Mohit vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 10 January, 2017


1. Convicted for offences punishable under Section 365/366/376 IPC,
Mohit challenges the impugned judgment dated July 22, 2015 and the order
on sentence dated July 28, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each
for offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366 IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `20,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Mohit contends that the
age of the prosecutrix has not been proved. Neither Sarju Devi nor the
person issuing the certificate with respect to the date of birth of the
prosecutrix was examined. The report of ossification test was withheld by
the prosecution thus adverse inference is required to be drawn. There is no
scientific evidence to prove that the prosecutrix was raped. The prosecutrix

Crl.A. 923/2015 Page 1 of 8
only alleged that she was forcibly abducted. No evidence has been produced
by the prosecution to corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. No site plan
of the place where alleged rape was committed has been prepared. Only the
site plan of the place where alleged incident of abduction took place has been
prepared vide Ex. PW-19/B. The prosecutrix was under duress when her
statement was recorded in the Trial Court on 2nd September, 2011 and the
learned Trial Court also recorded that she was reluctant in speaking.
Thereafter, on 7th October, 2011, she deposed as per the prosecution case.
The love affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix has been admitted
by the parents of the prosecutrix. Lastly, it was submitted that when the
prosecutrix was allegedly taken away from her school, no alarm was raised
by her, which proves that there was no enticement.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply