the accused and after performing the DNA profiling analysis, he has given
the conclusion that the DNA profile from the blood of the appellant is
matching with the DNA profile of the foetus of the prosecutrix. He proved
the DNA report as Ex. PW-16/A.
6. Considering the evidence/statement of the prosecutrix, duly
corroborated by the FSL report, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated to extort money is
liable to be rejected.
7. There being no error in the impugned judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
8. Trial Court record be sent back.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for
updation of record and for communication to the appellant.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 23, 2017
'yo'
