Pappu v. State of Delhi

judgment and order dated

29.11.2005 as also the impugned order on sentence dated

29.11.2005 are set aside.

¶35The appellant is acquitted of the charge of having raped Kumari "M" as alleged by the prosecution.

¶36At this stage, we note that though, on 6.5.2009 the prayer of the appellant to be released on personal bond was declined, report has been received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar that the appellant has secured bail, as granted to him vide order dated 18.7.2007.

¶37Since the appellant has been acquitted, we discharge the personal bond and the surety bond furnished by the appellant.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

MAY 27, 2009 Dharmender

i.4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 27, 2009 + CRL.A. 267/2007 PAPPU ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Meera Kaura Patel, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Noting that none had been appearing for the appellant and vide order dated 6.5.2009, the request of the appellant to be released on bail, after furnishing a personal bond was rejected and the appeal was fast tracked for hearing, and listed today for final hearing, we appointed Ms.Meera Kaura Patel Advocate, as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant, since learned counsel happened to be in Court to argue another appeal. 2. We fix her fee at Rs.5,500/-. 3. The paper book was handed over to learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae to enable the counsel to acquaint herself with the record. We requested learned counsel to inform us whether she would be in a position to argue the appeal today itself, for the reason we find that only 8 witnesses have been examined at the trial. The testimony of the 8 witnesses spans only 18 pages; 8 of them being typed on less than half a sheet i.e. the total testimony actually spans 14 sheets. We proceeded with our Board and heard the miscellaneous matters and after completing hearing in the miscellaneous matters, queried learned Amicus Curiae whether she is in a position to argue the appeal today itself. After going through the record, learned counsel informs us that she is in a position to argue the appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 29th November 2005, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having raped Kumari "M" aged about 6 years. 6. Vide order on sentence dated 29th November 2005, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 7. Case of the prosecution is that Kumari "M", aged 6 years, was residing with her parents at House No.1/40, Khichdipur, taken on rent by her father. At House No.1/14, Khichdipur, belonging to her father, construction work was going on. She went to her house under construction to play at around 5:00 PM on 23.8.2004 and around 5:30 PM returned home crying. Her mother, Usha PW-1, saw that her underwear and clothes were stained with blood. To the mother it was apparent that the young daughter had been raped. Kumari "M" told her mother that the appellant had raped her. This information was conveyed by Usha to her husband and her brother-in-law Shyam Lal PW-7. The appellant who was a resident of the same area was searched for and was apprehended by the neighbours who gave him a thrashing at the spot itself. The police was informed. On the statement of the mother of Kumari "M" the FIR was registered. Kumari "M" was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, where Dr.Uma Mauraya PW-4, examined her at 7:15 PM on 23.8.2004 itself and recorded the MLC Ex.PW-4/A. In the MLC it was recorded that the hymen of Kumari "M" was torn. 8. Armed with the MLC, Ex.PW-4/A, and relying upon the version of the young child and her mother, the appellant was sent for trial. The charge framed against him was of having committed rape on Kumari "M" at around 5:00 PM on 23.8.2004 at the semi-constructed house bearing Municipal No.1/14, Khichdi Pur, New Delhi. 9. At the trial, Usha PW-1, mother of Kumari "M" deposed that Kumari "M", aged 6 years, was her daughter and on 23.8.2004 had gone to play at their house which was under construction. She left at around 5:00 PM and came back after 2 hours. She was crying and t