GAURAV MAGGO Vs. THE STATE OF NCT, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 22.02.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 09/13 arising out of FIR No. 111/12 PS Timarpur by which the appellant Gaurav Maggo was convicted for committing offence under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 25.02.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the chargesheet was that from 14.10.2011 to 25.05.2012, the appellant committed rape upon "X" (assumed name) on the pretext of marrying her and also criminally intimidated her. Written complaint (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged by "X" on 25.05.2012 formed the basis of First Information Report registered on 26.05.2012. "X" was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 376/506(II) IPC. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Rita @ Pinki) appeared in defence. The Trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. It is pertinent to note that appellant's acquittal under Section 506(II) IPC remained unchallenged by the State. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the testimonies of "X" and her sisters - PW-5 (Annu) & PW-6 (Usha). The said evidence, however, was not considered sufficient to record conviction under Section 506 (II) IPC. Admitted position is that the appellant aged around 23 years, an unmarried boy, was acquainted with "X" and her family members much prior to the incident. He had visiting terms to X's house. He used to render assistance to "X" and her family. X's husband was suffering from jaundice and the appellant used to take him to hospital in his taxi. X's husband expired on 14.10.2011 after prolonged illness leaving behind "X" and three children. It is alleged that after his demise, the appellant started frequently visiting "X" and developed intimacy with her children. In her Court statement, "X" disclosed that in December, 2011 when she, her children, elder sister with her elder daughter had gone to Mathura in the appellant's taxi, he put "sindoor" on her "maang" in a temple. They went to Agra from Mathura and returned to Delhi next day.