State vs . 1. Varun on 18 July, 2013

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Varun on 18 July, 2013

                                     1
                                                                                         FIR No. 164/10
                                                                                PS - Prashant Vihar




    IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA : 
   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK 
    COURT : NORTHWEST & OUTER DISTRICT : DELHI



SESSIONS CASE NO. :  50/13
Unique ID No.     :   02404R0236852010

State             Vs.                    1.  Varun
                                              S/o Raghunath Manjhi
                                              R/o House of Rajesh,
                                              Ground Floor, Raja Pur,
                                              Sector - 9, Rohini,
                                              Delhi.

FIR No.         :  164/10
Police Station  :  Prashant Vihar
Under Sections  :  363/376 IPC



Date of committal to session Court       :     04/10/2010

Date on which judgment reserved          :     11/07/2013

Date of which judgment announced         :     18/07/2013




                                                                                        1 of  70
                                          2
                                                                                               FIR No. 164/10
                                                                                      PS - Prashant Vihar



J U D G M E N T

1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report under section 173 Cr.P.C is as under : That on 10/04/2010, ASI Kalu Singh on receipt of DD No. 30A reached at Flat no. 565, Sunehri Bagh Apptt., Sector13, Rohini, Delhi, where prosecutrix (name withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) met who told that one boy named Varun had been establishing physical relation with her for about last 11 months on the false pretext of marriage and now she is going to be the mother of his child but he has fled and she will make the statement in the presence of Gita. Prosecutrix was got medically examined vide MLC No. 13 dated 11/04/2010 and the DD no. 30A was kept pending. On 12/05/2010, prosecutrix alongwith Gita came to the Police Station and got recorded her statement to the effect that, she is presently living with her sister Gita at the address, Bureau Centre, Gita Placement, House No. 16, DDA Market, Shakurpur, Delhi and is the permanent resident of Village Adar Salgi, Post Ghaghra, PS Ghaghra, Distt. Gumla, Jharkhand. She has come to Delhi to work as a maid. Through the said Bureau of Gita didi, she had been working as a maid 2 of 70 3 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar servant since last year from the month of May at the house of Sh. Neeraj Arora at House no. 565, Sunheri Bagh, Apptt. Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and used to live at the house. During the said period one boy named Varun used to come to do work in the Society and she got acquainted with him and he played deception of marrying with her and had established physical relations with her (sharirik sambandh) and used to say that he will marry her and continuously kept on establishing (physical) relations with her. Due to which she got pregnant and when she told about pregnancy to him, he kept on playing deception on her and because of the said deception she did not logde any complaint nor told about this to her owners (malikon). He (Varun) till date has not performed marriage with her and has now vanished (gayab ho gaya hai) hence she told about the same to her owner (maalik). The said boy Varun had forcibly committed wrong deed (galat kaam) with her, legal action be taken against him. This statement has been recorded in the presence of Gita didi. On the basis of statement of the prosecutrix case u/s 376 IPC was got registered and the investigation was carried out. During the course of the investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. Statements of the witnesses were 3 of 70 4 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar recorded. On 28/06/2010, accused surrendered in the Police Station and on the identification of the prosecutrix he was arrested and he also confessed his crime and information regarding his arrested was given to his brother Rahul. The medical examination of accused Varun was got conducted. After obtaining permission of the Court, DNA test was also got conducted. Section 366 IPC was also added.

Upon completion of the necessary further investigation, challan u/s 376 IPC was prepared against accused Varun and was sent to the Court for trial.

2. Since the offence under section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, after compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C the case was committed to the Court of Session under section 209 Cr.P.C.

3. Upon committal of the case to the Court of session and after hearing on charge, prima facie a case for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC, in alternative for the offence punishable u/s 417 IPC was made out 4 of 70 5 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar against the accused Varun. The charge was framed accordingly, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, prosecution produced and examined 14 witnesses. PW1 Prosecutrix, PW2 Geeta, PW3 Neeraj Arora, PW4 HC Dalbir Singh, PW5 Smt. Rachna Arora W/o Sh. Neeraj Arora, PW6 Dr. Vijay Dhanker, HOD, Forensic Medicine, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, PW7 Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Asst. Director (Biology), DNA Unit, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW8 ASI Kalu Singh, PW9 Constable Baljeet Singh, PW10 Dr. Roshni Agarwal, Sr. Resident, Obst. & Gynae BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, PW11 ASI Dev Karan, PW12 Lady Constable Preeti, PW13 Constable Kashi Nath and PW14 W/Constable Tara.

5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under : PW1 Prosecutrix, is the victim who deposed regarding the incident and proved her complaint made to the police Ex. PW1/A 5 of 70 6 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar bearing her RTI (Right thumb impression) at point 'A'.

PW2 Geeta, who deposed that she received a telephone call from madam Rachna Arora that prosecutrix (name withheld) was not feeling well. She had provided maid servant job to the prosecutrix (name withheld) at the house of Rachna Arora at 565, Senheri Bagh. Since it was late night so on the next day, she went to the Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini where the prosecutrix (name withheld) was found admitted in the hospital. When she met the prosecutrix (name withheld) she told her that one boy namely Varun who was working in the Society had committed sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marrying with her and he continued performing sexual intercourse on the assurance of marrying by him. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told that she was pregnant due to sexual intercourse by the accused Varun. She stated that Police met her in the hospital and recorded her statement and that she knows the prosecutrix prior to the occurrence as she had called her for providing job from her native place as she was resident of her neighbouring village, District Gumla, Jharkhand.

6 of 70 7 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar PW3 Neeraj Arora, who deposed that he is residing at 565, Sunehri Apptt., Sector13, Rohini, Delhi with his wife mother and children. He used to leave his residence at about 8:30 a.m. for his office at Sector - 8, Rohini and came back at about 9:00/10:00 p.m. His wife is also Government Servant and she used to left (leave) for her service at 8:30 a.m. And came back at about 5:00/6:00 p.m. One girl/prosecutrix (name withheld) was working in their residence and she was hired by (from) Geeta Placement Service, H16, DDA Market, Shakurpur. She used to do household work and pick his children from Society gate when they go to School. In their absence prosecutrix (name withheld)/their maid servant remain at their residence and she used to sleep at their residence. Prosecutrix (name withheld) started working at their residence in the month of April, 2009 and she left their residence on 10/04/2010. On 10/04/2010 prosecutrix (name withheld) told to his wife that she is having some pain in abdomen and his wife offered her to take him to a Doctor but prosecutrix (name withheld) refused to go to the Doctor and she told to his wife that she is pregnant. She also told to his wife that one person by the name of Varun who used to visit at his house in their absence and that Varun had committed sexual intercourse with 7 of 70 8 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar her on many occasions. As he used to leave his residence in the early hours and came late night so no person by the name of Varun in known to him. Prosecutrix (name withheld) used to visit at the office of Geeta once in a month and whenever they go outside they left the prosecutrix (name withheld) with Geeta.

PW4 HC Dalbir Singh, is the MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries of register no. 19 Ex. PW4/A, 4/B, 4/C and the copy of the DD no. 26 as Ex. PW4/D. PW5 Smt. Rachna Arora W/o Sh. Neeraj Arora who deposed that she is working in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital as a Lab. Technician. She proceed from her house to the hospital at 8:30 a.m. and return at about 5:00 p.m. daily. She is living in her house with her husband and two children. Her maid prosecutrix (name withheld) also used to reside with them. She joined their house in April, 2009 and left on 10/04/2010. She used to clean the utensils and sweeping work of house. She was employed with them through Bureau Centre Geeta Placement, Shakurpur, Delhi. On 10/04/2010, her maid told her that 8 of 70 9 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar there was pain in her stomach. She asked her to go with her to the hospital for medical check up but she refused. Subsequently, she told her that in their absence, one person by the name of Varun used to come to their house and by promising of marriage, he forcibly made physical relations with her. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told her that she was pregnant. Then, she made a telephonic call at 100 number. Police came and got the prosecutrix (name withheld) medically examined.

PW6 Dr. Vijay Dhanker, HOD, Forensic Medicine BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, who examined the patient/accused Varun vide MLC Ex. PW6/A signed by him at point 'A' and deposed that he found nothing to suggest that the person is incapable to perform sexual act.

PW7 Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Asst. Director (Biology), DNA Unit, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who deposed that he is having an experience of about eight years to match or reporting DNA cases. On 10/08/2010, blood sample of Varun, accused, female baby of prosecutrix and blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld) were collected in FSL Unit and also prepared their identification form. Of all the above three persons 9 of 70 10 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar and form are Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C signed by him at points 'A' respectively. He had examined the DNA finger prints profiles were prepared and did analysis and after analysis he found that blood sample of blood and prosecutrix (name withheld) are biological father and mother of female baby of prosecutrix (name withheld). His report in this regard is Ex. PW7/D signed by him at point 'A'.

PW8 SI Kalu Singh, is the Investigation Officer (IO) and who deposed on the investigational aspects and proved the DD No. 30A timed about 9:40 a.m. dated 10/04/10 Ex. PW8/A and besides proving the other Memos also proved the rukka Ex. PW8/B signed by him at point A, carbon copy of the notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. given to the accused signed by him at point Ex. PW8/C, arrest memo of the accused PW8/D, his personal search memo Ex. PW8/E. Seizure memos of the sealed exhibits handed over by the concerned doctor after the medical examination of the accused Ex. PW8/D (arrest memo of the accused is also Ex. PW8/D), Ex. PW8/E (personal search memo of the accused is also Ex. PW8/E) signed by him at points 'A', the application for seeking permission from the Court for DNA test Ex. PW8/F, Seizure 10 of 70 11 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar memo of the sealed exhibits handed over by the doctor after the medical examination of the prosecutrix Ex. PW 8/G signed by him at point 'A' and deposed that he collected the copy of the PCR Form dated 10/04/2010 Mark PW8/A and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet in the Court and further deposed that DNA report (Ex. PW7/A, PW7/B, PW7/C) was filed in the Court vide application Ex. PW8/H signed by him at point 'A'. He further proved the application dated 29/06/2010 to HOD Obst and Gynae of BSA Hospital for providing blood samples of the prosecutrix who gave the birth to a child for DNA test Ex. PW8/I and the notice dated 04/08/2010 to prosecutrix to appear before FSL Ex. PW8/J signed by him at point 'A'.

PW9 Constable Baljeet Singh, who deposed that on 04/08/2010, after taking the sealed pullandas from the MHC(M) vide RC no. 22/21/10, copy of which is Ex. PW9/A, he took the same for deposition in the FSL, Rohini but the same could not be deposited for want of request letter addressed to Director, FSL alongwith the other required documents and on coming back to the PS he returned the same to the MHC(M).

11 of 70 12 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar PW10 Dr. Roshni Agarwal, Sr. Resident, Obst. & Gynae BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, who proved the medical examination as was conducted by Dr. Rajni Gupta on 11/04/2010 vide MLC Ex. PW10/A (earlier mark P) signed by Dr. Rajni Gupta at points A, B & C respectively. She further deposed that she has seen the progress note. She also deposed that she had seen the progress note dated 29/06/2010 which is in the handwriting of Dr. Shweta Rajput and is Ex. PW10/B which bears her (Dr. Shweta's) signature at point 'A' which shows that patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) gave birth to a girl child on 27/06/2010 at 1:05 p.m. MLC No. 13/10 and CR No. 18310 and Dr. Shweta Rajput handed over sample of blood of baby of prosecutrix (name withheld) CR No. 18338 for fetal DNA testing on 29/06/2010. She further deposed that she had seen the letter dated 28/06/2010 addressed to SHO PS Prashant Vihar wrote by Dr. Anupa Singhal, M.O. informing that patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) gave birth to girl child and is Ex. PW10/C which bears signatures of Dr. Anupa Singhal at point 'A'.

12 of 70 13 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar PW11 ASI Dev Karan is the duty office who proved the copy of the DD No. 30A dated 10/04/2010 Ex. PW8/A and also proved the computerized copy of the FIR Ex. PW 11/A (earlier Mark 'A') signed by him at point 'A' and his endorsement Ex. PW11/A signed by him at point A on the Rukka.

PW12 Lady Constable Preeti, who joined investigation and deposed on the investigational aspect and deposed that on 11/04/2010, she accompanied IO ASI Kalu Singh to BSA Hospital and got the prosecutrix medically examined.

PW13 - Constable Kashi Nath, who joined investigation and deposed on the investigational aspect and proved the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW8/D and PW 8/E respectively signed by him at points 'B'.

PW14 W/Constable Tara who deposed that on 10/04/2010, she was posted at Police Control Room, ITO as Constable. On that day, at about 21:41:51 hours, one information from mobile no. 9311140192 13 of 70 14 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar resident of Section 13, Flat No. 565, Sunheri Bagh Apartment, Rohini, Delhi that "meri nokrani ne bataya kee teen char mahina pahle mere saath Arun ke naam ke ladke ne rape kiya hai". The information was forwarded through channel no. 113 for further action. The PCR From is Ex. PW14/A. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of evidence.

6. Statement of the accused Varun was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, he pleaded innocence and false implication. He opted to lead defence evidence and in his defence, examined two witnesses namely DW1 - Shiv Shankar and DW1 - Rahul Kumar (be read as DW2).

DW1 - Shiv Shankar is the Employer/Contractor of the accused who deposed that accused Varun was working with him as daily wager mason during the year, 2009. He was working with him till, 2009. During the month of September to November he was working in Sunheri 14 of 70 15 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar Bagh Apartment at one of his contract. Later he has (was) sent at some other location for work.

DW1 - Rahul Kumar (be read as DW2) is the Elder Brother of the accused who deposed that when accused Varun was sent to Judicial Custody, he received a call from Geeta who called him to talk with her in her office. He (DW1 - Rahul Kumar) visited her office situated at Shakur Pur, Delhi. In her office, Geeta offered to settle the case if he (DW1 - Rahul Kumar) is paying Rs. One lac. He communicated the wish of his family about marriage of prosecutrix with accused who is his younger brother. He argued there that they are poor but Geeta continued to demand the money. This happened after one month of surrender of accused Varun. Later on, he does not receive any phone call from Geeta. His mobile number was communicated to Geeta by Kalu Ram, Investigating Officer. He had given the mobile number to Kalu Ram, IO during the investigation.

7. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is an innocent man and has been falsely implicated in the case.

15 of 70 16 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar He further submitted that it is a case where full grown 22 year girl approached the Police for termination of her pregnancy and the same is clear from the statement of Ex. PW10 (Doctor) who deposed on the basis of records from Hospital where MLC has been performed immediately after Police complaint.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the present case is classic example of abuse of official power where statements are made after registration of FIR and the same is admitted by Investigating Officer during crossexamination. There are several contradictory versions of the Investigating Officer where he admits recording of statement once on 10/04/2010 but later denied about any such statement. It is clear that the statement recorded on 10/04/2010 was different and the same has been deliberately not produced by the prosecution as the same was not disclosing about any offence.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the entire case by prosecution is based on the statement of prosecutrix which 16 of 70 17 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar is not reliable. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused was a mason by profession and working with a contractor for a short span in another flat of the housing society namely Sunhari Bagh Apartment and same is verified by IO and DW1 (Shiv Shankar) but the PW1 states that she came in contact as the accused was coming to deliver letters. The housing society is one of the most secured societies of Sector - 13, Rohini having round the clock security. The house where prosecutrix was living was also much secured and no allegation about any forceful entry has been made. There was two doors at the gate and one was transparent hence there was no possibility of entry in house without consent of PW1. It is next to impossible that a full grown girl will permit a courier boy unknown to her inside home to rape her. In the examination in chief PW1 states that the accused promised for marriage at the time of intercourse. Nothing on record suggests that the consent was given under impression that the accused will marry PW1. Even if the version is believed then also it does not amounts to offence under section 376 IPC.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that PW1 17 of 70 18 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar changed her entire testimony during crossexamination and started a new story during crossexamination. PW1 states in her crossexamination that she received a call from accused that was intended to talk with some girl namely Reshma. PW1 further admitted that she herself called accused to meet her. PW1 again stated that she informed the accused that she is alone at house and when accused came they performed intercourse. There is no allegation of forceful entry and it reflects from the statement of PW1 that she was not only consenting party but she was willing for intercourse and that intercourse was also not influenced by any false promise but it was a case where two adults enjoyed the body of each other. PW1 alleges about threats but nothing specific was stated that what was threat and it is impossible to submit again and again to the accused if accused threatened the prosecutrix.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that PW1 is a resident of Gumla Jharkhand and accused is a resident of neighbouring District of South Bihar. Both are illiterate and well aware with social structure of area which makes intercaste marriage impossible. PW1 does not look any way interested about the family background of the accused 18 of 70 19 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar which a full grown girl must wish to know before marrying with a man. PW1 is well aware with the fact that her family would not permit her marriage with accused then there was no question of submitting on the ground of false promise of marriage.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the statement of PW1 about running away from the society is also baseless and it has been proved by the statement of DW1 that accused had no reason to stay in Sunhari Bagh as his work was completed and accused was deputed at some other work assigned to him. The prosecution failed to prove that accused has even any information about the pregnancy of PW1 (Prosecutrix).

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the statement made by PW2 (Geeta) who was not only employer but local guardian of PW1 as well as PW5 (Rachna Arora) makes it clear that PW1 never disclosed about any relationship of promise of marriage to them and the name of accused came first time when there was a pregnancy of around 07 months which becomes visible to everyone. It 19 of 70 20 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar was necessary for PW1 to insert the word promise to marry otherwise she had to carry various stigma related to her character and that was reason for after thought made by the PW1 and PW2 after one month of complaint. There is almost 06 months unexplained delay in complaint and one more month in registration of FIR. PW5 specifically deposed that during this period PW1 was meeting with PW2 at regular interval of one month.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that PW8 tried to explain the delay on the ground that PW1 had not given statement and wished to give the statement in presence of PW1 but the theory collapses when he deposes that the same day statement of PW2 was recorded in presence of PW1.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the accused was cooperating with the prosecution from day one it came to his knowledge about the case. The statement about room lock is contradicted by PW8 himself when he mentions about service of notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. at same place. The accused never denied about 20 of 70 21 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar intercourse and supported the application before Learned MM for DNA Test. Accused himself surrendered in Police Station and never denied to marry with the PW1 despite the fact that he never promised to marry. It was PW1 and his family who was not intended to marry but wanted money from accused. Accused is a poor mason and had no money to give.

Learned Counsel for accused further submitted that the case of accused is very simple and he is consistent from the day of registration of FIR. The accused was working as mason in Sunhari Bagh Apartment and PW1 was working in some other flat. The girl was willing to have intercourse with accused and both performed it at several occasions during a period he was working there. After the job was over in the society accused left the place and started working at some other place. The Police called the accused when the complaint was filed and accused immediately reached at Police Station where PW2 was asking for money for termination of pregnancy and complaint was also meant for that purpose only. The accused shown his inability but offered for marriage but it has been refused by them as they wanted termination of pregnancy 21 of 70 22 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar only. Police came to know that it was not a case of rape and released the accused. There was pre schedule marriage of elder brother of accused in Bihar so he went there to attend the marriage but when returned surrendered in Police Station. When the accused was in Jail some call was made to the DW2 (Rahul Kumar) for money again to settle the matter but accused had no money to pay and once again DW2 informed the PW2 that his family is ready to marry accused with the PW1 but it had been refused by the PW2 and Mr. Gupta the land lord of PW2 as she stated in her crossexamination. Learned Counsel for the accused prayed for the acquittal of the accused on the charges levelled against him.

Learned Counsel for the accused also referred to the cases and are reported as 'Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88', 'Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, 'K. P. Thinnapa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 14 SCC 475', 'Sujir Ranjan Vs. State, Appeal (Crl.) No. 248 of 2010 (SC)', 'Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 2322 of 2010 decided on 20/05/2013 (SC)', 'Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) 7 SCC 413', 'Zindar Ali Sheikh Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 761' and 22 of 70 23 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar 'Vijyan Vs. State of Karela (2008) 14 SCC 763'.

8. While the Learned Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not affect the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

9. I have heard Sh. S. C. Sroai, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Khagesh B. Jha, Learned Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.

10. The charge for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC, in the alternative for the offence punishable u/s 417 IPC against accused Varun is that from May, 2009 to 12/05/2010 at house no. 565, Sunheri Apartment, Sector - 13, Rohini he committed repeatedly rape on the person of prosecutrix (name withheld) against her wishes and without her consent and in the alternative on the aforesaid period of time and 23 of 70 24 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar place he cheated prosecutrix (name withheld) and induced her to give her consent to sexual relationship with him on the false promise of marrying with her.

11. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.

AGE OF THE PROSECUTRIX

12. PW1 - prosecutrix while giving her particulars for recording of her statement in the Court on 22/11/2010 has stated her age about 22 years. In the MLC dated 11/04/2010 Ex. PW10/A of PW1 - prosecutrix, her age has been shown as 22 years. Further in the identification form dated 10/08/2010 of the prosecutrix Ex. PW7/B prepared for the purpose of DNA Profiling Test Report, her age has been shown as 22 years. Although, the fact regarding the age of PW1 - Prosecutrix is not in dispute yet, no evidence to the contrary has been 24 of 70 25 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar produced or led by the accused on the record.

As the date of alleged incident is of May, 2009 and taking into consideration the age of the prosecutrix mentioned on her MLC Ex. PW10/A, Identification Form Ex. PW7/B, on simple arithmetical calculation, the age of prosecutrix comes to around 21 years as on the date of incident in May, 2009.

In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands established on record that PW1 prosecutrix was aged around 21 years as on the date of alleged incident in May, 2009. MEDICAL EVIDENCE

13. PW10 Dr. Roshni Agarwal, Sr. Resident, Obst. & Gynae BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, who proved the medical examination as was conducted by Dr. Rajni Gupta on 11/04/2010 vide MLC Ex. PW10/A (earlier mark P) signed by Dr. Rajni Gupta at points A, B & C respectively. She further deposed that she has seen the progress note. She also deposed that she had seen the progress note dated 29/06/2010 which is in the handwriting of Dr. Shweta Rajput and is Ex. PW10/B which bears her (Dr. Shweta's) signature at point 'A' which shows that 25 of 70 26 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) gave birth to a girl child on 27/06/2010 at 1:05 p.m. MLC No. 13/10 and CR No. 18310 and Dr. Shweta Rajput handed over sample of blood of baby of prosecutrix (name withheld) CR No. 18338 for fetal DNA testing on 29/06/2010. She further deposed that she had seen the letter dated 28/06/2010 addressed to SHO PS Prashant Vihar wrote by Dr. Anupa Singhal, M.O. informing that patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) gave birth to girl child and is Ex. PW10/C which bears signatures of Dr. Anupa Singhal at point 'A'.

Despite grant of opportunity PW10 - Dr. Roshni Agarwal was not cross examined on behalf of the accused.

In the circumstances, the medical examination / gynaecological examination and the fact regarding giving of birth by the prosecutrix to a female child vide MLC Ex. PW10/A, Progress Note dated 29/06/2010 Ex. PW10/B stands proved on the record. VIRILITY OF THE ACCUSED

14. PW6 Dr. Vijay Dhanker, HOD, Forensic Medicine BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, who examined the patient accused Varun vide 26 of 70 27 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar MLC Ex. PW6/A signed by him at point 'A' and deposed that he found nothing to suggest that the person is incapable to perform sexual act.

Despite grant of opportunity PW6 Dr. Vijay Dhanker was not cross examined on behalf of the accused.

In view of above and in the circumstances, it stands proved on the record that accused Varun was capable to perform sexual act. DNA FINGER PRINTING EVIDENCE

15. PW7 Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Asst. Director (Biology), DNA Unit, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who deposed that he is having an experience of about eight years to match or reporting DNA cases. On 10/08/2010, blood sample of Varun, accused, female baby of prosecutrix and blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld) were collected in FSL Unit and also prepared their identification form. Of all the above three persons and form are Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C signed by him at points 'A' respectively. He had examined the DNA finger prints profiles were prepared and did analysis and after analysis he found that blood sample of blood and prosecutrix (name withheld) are biological father and mother of female baby of prosecutrix (name withheld). His report in 27 of 70 28 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar this regard is Ex. PW7/D signed by him at point 'A'.

As per DNA Report Ex. PW7/D, the description of the sources, DNA examination, result of examination and conclusion reads as under : DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCE Name of source Collected Sample Exhibit on No. Blood sample of Sh. Varun 10/08/2010 1 1 Identification Form No. 1 Blood sample of female Baby of 10/08/2010 2 2 Prosecutrix (name withheld) Identification Form No. 2 Blood sample of Prosecutrix (name 10/08/2010 3 3 withheld) Identification Form No. 3 DNA from the exhibits '1' & '3' were isolated and DNA fingerprinting profiles were prepared. STR analysis was used for each of the samples. Date was analyzed by using Genescan and Genotype Software. RESULTS OF EXAMINATION The DNA Profile of the source of Exhibit '1' (Blood sample of Sh. Varun) & DNA Profile of the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of Miss Munia) are matching with the Profile of the source of Exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Female baby of Prosecutrix (name withheld)).

28 of 70 29 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar CONCLUSION The DNA profiling (STR Analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of Exhibit '1' (Blood sample of Sh. Varun) & Exhibit '3' (Blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld)) are biological father and mother of Exhibit '2' (Blood sample of Female baby of prosecutrix (name withheld)).

ENCLOSURE Annexure - IA, IB, IC - Identification Forms of Exhibit '1' to '3'. Note : All the exhibits '1' to '3' were utilized during examination.

On careful perusal and analysis of the DNA Finger Printing Test evidence on record, it clearly shows that as per the DNA Profile, the source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Varun) and DNA Profile of the source of exhibit '3' (Blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld) are matching with the DNA Profile of the source of the exhibit '2' (blood sample of female baby of prosecutrix (name withheld)) and is conclusive of the fact that source of exhibit '1' (Blood sample of accused Varun) and exhibit '3' (Blood sample of prosecutrix (name withheld) are biological father and mother of exhibit '2' (blood sample of female baby of prosecutrix (name withheld)).

On a conjoint reading of the medical evidence / 29 of 70 30 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar gynaecological examination vide MLC Ex. PW10/A, progress note dated 29/06/2010 Ex. PW10/B of the prosecutrix together with the MLC of accused Varun Ex. PW6/A. In the light of the DNA Finger Printing Test Report Ex. 7/D detailed hereinabove, it clearly indicates that after committal of the sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix by accused Varun, she became pregnant and delivered a baby whereby the genes were inherited by the new born baby from accused Varun during the process of fertilization of the ovum of the prosecutrix by the sperm released by accused Varun.

In the circumstances, it stands clearly established on the record that accused Varun committed sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix by complete penetration of penis with the emission of semen resulting in the fertilization of the ovum of the prosecutrix with the sperm of accused Varun resulting in her pregnancy and delivery of the baby and of the inheritance of the genes from accused Varun thereby he (accused Varun) is the biological father of the baby born to the prosecutrix.

As per the DNA Finger Printing Report Ex. PW7/D, prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the accused 30 of 70 31 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar as the biological father of the baby born to the prosecutrix.

Moreover, during his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused Varun has admitted that he had sexual intercourse at three occasions with the prosecutrix. The relevant part of statement of accused Varun recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reads as under : "Q37. Anything else you want to say?

A. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I was working in Sunehri Bagh Apartments as massion (mason) under the contract of one contractor namely Shanar Ji. While I was working there, the girl/prosecutrix (name withheld) and some of her friends were coming to us. Once prosecutrix (name withheld) requested us to come at 465, Sunheri Bagh Apartment for a cup of tea. After repeated requests, I went there. The process continued and at three occasions we have consensual sexual intercourse there....."

16. Now let the testimony of PW1 - prosecutrix be perused and analyzed.

PW1 who is the prosecutrix, in her examinationinchief has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "I am permanent resident of Jharkhand of village Adar Salgi Post Ghaghra, District Gumla Jharkhand. I had come to Delhi with my Didi Geeta who is also from my village for doing the work of maid 31 of 70 32 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar servant and I was providing the job of maid servant at house no. 565, Sector - 13, Rohini through my Didi Geeta. The said house was of one Niraj Advocate. I also resided there in the house of said Niraj as maid servant. When I was working there, accused Varun who is present in the Court today correctly identified by the witness. He used to come to deliver letters addressed to the owner of said house and I also used to receive the letters from him in the absence of owner of the house. On one of such occasion when accused came to deliver letter, I was alone in the house and he committed rape upon me and thereafter he also committed sexual intercourse two three or more occasions. At the time of committing sexual intercourse with me accused used to assure me to marry with me and not to disclose this fact to anyone. I became pregnant due to the act committed by the accused and accused denied that the child was not of him. Thereafter, accused has run away from there and he never met me later on. I informed this fact to the owner of the house and also to the Police. Police came at the owner of the said house. Police took me to the hospital for medical examination. I remained admitted in the hospital for about eight days. Thereafter, I went to the house of my didi Geeta and after that I lodged report with the Police on which I put my right thumb impression and the same is Ex. PW1/A which also bears my RTI at point 'A'. In the month June-10, I was admitted in the hospital Rohini where I gave birth to a female child and that child is still with me."

From the aforesaid narrations of PW1 - prosecutrix, it is clear that she is permanent resident of Jharkhand of village Adar Salgi Post Ghaghra, District Gumla Jharkhand and had come to Delhi with her 32 of 70 33 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar Didi Geeta who is also from her village for doing the work of maid servant and she was providing the job of maid servant at house no. 565, Sector - 13, Rohini through her Didi Geeta. The said house was of one Niraj Advocate. She also resided there in the house of said Niraj as maid servant. When she was working there, accused Varun, whom she had correctly identified, used to come to deliver letters addressed to the owner of said house and she also used to receive the letters from him in the absence of owner of the house. On one of such occasion when accused came to deliver letter, she was alone in the house and he committed rape upon her and thereafter, he also committed sexual intercourse two, three or more occasions. At the time of committing sexual intercourse with her accused used to assure marry her to marry with her and not to disclose this fact to anyone. She became pregnant due to the act committed by the accused and accused denied that the child was not of him. Thereafter, accused has run away from there and he never met her later on. She informed this fact to the owner of the house and also to the Police. Police came at the owner of the said house. Police took her to the hospital for medical examination. She remained admitted in the hospital for about eight days. Thereafter, she went to the 33 of 70 34 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar house of her Didi Geeta and after that she lodged report with the Police on which she put her right thumb impression and the same is Ex. PW1/A which also bears her RTI at point 'A'. In the month June-10, she was admitted in the hospital Rohini where she gave birth to a female child and that child is still with her.

PW1 - Prosecutrix during her crossexamination has negated the suggestions that accused had not committed any wrong act with her or that she is deposing falsely or that Geeta instructed her to lodge a complaint against the accused.

The testimony of PW1 - Prosecutrix on careful perusal and analysis is found to be clear, natural, cogent, convincing, trustworthy and inspiring confidence. Inspite of incisive crossexamination nothing material has been brought out on the record so as to impeach her creditworthiness. In the witness box she has withstood the test of cross examination and her testimony is consistent throughout. The version of this witness on the core spectrum of the crime has remained intact. There is nothing in her statement to suggest that she had any animus against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case.

34 of 70 35 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar The testimony of PW1 - Prosecutrix is also found to be corroborated by the medical evidence and the DNA Report Ex. PW7/D as discussed hereinbefore. The testimony of PW1 - Prosecutrix is also found to be in consonance with her statement made to the Police Ex. PW1/A bearing her right thumb impression (RTI) at point 'A'.

The testimony of PW1 Prosecutrix is also found to be corroborated by the testimonies of PW2 - Geeta, PW3 - Sh. Neeraj Arora, and PW5 - Smt. Rachna Arora to whom PW1 Prosecutrix disclosed the facts relating to the crime shortly after the incident being relevant u/s 6 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

PW2 - Geeta in her examinationinchief has deposed that : "On 10/04/2010, I received a telephone call from Madam Rachna Arora that prosecutrix (name withheld) was not feeling well. I had provided maid servant job to prosecutrix (name withheld) at the house of Rachna Arora at 565, Sunheri Bagh. Since it was late night so on the next day I went to the Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini where prosecutrix (name withheld) was found admitted in the Hospital. When I met prosecutrix (name withheld) she told me that one boy namely Varun who was working in the Society had committed sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marrying with her and he continued performing 35 of 70 36 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar sexual intercourse on the assurance of marrying by him. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told that she was pregnant due to sexual intercourse by the accused Varun. Police (met) me in the Hospital and recorded my statement. I know prosecutrix (name withheld) prior to the occurrence as I had called her for providing job from her native place as she was resident of my neighbouring village District Gumla, Jharkhand."

From the aforesaid narration of PW2 - Geeta, it is clear that the on 10/04/2010, she received a telephone call from Madam Rachna Arora that prosecutrix (name withheld) was not feeling well. She had provided maid servant job to the prosecutrix (name withheld) at the house of Rachna Arora at 565, Sunheri Bagh. Since it was late night so on the next day she went to the Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini where prosecutrix (name withheld) was found admitted in the Hospital. When she met prosecutrix (name withheld) she told her(PW2 - Geeta) that one boy namely Varun who was working in the Society had committed sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marrying with her and he continued performing sexual intercourse on the assurance of marrying by him. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told that she was pregnant due to sexual intercourse by the accused Varun. Police met her in the Hospital and recorded her statement. She knows prosecutrix (name withheld) prior to the occurrence as she had called her for providing job from her 36 of 70 37 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar native place as she (prosecutrix) was resident of her (PW2 - Geeta) neighbouring village District Gumla, Jharkhand.

During her crossexamination PW2 - Geeta has negated the suggestions that she had suggested the prosecutrix (name withheld) to lodge a complaint against the accused in the Police or that she made a telephone call to Rahul who is brother of accused to settle the matter by way of providing some money to prosecutrix (name withheld) or that accused had not committed any sexual intercourse with prosecutrix (name withheld) or that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

PW3 - Sh. Neeraj Arora in his examinationinchief has deposed that : "I am residing in the aforesaid address with my wife, mother and children. I used to left my residence at about 8:30 a.m. for my office at Sector - 8, Rohini and came back at about 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. My wife is also Govt. Servant and she used to left for her service at 8:30 a.m. and came back at about 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. One girl by the name of prosecutrix (name withheld) was working in our residence and she was hired by Geeta Placement Service, H - 16, DDA Mkt. Shakurpur. She used to do household work and pick my children from Society gate when they go the School. In our absence prosecutrix (name withheld) our maid servant remain at our residence and she used to sleep at our residence. Prosecutrix (name withheld) started working at our residence in the 37 of 70 38 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar month of April, 2009 and she left our residence on 10/04/2010. On 10/04/2010, prosecutrix (name withheld) told to my wife that she is having pain in abdomen and my wife offered to take him (her) to a Doctor but prosecutrix (name withheld) refused to go to the Doctor and she told to my wife that she is pregnant. She also told to my wife that one person by the name of Varun who used to visit at my house in our absence and that Varun had committed sexual intercourse with her on many occasions. As I used to leave my residence in the earlier hours and came late night so no person by the name of Varun is not known to me. Prosecutrix (name withheld) used to visit at the office of Geeta once in a month and whenever we go outside we left prosecutrix (name withheld) with Geeta."

From the aforesaid narration of PW3 - Neeraj Arora, it is clear that the he is residing in the aforesaid address with his wife, mother and children and he use to leave his residence at about 8:30 a.m. for his office at Sector - 8, Rohini and came back at about 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. His wife is also Govt. Servant and she used to left (leave) for her service at 8:30 a.m. and came back at about 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. One girl by the name of prosecutrix (name withheld) was working in their residence and she was hired by (from) Geeta Placement Service, H - 16, DDA Mkt. Shakurpur. She used to do household work and pick his children from Society gate when they go the School. In their absence prosecutrix (name withheld) their maid servant remain at their residence and she 38 of 70 39 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar used to sleep at their residence. Prosecutrix (name withheld) started working at their residence in the month of April, 2009 and she left their residence on 10/04/2010. On 10/04/2010, prosecutrix (name withheld) told to his wife that she is having pain in abdomen and his wife offered to take her to a Doctor but prosecutrix (name withheld) refused to go to the Doctor and she told to his wife that she (PW1 Prosecutrix) is pregnant. She also told to his wife that one person by the name of Varun who used to visit at his house in their absence and that Varun had committed sexual intercourse with her on many occasions. As he used to leave his residence in the earlier hours and came late night so no person by the name of Varun is not known to him. Prosecutrix (name withheld) used to visit at the office of Geeta once in a month and whenever they go outside they left prosecutrix (name withheld) with Geeta.

However, PW3 - Neeraj Arora was not crossexamined on behalf of accused despite grant of opportunity.

PW5 - Smt. Rachna Arora in her examinationinchief has deposed that : "I am working in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital as a Lab. Technician. I proceed from my house to the Hospital at 8:30 a.m 39 of 70 40 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar and return at about 5:00 p.m. daily. I am living in my house with my husband and two children. My maid prosecutrix (name withheld) also used to reside with us. She joined our house in April, 2009 and left on 10/04/2010. She used to clean the utensils and sweeping work of house. She was employed with us through Bureau Centre Geeta Placement, Shakurpur, Delhi. On 10/04/2010, my maid told me that there was pain in her stomach. I asked her to go with me to the hospital for medical check up but she refused. Subsequently, she told me that in our absence, one person by the name of Varun used to come to our house and by promising of marriage, he forcibly made physical relations with her. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told me that she was pregnant. Then, I made a telephonic call at 100 number. Police came and got the prosecutrix (name withheld) medically examined."

From the aforesaid narration of PW5 - Smt. Rachna Arora, it is clear that she is working in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital as a Lab. Technician. She proceed from her house to the hospital at 8:30 a.m. and return at about 5:00 p.m. daily. She is living in her house with her husband and two children. Her maid prosecutrix (name withheld) also used to reside with them. She joined their house in April, 2009 and left on 10/04/2010. She used to clean the utensils and sweeping work of house. She was employed with them through Bureau Centre Geeta Placement, Shakurpur, Delhi. On 10/04/2010, her maid told her that there was pain in her stomach. She asked her to go with her to the 40 of 70 41 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar hospital for medical check up but she refused. Subsequently, she told her that in their absence, one person by the name of Varun used to come to their house and by promising of marriage, he forcibly made physical relations with her. Prosecutrix (name withheld) also told her that she was pregnant. Then, she made a telephonic call at 100 number. Police came and got the prosecutrix (name withheld) medically examined.

There is nothing in the crossexamination of PW2 - Geeta and PW5 - Smt. Rachna Arora so as to impeach their creditworthiness. They have withstood the rigors of crossexamination without being shaken. On careful perusal and analysis, their testimonies are found to be natural, cogent, reliable and having a ring of truth. There is nothing in their statements to suggest that they had any animus against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case.

17. While analysing the testimony of PW1 - Prosecutrix, PW2 - Geeta and PW5 - Smt. Rachna Arora as discussed hereinabove inspite of incisive crossexamination of PW1 - Prosecutrix, PW2 - Geeta and PW5 - Rachna Arora nothing has come out in their statements which 41 of 70 42 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar may throw even a slightest doubt on the prosecution version of the incident. Though the suggestion by the defence to PW1 - prosecutrix that accused had not committed any wrong act with her or that she is deposing falsely or that Geeta instructed her to lodge a complaint against the accused and the suggestions to PW2 - Geeta that she had suggested the prosecutrix (name withheld) to lodge a complaint against the accused in the Police or that she made a telephone call to Rahul who is brother of accused to settle the matter by way of providing some money to prosecutrix (name withheld) or that accused had not committed any sexual intercourse with prosecutrix (name withheld) or that he has been falsely implicated in this case were put, which were negated by the said PWs but the same have not at all being made probable much established by any cogent evidence. Further there is not an iota of evidence or even a suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated because of animosity.

However, a futile attempt has been made by the accused to save his skin from the clutches of law by way of examination of DW1 - Shiv Shankar and DW1 - Rahul Kumar (be read as DW2).

42 of 70 43 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar DW1 - Shiv Shankar is the Employer/Contractor of the accused who deposed that accused Varun was working with him as daily wager mason during the year, 2009. He was working with him till, 2009. During the month of September to November he was working in Sunheri Bagh Apartment at one of his contract. Later he has (was) sent at some other location for work.

During his crossexamination DW1 - Shiv Shankar has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "I do not have any document to show that by profession I am mistri. I am not maintaining any register to show that accused was working with me as daily wager mistri. I do not have any document to show that accused was working in Sunheri Bagh Apartment at one contract of mine and later on he sent to another location for work. I am not summoned witness. I have appeared as defence witness on the asking of accused."

The said part of crossexamination of DW1 - Shiv Shankar has knocked out the bottom of the defence of the accused. Undisputably, no document showing the nexus between him (DW1) and accused has been produced and proved on the record.

43 of 70 44 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar In the circumstances, DW1 - Shiv Shankar appears to be a procured witness and his testimony does not inspires confidence.

During his crossexamination DW2 - Rahul Kumar has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : 44 of 70 45 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar "I do not remember the date of receiving the telephone call from Geetas (Geeta), however it was fourth month of 2010 and the phone call was received at around 8:00 p.m. I cannot tell my mobile number at which I received the call. Vol. The said number might be available at my house. I cannot tell the phone number from which I received the call. Vol. The said call was from PCO. It is wrong to suggest that since no phone call was received by me therefore I am giving evasive reply that the said call was made from PCO or that my earlier mobile number might be available at the house. I went first time to the office of Geeta. I do not know number and address of office of Geeta but said office was in Shakur Pur, Delhi. I reached at the office of Geeta in day time at about 1:30 p.m. after about two days. At that time the said Geeta and two other persons were present at our office. I was not acquainted with Geeta earlier. It is wrong to suggest that I never went to the Office of Geeta and I am unable to tell address of her office or that no demand of Rs. 1 lac was made by Geeta from me to settle the dispute."

On careful perusal and analysis of the said part of cross examination of DW2 - Rahul Kumar, it is found that it has knocked out bottom of the defence of the accused as he is not able to specify the date, time, month, year and the place when the phone call of the alleged demand of Rs. One Lac. was received by him for settling the matter. Moreover, the theory of "Demand of one Lac", as propounded by DW2

- Rahul Kumar is not been substantiated by any evidence on the record 45 of 70 46 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar by the accused.

It is to be noticed that the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to question no. 37 has stated, where the amount of alleged demand of Rs. One Lac regarding which the theory has been propounded by DW2 Rahul Kumar has been swelled to an amount of Rs. Two Lacs.

The relevant part of the answer of accused to Question No. 37 made in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reads as : "Q37. Anything else you want to say?

Ans. .......While I was in jail my brother Rahul had been contacted by one Geeta who demanded Rs. 2 Lac on behalf of Geeta......."

Further it is to be noticed that the said theory of the demand of Rs. One Lac as propounded by DW2 - Rahul Kumar and the theory of demand of Rs. 2 Lack as propounded by accused Varun during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as reproduced hereinabove, were not specifically and categorically put to PW2 - Geeta during her cross examination and what has been put to PW2 - Geeta during her cross examination is bereft of the quantum of the amount of the alleged 46 of 70 47 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar demand and which was also negated by her. The relevant part of cross examination of PW2 - Geeta reads as : "It is wrong to suggest that I made a telephone call to Rahul who is brother of accused to settle the matter by way of providing some money to prosecutrix (name withheld)."

In view of above and in the circumstances, the theory of money demand of Rs. One lac as propounded by DW2 - Rahul Kumar and the theory of money demand of Rs. 2 lacs as propounded by accused Varun during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. falls flat to the ground.

In the circumstances, the testimony of DW2 - Rahul Kumar does not inspires confidence and he appears to be a procured witness.

18. It is well settled that rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim.

It is to be noticed that the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at page 369 which reads as : 47 of 70 48 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one."

In Parikh's Textbook of Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found:

"Sexual intercourse: In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."

In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) at page 48 of 70 49 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar 1356, it is stated:

".....even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary."

On analysing the testimony of PW1 - Prosecutrix in the light of medical evidence/gynaecological examination vide MLC Ex. PW10/A, progress note dated 29/06/2010 Ex. PW10/B of the prosecutrix and the MLC of accused Varun Ex. PW6/A, in the light of the DNA Finger Printing Report Ex. PW7/D detailed hereinabove, the act of performing of sexual intercourse activity by complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen or by partial penetration of the penis with emission of semen, within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda stands proved consequent upon which pregnancy occurred resulting in the delivery of a baby.

In the circumstances, it stands clearly established on the record, of the performance of the act of sexual intercourse by the accused Varun with PW1 - prosecutrix without her consent, whereupon, PW1 - prosecutrix became pregnant and delivered a baby whose DNA profile matched with accused Varun as a Biological 49 of 70 50 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar Father.

19. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that it is a case where full grown 22 year girl approached the Police for termination of her pregnancy and the same is clear from the statement of Ex. PW10 (Doctor) who deposed on the basis of records from Hospital where MLC has been performed immediately after Police complaint.

I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.

Learned Counsel for the accused appears to have not read the complete testimony of PW10 Dr. Roshni Aggarwal in which she has also proved the progress note dated 29/06/2010 of prosecutrix Ex. PW10/B in the handwriting of Dr. Shweta Rajput bearing signature of Dr. Shweta Rajput at point 'A' which shows that patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) gave birth to a girl child on 27/06/2010 at 1:05 p.m. The relevant part of examinationinchief of PW10 Dr. Roshni Aggarwal reads as under : "I have seen MLC No. 13 dated 11/04/2010 of prosecutrix (name withheld) D/o Bhola, 22 years, female who was brought to the 50 of 70 51 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar casualty by Lady Constable Preeti on 11/04/2010 at about 12:10 a.m. for medical examination with the alleged history of sexual assault eight months back. Patient wants termination of pregnancy and patient has changed clothes/taken bath multiple times since then. The patient was examined by Dr. Rajni Gupta who prepared her MLC which is Ex. PW10/A (earlier mark P). On examination patient was conscious and well oriented and cooperative. P/A distended uterus of 32 weeks size, fetal parts felt, fetal hearts sound present regular. On local examination no signs of injury. Blood sample of the patient was preserved in EDTA vial and blood sample in plane vial. The patient was admitted in labour room for further proceedings. MLC Ex. PW10/A bears signature of Dr. Rajni Gupta at point 'A', 'B' and 'C' respectively.

I have seen the progress note dated 29/06/2010 which is in the handwriting of Dr. Shweta Rajput and is Ex. PW10/B which bears her signature at point 'A' which shows that patient (name withheld) gave birth to a girl child on 27/06/2010 at 1:05 p.m. MLC No. 13/10 and CR No. 18310 and Dr. Shweta Rajput handed over sample of blood of baby of prosecutrix (name withheld) CR No. 18338 for fetal DNA testing on 29/06/2010.

I have seen the letter dated 28/06/2010 addressed to SHO PS

- Prashant Vihar wrote by Dr. Anupa Singhal, M.O. Informing that patient (name withheld) gave birth of girl child and is Ex. PW10/C which bears signature of Dr. Anupa Singhal at point 'A'."

Had it been a case that prosecutrix wanted termination of her pregnancy then she would not have proceeded with and continued with her pregnancy and would not have given birth to a girl child on 51 of 70 52 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar 27/06/2010. Even otherwise mentioning of a fact in the alleged history of the patient/prosecutrix that she wants termination of pregnancy does not falsify the clear, cogent and convincing testimony of PW1 - prosecutrix which has been proved on record.

PW1 - prosecutrix in her examinationinchief has specifically deposed that : "I became pregnant due to the act committed by the accused and accused denied that the child was not of him."

Sight cannot be lost of the mental pain, agony and trauma, PW1 - prosecutrix carrying the pregnancy was passing through at the time of her medical examination on 11/04/2010 vide MLC Ex. PW10/A, when she uttered the words that she wants termination of pregnancy.

In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.

20. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the present case is classic example of abuse of official power where statements are made after registration of FIR and the same is admitted by Investigating 52 of 70 53 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar Officer during crossexamination. There are several contradictory versions of the Investigating Officer where he admits recording of statement once on 10/04/2010 but later denied about any such statement. It is clear that the statement recorded on 10/04/2010 was different and the same has been deliberately not produced by the prosecution as the same was not disclosing about any offence.

I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.

There is absolutely no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused. Such plea appears to have been raised either by misreading the evidence or by not reading the evidence.

In the entire testimony of PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram (IO), there is not a single word that he recorded the statement of PW1 - prosecutrix or of any other witness on 10/04/2010, except to the fact that he made inquiries from prosecutrix on 10/04/2010. Though in his examinationin chief PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram has deposed that "on 11/04/2010 prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith Geeta came to Police Station and she gave her statement to me in presence of female namely Geeta".

53 of 70 54 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar But PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram has clarified it in his cross examination by deposing that "I have not take (taken) a statement of prosecutrix on 11/04/2010 as she stated that "main baad mein soch samajh kar statement dungi".

It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of examination inchief of PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram which reads as under : "On 10/04/2010, I was posted at PS - Prashant Vihar as ASI. On that day I received DD No. 30A timed about 9:47 p.m. with Duty Officer and Duty Officer informed me through telephone about DD No. 30A copy of which is Ex. PW8/A. I thereafter went to flat no. 565, Sunheri Bagh Apartment, Sector - 13, Rohini, Delhi. There prosecutrix (name withheld, D/o Bhola met me who told me that a boy namely Varun established physical relations with her for last 11 months on the pretext of marrying with her but later he ran away. She also told me that she will give statement in presence of Geeta. I had called lady Constable Preeti and thereafter, took the prosecutrix to BSA Hospital for medical examination of said prosecutrix (name withheld) and kept the DD No. 30A pending, since the prosecutrix wants to make statement in presence of Geeta. Prosecutrix (name withheld) was relieved after her medical examination."

The relevant part of crossexamination of PW8 - ASI Kalu 54 of 70 55 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar Ram reads as under : "I made inquiries from the prosecutrix on 10/04/2010. I have not take (taken) a statement of prosecutrix on 11/04/2010 as she stated that "mein baad mein soch samajh kar statement dungi". Statement of Geeta Ex. PW8/DA was recorded on 11/04/2010 from point 'X' to 'X' while the FIR number and other particulars were mentioned later on 12/05/2010. I have visited Shakur Pur at the residence of Geeta, but as prosecutrix was not available there, hence I did not recorded (record) the statement till 12/05/2010. Since the prosecutrix told me that she would make statement in presence of Geeta, therefore, statement of prosecutrix could not be recorded by me on 10/04/2010."

"There was no difference in the version of prosecutrix on 11/04/2010 and statement dated 12/05/2010. The delay in lodging of FIR happened because the prosecutrix on 11/04/2010 did not give any statement as she want to make statement in presence of Geeta and thereafter, on 12/05/2010 FIR was registered on her statement. Statement already Ex. PW8/DA of Smt. Geeta was recorded by me at Hospital and when Smt. Geeta came to see prosecutrix (name withheld). On 11/04/2010 I tried to record statement of prosecutrix (name withheld) in presence of Smt. Geeta, but she did not make statement and told me that she will make statement later on."

"Q. I suggest to you that you record statement of all the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. after registration of FIR and you have recorded statement of Smt. Geeta and 2/3 witnesses anti dated?

Ans. I recorded statement of Smt. Geeta on 11/04/2010 and I recorded statement of rest of the witnesses after registration of the FIR."

55 of 70 56 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar In view of above and in the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.

21. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that the entire case by prosecution is based on the statement of prosecutrix which is not reliable. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused was a mason by profession and working with a contractor for a short span in another flat of the housing society namely Sunhari Bagh Apartment and same is verified by IO and DW1 (Shiv Shankar) but the PW1 states that she came in contact as the accused was coming to deliver letters. The housing society is one of the most secured societies of Sector - 13, Rohini having round the clock security. The house where prosecutrix was living was also much secured and no allegation about any forceful entry has been made. There was two doors at the gate and one was transparent hence there was no possibility of entry in house without consent of PW1. It is next to impossible that a full grown girl will permit a courier boy unknown to her inside home to rape her. In the examination in chief PW1 states that the accused promised for marriage at the time of intercourse. Nothing on record suggests that the consent 56 of 70 57 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar was given under impression that the accused will marry PW1. Even if the version is believed then also it does not amounts to offence under section 376 IPC.

22. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that PW1 changed her entire testimony during crossexamination and started a new story during crossexamination. PW1 states in her crossexamination that she received a call from accused that was intended to talk with some girl namely Reshma. PW1 further admitted that she herself called accused to meet her. PW1 again stated that she informed the accused that she is alone at house and when accused came they performed intercourse. There is no allegation of forceful entry and it reflects from the statement of PW1 that she was not only consenting party but she was willing for intercourse and that intercourse was also not influenced by any false promise but it was a case where two adults enjoyed the body of each other. PW1 alleges about threats but nothing specific was stated that what was threat and it is impossible to submit again and again to the accused if accused threatened the prosecutrix.

57 of 70 58 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.

The testimony of PW1 - prosecutrix is clear, cogent, reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence. In the witness box she has withstood the test of crossexamination and her testimony is consistent throughout. Her version on the core spectrum of crime has remained intact. There is nothing in her statement to suggest that she had any animus against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case. She has specifically deposed in her examinationinchief that she is permanent resident of Jharkhand of village Adar Salgi Post Ghaghra, District Gumla Jharkhand. She had come to Delhi with her Didi Geeta who is also from her village for doing the work of maid servant and she was providing the job of maid servant at house no. 565, Sector - 13, Rohini through her Didi Geeta. The said house was of one Niraj Advocate. She also resided there in the house of said Niraj as maid servant. When she was working there, accused Varun used to come to deliver letters addressed to the owner of said house and she also used to receive the letters from him in the absence of owner of the house. On one of such occasion when accused came to deliver letter, she was alone in the house and he 58 of 70 59 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar committed rape upon her and thereafter he also committed sexual intercourse two three or more occasions. At the time of committing sexual intercourse with her accused used to assure her to marry with her and not to disclose this fact to anyone. She became pregnant due to the act committed by the accused and accused denied that the child was not of him. Thereafter, accused has run away from there and he never met her later on. She informed this fact to the owner of the house and also to the Police.

From the aforesaid narration of PW1 - prosecutrix, it is clearly indicated that accused Varun who used to come to deliver letters addressed to the owner of the house and she also used to receive the letters from him in the absence of owner of the house. One one of such occasion, he came to deliver letter and after gaining entry into the house, he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext/promise to marry her and also committed sexual intercourse two three or more times with her and asked her not to disclose about the incident to anyone and made her pregnant and then disowned the pregnancy/child and fled. Had he not promised to marry the prosecutrix, she would have never allowed him the physical intimacy with her and 59 of 70 60 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar further the consent of PW1 - prosecutrix for sexual intercourse was obtained by accused Varun under a misconception of fact by deceitfully causing her to believe that he will perform marriage with her and he knew that such consent was given by her under such misconception. Had it not been so, then accused would not have disowned her pregnancy and would not have fled, whereby the promise was merely hoax.

As regards the submission of the Learned Counsel for accused that accused was mason by profession and was working with a contractor for a short span in another flat of the housing of the housing society is concerned, PW1 - Prosecutrix in her crossexamination has specifically deposed that she does not know whether the accused also used to work as a mason in the Society.

As regards the plea raised by Learned Counsel for the accused that "PW1 - Prosecutrix admitted that she herself called accused to meet her. PW1 again stated that she informed the accused that she is alone at house and when accused came they performed intercourse" is concerned is totally baseless and the deposition of PW1 - prosecutrix has been twisted. Nowhere in her entire testimony such deposition has been made by PW1 - prosecutrix. However, PW1 prosecutrix in her 60 of 70 61 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar crossexamination has deposed that : "Accused made a telephone call to me and I replied that I am alone in the house and after that accused came in the said house and committed sexual intercourse to me. The accused threatened me not to raise any alarm otherwise he will kill me. It is wrong to suggest that accused had not committed any wrong act with me or that I am deposing falsely. Accused promised to marry me before committing sexual intercourse upon me."

"I had not disclosed the fact of sexual intercourse with me by the accused to anybody because the accused had threatened me not to disclose the said fact to anybody. The accused committed sexual intercourse upon me four times i.e. within the period of one month. I tried to contact the accused on his mobile phone but he had switched off his mobile phone."

In the circumstance, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.

23. Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that there is almost 06 months unexplained delay in complaint and one more month in registration of FIR. He further submitted that PW8 tried to explain the delay on the ground that PW1 had not given statement and wished to give the statement in presence of PW1 but the theory collapses when he deposes that the same day statement of PW2 was recorded in presence of 61 of 70 62 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar PW1.

I have carefully perused and analysed the evidence on the record.

As discussed hereinbefore PW1 - prosecutrix has explained the circumstances how and in what manner and under what pretext/promise repeatedly sexual intercourse was committed with him by accused Varun due to which she became pregnant and he disowned the pregnancy and fled and as to why she could not disclose about the incident to anyone for the threat to kill extended by the accused whereby explaining the delay caused in reporting the matter to the Police.

At the cost of repetition, the relevant part of examinationin chief of PW1 - prosecutrix reads as under : "He used to come to deliver letters addressed to the owner of said house and I also used to receive the letters from him in the absence of owner of the house. On one of such occasion when accused came to deliver letter, I was alone in the house and he committed rape upon me and thereafter he also committed sexual intercourse two three or more occasions. At the time of committing sexual intercourse with me accused used to assure me to marry with me and not to disclose this fact to anyone. I became pregnant due to the act committed by the accused and accused denied that the child was not of him. Thereafter, 62 of 70 63 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar accused has run away from there and he never met me later on. I informed this fact to the owner of the house and also to the Police. Police came at the owner of the said house. Police took me to the hospital for medical examination. I remained admitted in the hospital for about eight days. Thereafter, I went to the house of my didi Geeta and after that I lodged report with the Police on which I put my right thumb impression and the same is Ex. PW1/A which also bears my RTI at point 'A'. In the month June-10, I was admitted in the hospital Rohini where I gave birth to a female child and that child is still with me."

During her crossexamination PW1 - prosecutrix has deposed which is reproduced and reads as under : "Accused promised to marry me before committing sexual intercourse upon me."

"I had not disclosed the fact of sexual intercourse with me by the accused to anybody because the accused had threatened me not to disclose the said fact to anybody. The accused committed sexual intercourse upon me four times i.e. within the period of one month. I tried to contact the accused on his mobile phone but he had switched off his mobile phone."

As regards the delay caused in the registration of the FIR, the same has been explained by PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram.

PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram in his crossexamination has deposed that : 63 of 70 64 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar "The delay in lodging of FIR happened because the prosecutrix on 11/04/2010 did not give any statement as she want to make statement in presence of Geeta and thereafter, on 12/05/2010 FIR was registered on her statement."

As regards the plea of the Learned Counsel for the accused that PW8 tried to explain the delay on the ground that PW1 had not given statement and wished to give the statement in presence of PW1 but the theory collapses when he deposes that the same day statement of PW2 was recorded in presence of PW1 is concerned, is totally baseless as PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram has nowhere deposed in his entire testimony that statement of PW2 - Geeta (PW8/DA) was recorded in the presence of PW1 - prosecutrix.

What PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram (IO) has deposed in his cross examination is that : "Statement already Ex. PW8/DA of Smt. Geeta was recorded by me at Hospital and when Smt. Geeta came to see prosecutrix (name withheld)."

The said narration of PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram does not indicate in any manner that statement of Geeta (Ex. PW8/DA) was recorded by PW8 - ASI Kalu Ram (IO) in the Hospital in the presence of 64 of 70 65 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar PW1 - prosecutrix.

The sight cannot be lost of the fact that the Indian women has tendency to conceal offence of sexual assault because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the Police Station and lodge a case.

Normally a woman would not falsely implicate for the offence of rape at the cost of her character. In Indian society, it is very unusual that a lady with a view to implicate a person would go to the extent of stating that she was raped. [Ref. Madan Lal Vs. State of MP (1997) 2 Crimes 210 (MP)].

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P (1995) 5 SCC 518, has held : "7.......The submission overlooks the fact that in India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less then promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather 65 of 70 66 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar than comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false (emphasis added)."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 in case Rajinder V. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 3022 has interalia held : "21. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman victim of sexual aggression would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind that no selfrespecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for......."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 13 in case Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 2214 has interalia held "13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a 66 of 70 67 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case......"

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20 in case Satyapal V. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 2190 has interalia held : "20. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon......."

In the case of 'Wahid Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh', (2010) 2 SCC 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "It is a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as such she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked by the society with contempt throughout 67 of 70 68 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as the western countries are."

In the circumstances, there is no substance in the plea so raised by the Learned Counsel for the accused.

24. Learned Counsel for the accused also referred to the cases and are reported as 'Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88', 'Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46, 'K. P. Thinnapa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 14 SCC 475', 'Sujir Ranjan Vs. State, Appeal (Crl.) No. 248 of 2010 (SC)', 'Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 2322 of 2010 decided on 20/05/2013 (SC)', 'Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) 7 SCC 413', 'Zindar Ali Sheikh Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 761' and 'Vijyan Vs. State of Karela (2008) 14 SCC 763'.

I have carefully gone through the same. With due respect, 68 of 70 69 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar the cases referred to are wholly distinguishable in view of the peculiar facts and nature of evidence adduced in the instant case. In a case titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State 181 (2011) DLT 528 (DB) it was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court that "No case can strictly be a precedent in a criminal matter for the reason no two criminal trials would unfold the same story and the same evidence. Thus, a decision cited pertaining to the destination reached at a particular criminal voyage has to be carefully applied, on a principle of law, in a subsequent voyage".

25. In view of above and in the circumstances, prosecution has thus proved beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts that from May, 2009 to 12/05/2010 at house No. 565, Sunheri Apartment, Sector - 13, Rohini, accused Varun repeatedly raped PW1 prosecutrix, without her consent and against her wishes. Whereupon, PW1 - prosecutrix became pregnant and delivered a baby on 27/06/2010 whose DNA profile matched with accused Varun as a Biological Father.

I, accordingly hold accused Varun guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC and convict him thereunder.

69 of 70 70 FIR No. 164/10 PS - Prashant Vihar

26. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of the accused Varun in the commission of the offence u/s 376 IPC is concerned, the same is sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the accused Varun beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is no room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused. I, therefore, hold accused Varun guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC and convict him thereunder.

Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on 18th Day of July, 2013 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 70 of 70

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Varun on 18 July, 2013