The Appellant had filed the present appeal, impugning the order dated June 6th, 2016 passed by Special Fast Track Court, Delhi, whereby the Appellant was found guilty of offences under sections 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentences for the above crimes are as follows:
Section 342 of IPC, 1806- six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 (in default of which one month imprisonment is sentenced), Section 376 of IPC, 1860- rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs. 15,000 (in default of which an additional six months imprisonment is sentenced), and Section 506 of IPC, 1860- rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 3,000 (in default of which two months imprisonment is sentenced). All of the above penalty was imposed on the Appellant by an order dated June 8th, 2016. The Appellant has appealed against this order also.
The impugned judgment was rendered in a case bearing FIR No. 407/2015 registered with the Police Station of Defence Colony on October 9th, 2015. In the said case, an FIR was registered by the prosecutrix who accused the Appellant of committing rape on her. In her statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Code Procedure, 1973, she said that she has been working as a cleaner at a boutique in the Defence Colony and the accused used to work as a tailor in the same boutique. The accused had raped her on October 3rd, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. while she was cleaning the boutique. She alleged that the accused came from behind her, pushed her on the floor, gagged her mouth and committed the rape. She also said that the accused threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to anyone.
In order to prove the incident, a total of eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. However, the counsel appearing for the accused contended that there were inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix and all the witnesses and there was nothing against the accused apart from the prosecutrix’ statement. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that it is an established law that the statement given by the prosecutrix is sufficient in cases involving crimes against women, especially rape.
The counsel proves to the court that the prosecutrix has been contradicting her own statements. In her statement, she said that she informed her husband about the incident on October 9th, 2015. However, during cross-examination, she said that she informed her employer and husband on October 7th, 2015. The court, hence, ruled in favour the Appellant saying that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Since there was nothing against the accused except the statement given by the victim, the court allowed the appeal and all the charges imposed on the appellant has been set aside. The jail authorities have been directed to release the appellant with immediate effect.