Delhi District Court
State vs . Satender Kumar, S/O Kalu Singh on 30 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Unique ID No. 02402R0744052006
SC No. 45/2011
FIR No. 501/2006
Police Station M. S. Park
U/Section 376/511/354/506 IPC
Reserved for orders on 29.01.2013
Judgment announced on 30.01.2013
State V/s. Satender Kumar, S/o Kalu Singh
R/o Mohalla Balmiki Kasba,
P.S Kakod, District Bulandsahar (U.P.)
Also at:
Jhuggi Lal Bagh, Takiya Gullu Shah,
Shahdara, Delhi.
J U D G M E N T:
1. The accused Satender Kumar was sent up for trial on the allegation that on 13.11.2003 at about 1.00 p.m daughter of one Reeta Devi (complainant in the present case) namely Priyanka had gone to play towards jhuggi situated near Railway Line. She did not return till 3.00 p.m, so complainant started looking for her and at about 3.15 p.m when she reached near the jhuggi of Kalu Ram, she heard the cry of her daughter Priyanka from inside the jhuggi of Kalu Ram. The door of the jhuggi was closed. She got opened the door and saw the son of Kalu State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.1 of pages 17 Ram namely Satender (accused) was naked and had also got naked her daughter Priyanka and made her to lay on the floor and was rubbing his hand on the private part (vaginae) of her daughter. When she tried to raise alarm, accused Satender gaged his mouth and threatened her that if she will raise alarm, he will kill her and her daughter with knife. Thereafter, accused put on his pant and fled away from there. She raised alarm and some jhuggi people gathered there. Police was informed and DD No.10A was recorded in this regard and it was assigned to IO/SI Mukhtiyar Singh, who alongwith Ct. Om Prakash and Ct. Devender went to the spot i.e. E88/253, Lalbagh Jhuggi, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi, where he recorded the statement of complainant Reeta Devi. Girl Priyanka was got medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC No.B4817/06 wherein doctor opined as unfit No C/o external injury and hymen intact. On the basis of statement and MLC, IO prepared rukka and it was sent to Police Station through Ct. Om Prakash for getting the FIR registered and accordingly the FIR was registered in this case. Exhibits were taken into police possession. After registration of the case, further investigation was entrusted to Insp. Sushma Rawat, who went to the spot and at the instance of complainant Reeta Devi, she prepared the site plan of the place of incident and also recorded the statements of witnesses. She also made efforts for the search of accused but he could not be arrested. Thereafter, ASI Pyare Lal on the pointing out of the father of Priyanka namely Sadhu Thakur, arrested the accused Satender. His personal search was conducted but nothing could be recovered from his possession. Accused was got medically examined at GTB Hospital. Girl Priyanka alongwith her mother Reeta Devi was produced before the concerned court of Ld. MM for recording her State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.2 of pages 17 statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C but her statement could not be recorded due to younger age and therefore, statement of her mother namely Reeta Devi was recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibits were sent to FSL for opinion. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Satender Kumar before the concerned court of Ld. MM (NE).
2. After supplying copies etc. case was committed to the Sessions being the offence alleged exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Than, after hearing arguments on the point of charge, charges U/s 376/511, 506/354 IPC were framed against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In its support the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses and then, the prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he while denying the entire allegations of the prosecution claimed innocence, he was falsely implicated by the complainant. He added back Rita Devi used to take money and his father occasionally and an amount of around Rs. 25,000/ was due upon her and in order to avoid the payment, she falsely roped the accused in this case. Even, on the day of alleged incident, he was not present in Delhi, rather, he had gone to his native village in District Buland Shahar, on the occasions of marriage of his elder brother Dharmender. Even, the complainant Smt. Rita Devi was also not present, on the day of alleged incident, as she had gone to his office on that day.
4. In his defence, the accused has examined one witness namely Madan Lal and thereafter, the defence evidence was also closed.
State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.3 of pages 17
5. PW1 the complainant, in her statements confirmed that on 13/11/2006, at about 1.00 pm, her daughter Priyanka had gone to play towards Jhuggi situated near Railway Line and when she did not return till 3.00 pm, she started looking for her and in the process at around 3.15 pm, when she reached near the Jhuggi Kalu Ram, she heard the cry of her daughter from inside the jhuggi of Kalu Ram. She got opened the door, (which was closed) and saw the accused present in the court was naked and he got her daughter also naked. She specifically stated that she had seen her daughter in naked condition. She further confirmed that the accused was rubbing his male organ on the female organ (vaginae) of her daughter. She had seen this thing after opening the door of jhuggi of Kalu Ram, when she tried to raise alarm, accused gaged her mouth and threatened her that "if she will raise alarm, he will kill her daughter with knife". She became very much frightened. Thereafter, the accused put up on his pant and fled away from there. Thereafter, she raised alarm some jhuggi people gathered there and made a call to the police. Thereafter, police reached at the spot and police taken her daughter to the GTB Hospital, there she was medically examined. She confirmed that she had given her willingness to the doctor for the examination of the internal part of her daughter. She proved the MLC Ex PW1/A, by identifying her signatures at point A. She also confirmed that under garments of her daughter were taken by the doctor which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She also proved her statement recorded u/s. 162 Cr.P.C. by identifying signatures at point A. She also identified the baby penty of her daughter with she was wearing at the time of occurrence.
During the cross examination she considered that during State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.4 of pages 17 the period of occurrence she was in private job and her duty hours were 9.00 am to 5.00 pm and her lunch was used to be 1.00 pm to 1.30 pm and she used to come to take lunch at her residence and she used to resume her duty at around at 1.30 pm, after lunch, but, the day of occurrence, she came back to her house at around quarter to three pm, on getting the information from her husband about missing her daughter. She had claimed that she had not taken even a pany from the accused, at any point of time.
PW2 Sh. Sadhu Thakur, the father of the child confirmed that the occurrence was on 13/11/2006 and the accused had tried to rape upon his daughter. The accused was arrested on his identification after about five days of occurrence from Shahdara Railway Station.
PW3 Ct. Davender stated that on receipt of call regarding the rape of an infant girl aged about five/six years, he alongwith Insp. Sushma Rawat reached at the spot i.e. E88, Lal Bagh Jhuggi, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. SI Mukhtiyar Singh, Ct. Om Prakash were also accompanied hims. SI Mukhtiyar Singh recorded the statement of complainant and the girl and the complainant alongwith Ct. Nisha were sent to GTB Hospital for medical examination of the girl. He alongwith the IO remained at the spot. Ct. Om Prakash came at the spot and handed over the copy of the FIR, original rukka, MLC and sample parcel to the IO. IO seized the parcel and the sample seal. He also prepared the site plan with the assistance of the complainant.
PW4 Ct. Om Prakash, the official who took the rukka sent by IO Insp. Mukhtar Singh for getting the FIR registered in this case and accordingly got the FIR registered in this case and returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.5 of pages 17 and handed over the same to the IO. He further testified that he again joined the investigation with IO ASI Pyare Lal on 18.11.06. They along with Sadhu Thakur, father of the victim Priyanka had gone to PS Kakkor, Distt. G. B Nagar, UP in search of the accused, where it was revealed that Satender was not present in the village and working as sweeper at Railway Station, Shahdara. They returned to Shahdara Railway Station. He was asked by the IO to remain present in civil dress along with father of the victim. He searched for accused in the train going towards Ghaziabad. One secret informer pointed out towards accused and he was apprehended. After interrogation he was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW4/A and B respectively bearing his signatures at points A. Accused was medically got examined from GTB hospital. After his medical examination doctor handed over him two sealed parcels and sample with the seal of MLC GTB hospital which he handed over to the IO ASI Pyare Lal to seize the same vide memo Ex.PW4/C bearing his signatures at point A. During cross examination he stated that at the time of arrest of the accused ASI Pyare Lal and father of victim Sadhu Thakur were present with him. His statement was recorded on 18.11.06 by ASI Pyare Lal.
PW5 L/Ct. Nisha, the official, who escorted the victim Priyanak to GTB Hospital for getting her medical examination done. She also testified that after medical examination of victim Priyanka, doctor handed him two sealed parcels and sample with the seal of MLC GTB hospital which she handed over to the IO SI Mukhtar Singh to seize the same vide memo Ex.PW5/A bearing her signatures at point A. During cross examination she stated that Ct. Om State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.6 of pages 17 Prakash, Ct. Devender were also examined by the IO u/s 161 Cr. P.C in the PS. PW6 SI Mukhtiar Singh, the official, who accompanied IO Insp. Sushma Rawat, L/Ct. Nisha and Ct. Devender to the spot on receipt of DD No.10A, where Complainant Rita and victim infant girl Priyanka met them there and he recorded the statement of Rita Ex.PW1/B. He also testified that they left for medical examination of the victim (who was escorted by L/Ct. Nisha) along with her mother to GTB hospital and she was medically examined at GTB Hospital at about 5.15 p.m. He further stated that he handed over the rukka to Ct. Om Prakash at about 5.40 p.m with direction to get the FIR registered, who went to the PS and handed him back the copy of FIR and original rukka. He confirmed that Lady Ct. Nisha handed him two sealed parcels and sample with the seal of MLC GTB hospital which he sealed vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Subsequently investigation was taken over by Insp. Sushma Rawat, who recorded his statement.
During cross examination he stated that on the day of occurrence he was on emergency duty from 8.00 a.m to 8.00 p.m and the information regarding the incident was received by him at about 4.00 p.m when he was present at the PS. He had reached on the spot at about 4.15 p.m and after remaining there for some time, he left for medical examination of the infant girl at GTB hospital and he there for about one hour.
PW-7 HC Gurnam Singh, the then MHC(M) at PS M.S. Park, testified that on 13.11.06 SI Mukhtiar Singh handed him two sealed parcels with the seal of MLC GTB hospital signed by Dr. Richa and sample seal with copy of seizure memo for depositing the case property in the mal khana and accordingly he deposited the same in Malkhana vide entry no. 2308 in State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.7 of pages 17 register no.19. He further testified that on 18.11.06 ASI Pyare Lal also handed him two sealed parcels with the seal of MLC GTB hospital and sample seal with copy of seizure memo for depositing the case property in the Malkhana and accordingly he deposited the same in Malkhana vide entry no.2315 in register no.19. He also stated that on 12.12.06 he handed over the case property, sample seal and forwarding letter, as per direction of IO Inspector Sushma Rawat, vide RC no.133A/21 dated 12.12.06 for depositing the same at CFSL, Kolkata and HC Jitender handed him receiving copy of RC. Further on 02.05.07 result from CFSL was received with parcels and he made the entry of the same in the register no.19. He proved on record the relevant portion running into three pages as Ex.PW 7/A (colly.). He also proved on record the copy of road certificate no.133A/21/2006 Ex.PW7/B. Further on 12.12.2006, HC Jitender No.148 (NE) took four pullandas to CFSL, Kolkata vide the said RC and deposited the pullandas there and after depositing the same with the CFSL Koklata vide Sl. No.CFSL(K)/EE/06 (DEL.)1160 dated 15.12.2006, he came back and handed over the copy of receiving of said pullandas Ex.PW7/C. PW- 8 Insp. Sushma Rawat testified that on 13.11.2003 DD No.10A dated 13.11.2006 regarding rape of a girl aged about 5/6 years was recorded at PS MS Park and it was assigned to SI Mukhtiyar Singh. She also left for the spot being the Inspector of investigation as she was also informed about the said DD. On reaching there, complainant Smt. Rita Devi got recorded her statement Ex.PW1/B to SI Mukhtiyar and on the basis of the said statement, FIR was got registered by SI Mukhtiyar Singh by sending Ct. Om Prakash to PS. After registration of the present case, the investigation was assigned State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.8 of pages 17 to her and she received the carbon copy of FIR Ex.PW8/A, rukka in original and MLC of prosecutrix Ex.PW1/A from Ct. Om Prakash. Thereafter, she prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW8/B at the instance of complainant and made inquiry about the accused and went in his search but he could not be arrested. On 30.11.2006 statement of mother of girl Priyanka U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/C was recorded by the then Ld. MM vide her application Ex.PW8/C bearing her signature at point A. Further on 12.12.2006 the exhibits were sent to CFSL Kolkatta through HC Jitender. She recorded the statement of MHC(M) and HC Jitender in this regard. ASI Pyare Lal had arrested the accused in this case.
During cross examination she stated that she reached at the spot at about 4.15 p.m and made inquiry from the neighbours regarding the incident but she did not examined any of the neighbour U/s 161 Cr.P.C nor joined them in the investigation.
PW9 HC Jitender, who took the four sealed parcels to CFSL, Kolkatta vide RC No.133/21/06, handed over to him by the MHC(M) and on 15.12.2006 the said parcels were deposited by him in the CFSL Kolkatta and after depositing the said parcels there, he handed over the acknowledgment receipt of the same to MHC(M). He proved on record copy of RC No.133/21/06 and copy of acknowledgment as Ex.PW7/B & Ex.PW7/C respectively.
PW10 (Retd.) SI Pyare Lal testified that on 18.11.06 investigation of the present case was assigned to him and he alongwith Sadhu Thakur, father of prosecutrix and Ct. Om Prakash went in search of accused Satender Kumar and accused (correctly identified) was arrested from Shahdara Railway station at the instance of secret informer and as well State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.9 of pages 17 as Sadhu Thakur, father of the prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Both the memos bear his signatures at point B and signatures of accused is at point X. Thereafter, the medical examination of accused was got conducted at GTB hospital vide MLC Ex.PW10/A. After examination doctor handed over one parcel and one blood sample sealed with the seal of MLC, GTB along with the sample seal and same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. He deposited the exhibits with the MHC(M) of PS M. S Park. He recorded the statement of Ct. Om Prakash and Sadhu Thakur, father of prosecutrix.
During cross examination he stated that the secret informer gave secret information to him regarding the accused at Takia Gulushah, Shri Ram Nagar, Delhi near railway station. He neither could tell the exact time of receiving of secret information nor about the exact time when the accused was arrested.
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P. C was recorded in which he vehemently denied the story of the prosecution and the evidence brought up by the prosecution and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that Rita Devi used to take money from him and his father occasionally and an amount of Rs.25,000/ was due upon her and whenever they demanded the above said money from her she used to fight with them and threatened them to falsely implicate in the criminal case and the instant case is the outcome of that threatening. He took the plea of alibi and stated that on the day of alleged incident, he was not present in Delhi and had gone to his native village i.e. Tow Kakor, District Bullandshahar, U.P State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.10 of pages 17 on the occasion of the marriage of my elder brother Dharmender. Even the complainant Rita Devi was also not present on the day of alleged incident, as she had gone to her office on that day. Accused opted to lead evidence in defence and accordingly examined Sh. Mandan Lal as DW1.
7. DW1 Madan Lal testified that accused Satender is known to him for the last 20 years. Smt. Rita Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) used to borrow money from Sh. Kalu Ram, the father of the accused from time to time and in that way she was to pay an amount of around Rs.20/25,000/ and when Kalu Ram started demanding his money back from her she used to enter into quarrel with him and she was not willing to pay the amount back to Sh. Kalu Ram. He also stated that in order to avoid her liability to pay back the said amount to Sh. Kalu Ram, she got involved his son falsely in this case. Further at the time of alleged occurrence there was a marriage of the sister of accused Satender in his village at Kakor, Distt. Bullandshahar and accused Satender was arrested by the police from his village.
During cross examination he stated that Kalu is not his relative. He neither could not tell the dates when Smt. Rita had taken money from Kalu nor as to how many times Smt. Rita had taken money from Kalu and what amount had been taken on each time. He also could not tell the exact total amount which was taken by Smt. Rita from Kalu. He conceded that Smt. Rita never took money from Kalu in his presence. He further conceded that since the transaction of cash was not made in his presence, so he cannot tell whether the fact of taking the money from Kalu is correct or not. He also conceded that Kalu never demanded his money back from Rita in his presence. He testified that the quarrel had taken place State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.11 of pages 17 between Rita and Kalu in his presence but he could not tell the date when the said quarrel had taken place between them. He never visited the village Kakor. The marriage at village Kakore was of sister of Satender but he could not tell the date, month and year of the marriage of sister of Satender. He conceded that in his presence Satender was not arrested by the police from village Kakore. He also could not tell the date, month and year when Satender was arrested by the police from village Kakor. He even conceded that on 13.11.06 he was not present at his house or in the locality where the house of Smt. Rita as well as house of accused Satender are situated. He further conceded that since he was not present at his house or in the locality where the house of Smt. Rita and Satender so he cannot tell whether the present incident had occurred or not. He also stated that he never made any complaint to the police or in any Court regarding false implication of the accused in the present case.
8. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of both the sides. I have also perused the entire material placed on record.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.11.2003 accused Satender took the minor girl Priyanka to his house i.e. jhuggi of Kalu Ram, and when the mother of girl Priyanka, while searching for her daughter reached at the said jhuggi, she saw that accused was attempting rape upon the minor girl Priyanka, who was rubbing his hand on the private part (vaginae) of her daughter. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Satender threatened the complainant that if she will raise alarm, he will kill her and her daughter with knife.
10. According to Ld. Counsel for accused, the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant to avoid the payment of huge loan amount taken by her from the father State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.12 of pages 17 of the accused. The accused was not present at the time of alleged incident, rather, he had gone to his village to attend the marriage of his brother. Further there are material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of the complainant.
Per contra, according to Ld. Addl. P. P for the State by way of trustworthy and reliable evidence of the complainant coupled with the evidence of other witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish its case by proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Although there are a few improvements/contradictions in the testimony of complainant but the same are insignificant as she has supported the case of the prosecution on all the material points. Further the plea of alibi as raised in the defence of accused is not sustainable in view of the testimony of DW1.
11. In this case, the main plea taken on behalf of accused is the plea of alibi i.e. accused Satender was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident as he had gone to his village at Kakor, District Bullandshahar to attend the marriage of his elder brother namely Dharmender.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as ''Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar'' (1997)1 SCC283 has observed that the burden of proving an alibi is entirely on the accused and strict proof is required for establishing an alibi. The word alibi means 'elsewhere', and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported as ''State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh 1981 Cr.L.J.230(SC)'' has observed State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.13 of pages 17 that if an accused takes the plea of alibi, he must establish it.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as ''Duth Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC911'' has observed that plea of alibi can succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed.
In the case in hand, accused Satender although examined one witness namely DW1 Madan Lal, in support of the plea of alibi but due to his shattered testimony, it does not inspire confidence. According to accused, he had gone to his village to attend the marriage of his elder brother namely Dharmender, whereas, according to DW1 it was the marriage of the sister of accused. Even witness DW1 was not present in the said marriage as he stated in his testimony that he never visited the village Kakor. Moreover, the accused has produced no documentary material like photograph or video recording of the marriage to show his presence in the marriage at his village.
In the light of aforesaid, the accused Satender has failed to prove that he was not present at the spot and hence, in my view the plea of alibi is not proved.
Further another plea taken on behalf of the accused i.e. he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant as she owned a huge amount towards the father of accused and when he demanded back the money, the accused was implicated in this case, has also been collapsed by the testimony of DW1, who in his testimony has categorically stated that since the transaction of cash was not made in his presence, so he can not tell whether the fact of taking money from Kallu is correct or not. Moreover, PW1 has specifically State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.14 of pages 17 stated that she had not taken even a pany from the accused, at any point of time.
The third plea taken on behalf of the accused that at the time of alleged incident, mother of the complainant was not present on the day of incident as she had gone to her office. The said plea taken on behalf of accused also not sustainable in the absence of any material on record in the form of attendance register etc. of the office of complainant to show her presence on the day of incident at her office at the relevant time of occurrence. Moreover, PW1 has categorically submitted that she returned to her residence on getting the information regarding missing of her daughter Priyanka at about 3.00 p.m. The fourth plea taken on behalf of accused is that there is a material improvement/contradictions in the testimony of the complainant PW1 Reeta Devi as in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C, she stated that when she reached at the jhuggi of Kalu Ram, she heard the cry of her daughter from inside the jhuggi and when she got opened the door, she saw that the son of Kalu Ram namely Satender (accused) was naked and had also got naked her daughter Priyanka and made her to lay on the floor and was rubbing his hand on the private part (vaginae) of her daughter, whereas in her statement recorded before the court she stated that the accused was rubbing his male organ on the female organ (vaginae) of her daughter. This plea is also not sustainable as the improvement as claimed is of insignificant nature in the circumstances when the PW1 has categorically narrated the entire incident while mentioning that when she got opened the door, she saw the accused in naked condition and he got her daughter also naked and was was rubbing his male organ on the female State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.15 of pages 17 organ (vaginae) of her daughter. What for he got himself naked and why the girl was also got naked? The testimony of PW1 Reeta Devi inspires full confidence and does not suffer from any vital contradictions striking at the root of the case.
In this case, there is no dispute about the identity of the accused nor regarding the factum of arrest of the accused. FIR is also proved on record. Further PW1 has also proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A, by identifying her signatures at point A. She further confirmed that under garments of her daughter were taken by the doctor which she was wearing at the time of occurrence and identified them before the Court. She also proved her statement recorded u/s. 162 Cr.P.C. by identifying signatures at point A. The other witnesses have also corroborated with the story of prosecution by deposing regarding their roles in the investigation. Thus the prosecution has successfully established that accused after taking away the minor girl Priyanka in the Jhuggi of Kalu Ram (his father) attempted rape upon her while removing clothes of minor girl as well as of his own clothes and rubbing his male organ on the private part (vaginae) of the minor girl.
In MadanLal Vs. State of J & K (1997) 7 SCC 677 it was held that "if the accused strips a girl naked and then making her flat on the ground undresses himself and then forcibly rubs his penis on the private part of the girl but fails to penetrate the same into the vagina, it can not be said that it is a case of criminal assault on the girl punishable under Sec.354 IPC. The offence under Sec.376/511 IPC i.e. attempt to commit rape has been established."
In view of the aforesaid, the case of the prosecution is established U/s 376/511 IPC against the accused and accordingly he is liable to suffer an order of conviction State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.16 of pages 17 thereinunder.
12. Now let us see as to whether the case of the prosecution is also established U/Sec.506 IPC or not?
In her statement PW1 has categorically stated that when she tried to raise alarm, accused gaged her mouth and threatened her that if she will raise alarm, he will kill her daughter with knife. She became very much frightened. Thereafter, the accused put up on his pant and fled away from there. Her testimony remained intact during her entire examination and accused has been failed to cause any dent in her testimony. Even no suggestion has been put to the witness regarding her false deposition in this regard. Thus the testimony inspires full confidence and therefore, the accused is also liable to be convicted U/s 506 IPC.
13. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as per law.
14. Consequently accused Satender is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC and Sec. 506 IPC.
15. Put up on 04.02.2013 for consideration on the point of sentence.
(Announced in open Court on 30th January' 2013) (RAKESH KUMAR) Addl. Sessions Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Satender Kumar (SC No.45/2011) Page No.17 of pages 17