State ( NCT of Delhi) v. Sonu

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. MAY 10, 2019 gr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Judgment reserved on: 4th April, 2019 Judgment pronounced on: 10th May, 2019 STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Prakash, PS Sadar Bazar. versus SONU ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the appellant/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court-2, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charge under Sections 451/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') in FIR No.1503/2015 registered at Police Station Burari. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:- "In this case criminal law was set into motion on the basis of statement of prosecutrix recorded by police on 11.12.2015 and FIR No.1503/2015 u/s 376 IPC was registered. In her statement prosecutrix had narrated that on 11.12.2015 at about 5.00 a.m. while she was present in her premises and her husband had gone away for work then accused Sonu had entered in her room after breaking the door and committed sexual intercourse with her against her wish and ran away. After the incident while she was crying, the daughter-in-law of her landlord came down and enquired for reason of weeping but she did not tell anything regarding the incident being fearful of her owner. Thereafter, her jethani also came in her room to cook food then she narrated the entire incident to her and when in the evening her husband came home she narrated the entire incident of rape to him who took her to police station and at about 8:00 p.m. her statement was recorded by police". 3. During the course of investigation, Inspector Mukesh Devi prepared Rukka and got the case registered, she even got the prosecutrix councelled. The I.O. sent the prosecutrix with SI Alma Minj to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where she was medically examined and the exhibits prepared by the doctors were preserved and seized by the Investigating Officer. On 14.12.2015, statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein she had reiterated the same facts and circumstances against the accused. 4. On the basis of material available on record, vide order dated 11.04.2016, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 451/376 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses in all. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he reiterated his innocence and denied all the incriminating evidence against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in this case. According to him, PW9 (Pramod), husband of the prosecutrix used to be his driver and he used to support the family of Pramod financially and when he stopped extending financial support, PW9 (Pramod) in connivance with the prosecutrix got the present case registered against him. Accused has examined one witness in his defence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2018 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix in its right perspective ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that the sole testimony of the victim of sexual offence is sufficient to base conviction of the accused; that the Trial Court has erred by not appreciating the fact that the version of the prosecutrix also corroborates with the FSL report whereby the DNA profile generated from the clothes of the prosecutrix duly matched with the DNA profile from blood gauze of the accused. 7. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned Tri