Ramesh v. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi

SEHGAL,J. Page 22 of22

•k IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 495/2013 Judgmentreservedon :04'^September,2017 Judgmentpronounced on : November,2017 RAMESH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Jatin Teotia, Advocates Versus STATE " Respondent Through; M". Amit Ahlawal, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DmNGRA SEHGAL 1. The present appeal has been preferred' by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated Op.11:2012 and order on sentence dated 09.11.2012, passed by Additional- Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred as 'ASJ^, Rohini* Courts, "Delhi, in Session Case No. 79/2011,arising out of anV'MR-No. 197/2011,registeredat Police Station North Rohini, Delhi, wherehv the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal, Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as the 'IPC') and seatsnced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of.Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Page I of22 u Factual Matrix 2. The factual narration of the prosecution case before the Trial Court, as observed by the ASJ, Rohini Courts, vide its judgement dated 05.11.2012,,is that:- 07.G7.2011 frojn mobile no. 9868704168 a call was made to PCR that at House. No 134, N.Piir, Sector-7 at about 5pm that boy has committed rape with a 6 years old girl The information was.conveyed by wireless operator PS North Rohini to dut^' officer and he recorded DD No. 43A which was assigned to SI Manoj Kumar. SI Manoj Kumar reached gi fhe.spotand when he found, that the matter,is of rape he called SI Nisha who came at the spot andjecprded the statement of prosecutrix (her name is withheld being,rape case). Riikka w^isprepared^6ri the basis of which FIR No. 197/2011 Was: reic&Med in PS North Rohini. In her statement prosccuirix has stated that she resided at House No.13,4village Naharpur with her parents and /vt'O younger brothers who were school going. Her mother and father used to go out for work whereas her brother^ go to their school and she remained at home,doing household work. On 06.07.2011, at about.6:15 pm when she was alone at home,and cleamng utensils, at that. time Ratnesh son of her parental auni (Bva) who Page 2 of22 was residing in their house since four years came and committed rape with her against her wishes and also gave her heatings and threatened her if she disclosed said fact to anyone, he will kill her but when her mother came to the house after work, she narrated the incident to her. Prosecutrix was taken to BSA Hospital for medical examination where doctor after her medical examination handed over exhibits lo 10 SI Nisha which were seized by her. She prepared site plan at the instance of prosecutrix ar,id arrested the accused Ramesh at her instance, Accused Ramesh was also medically examined and doctor handed over exhibits which were seized by 10. Prosecutrix was produced before the Ld. MM who recorded her statement imderfSection164 CnP^C. date of birth certificate ofprosecutrix )^s ,alsi> collected by the 10, exhibits were sent to FSL, statement of witnesses were recorded tiut§: to, time and after completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused Ramesh under Section 376/506 and accused was put to trail " 3. The prosecution^to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, examined 15 witnesses, in all. The appellant denied the entire incrimj'nating evidence agaiiist him and pleaded false Page 3 of22 implication.It was allegedthat the appellant and the parents of the prosecutrix had fights prior to the incident, and therefore, in order to take revenge, the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. 4. After meticulously examining the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinbefore. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred. By the appeal at hand, the appellant impugns not only his conviction but also the order on sentence. . Ar