Siddharth Mridul, J. - (1.)The present appeal assails the judgment dated 16th December, 2013 and the order on sentence dated 20th December, 2013, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 94/13, arising out of FIR No. 102/2012, Police Station-Palam Village, whereby, the appellant was convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 363/376(2)(f)/457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' and sentenced to undergo as under:-
(a) 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC;

(b) 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and;

(c) 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 457 IPC.

(2.)The facts, as are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, are adumbrated as follows:-
a) On the 27th April, 2012, at 11:42 p.m., on information received in Police Station- Palam Village, from the Police Control Room (PCR), to the effect that, a minor girl had been raped, after breaking open the lock of her house, DD No. 64A was recorded and its contents were intimated to ASI Asha Rani, PW-15.

b) ASI Asha Rani, PW-15, reached the spot, where the offence is stated to have occurred i.e. RZF-754, Gali No. 1, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony and met the complainant Mr. Kripal Singh Yadav, PW-4, the father of the prosecutrix 'S' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity). Mr. Kripal Singh Yadav, PW-4 stated that, he is a driver by profession and has two children, namely, a daughter 'S', aged about 7 years and son Vishal, aged 2 years. It was further stated by PW-4 that, on the 27th April, 2012, he along with his wife had gone to the Friday Market, after leaving their children inside their rented accommodation and locking the premises from the outside. When the parents of the minor victim returned home at around 10:45 p.m, they found that the lock of the said accomodation had been broken and the door was closed from the inside. Subsequent upon their knocking on the door of the premises, it was opened by the prosecutrix 'S', who then started weeping loudly and exclaimed that the Uncle, who had been visiting their house, had beaten her up.

c) Simultaneously, PW-3, Ms. Rangeeta, the mother of the minor girl noticed that the latter was bleeding from her private parts. Upon further enquiry as to what had transpired, the prosecutrix told that the parents in a terrified voice that, an Uncle, who had come to their house earlier as well, had come in their absence and took her to a dark place saying that, her Papa is calling her on the roof, then took off her pant and inserted his private organ into her private organ. The prosecutrix complained that, she had felt intense pain at that time, whereafter that Uncle had left her outside their house and made himself scarce. The prosecutrix told her father, PW-4 that, it is owing to this fear, that she had locked the door from within. PW-3, Ms. Rangeeta made a call to the Police Control Room (PCR) at telephone No. 100, which was marked to ASI Asha Rani, PW-15 and the latter arrived and prepared a rukka (Ex.PW-4/A & 1/D) at 11:58 p.m. on 27.04.2012 and got the subject FIR (Ex.PW-1/C) registered at 3:30 a.m on 28.04.2012, on the basis of the above said statement of Mr. Kripal Singh Yadav. Thereafter, ASI Asha Rani, PW-15, took the minor girl to DDU Hospital, where she was admitted for treatment.

d) A perusal of the MLC (Ex.PW-13/A), in relation to the prosecutrix 'S' records that, she had been escorted to the Hospital for medical examination by Pw-3,Ms Rangeeta, mother of the victim and Pw-15, WSI Asha Rani, at 1:50 a.m on 28.04.2012 on account of an alleged sexual assault by a neighbor as endorsed thereon. The examining doctor Dr.Narender Kumar (not examined as prosecution witness) found the following injuries present on the prosecutrix:- Exh.PW-13/A

"Name: 'S' d/o Kripal Singh, aged 7 years, sex: female

DD 64/A

E.no.89162. MLC no. 7613 dated: 28.04.2012

Brought for medical examination: alleged h/o sexual assault as told by B/B mother( Rangeeta)

L/E 1. Bruise present 2x2 cm (approx.) side upper chest light pink colour

2. Bruise present 3x3 cm (approx.) side neck light pink colour

Pt ref to Gyne opinion "

Subsequent upon the medical examination of the prosecutrix, the exhibits provided by the doctor were seized vide seizure memo Ex.4B on 28.04.2012.

e) The minor girl was thereafter referred to Dr. Arpita Gangwani, PW-13, the consulting Gynecologist for an opinion on the very same day on 28.04.2012, who rendered it subsequently which is extracted in-extenso, as follows:-

"Findings

1. BPU (f) (f)

2. Hymen torn

3. Posterior vaginal wall tear of 4 cm. bleeding from edges (+)

4. Posterior fourchette tear/ midline perineal tear/ limb above the sphincter(+)

5. Anal sphincter intact

Samples:

1. Vaginal swabs

2. Panty (undergarment) + pants

3. Blood sample in plain vial Final opinion: Grievous Injury "

f) PW-15, ASI Asha Rani visited the spot, where the incident had occurred and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PW15/A). PW-15 also took the broken lock into possession and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'). On the basis of the suspicion raised by the complainant Mr. Kripal Singh Yadav, PW-4, the name of the perpetrator emerged as Mr. Anil Kumar s/o Mr. Bishamber, r/o Bijnour, U.P., the appellant herein, who is stated to have been residing in the neighborhood of the complainant. Subsequent thereto, the tenanted room of the appellant, where the offence was alleged to have been committed, was inspected and the statement of his landlord recorded, in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer thereafter obtained non-bailable warrants against the accused, Anil Kumar and a police team was dispatched to Bijnour to apprehend him. Subsequent upon his apprehension from Bijnour, the appellant was brought back to Delhi, where he was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.12/A) on 18.05.2012 by Inspector Mahender Singh, PW-18.

(3.)It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant made a disclosure statement (Ex.12/C), admitting his involvement in the offence, and pointing out the spot where the incident had occurred, and leading the police to the spot from where the iron rod (Ex.Pw7/C), with which he had broken open the lock of the door of the complainant's accommodation, was recovered. The disclosure statement also led to the recovery of the clothes, with which the appellant had wiped out his body and that of the prosecutrix, after the commission of the crime, which was duly seized by the Investigating Officer. The appellant was thereafter got medically examined and the exhibits given by the doctor, in relation to him, were seized. All the exhibits of the case were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for forensic examination; and the case file subsequent upon the investigation, was handed over to WSI Kusum Lata, PW-17, who prepared the charge-sheet and submitted the same to the concerned Magistrate.