Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2007 was convicted by the
Trial Court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, `I.P.C.'] and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/-; in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months.
He was further convicted under Section 506 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to
undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months.
The sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No.573 of 2007 was convicted under
Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo
further imprisonment for a period of two months. She was further convicted under
Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-; in default to undergo imprisonment for a further
period of one month. Sentences of both the accused persons were ordered to run
concurrently. The High Court confirmed their convictions and sentences. Hence,
these appeals by special leave.
In the present case, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 11th April,
1995 and 13th April, 1995, for which the First Information Report was lodged after
about two months on 8th June, 1995. P.W.1 Sunita is the prosecutrix herself. Neither
in the First Information Report nor in the evidence of the prosecutrix, P.W.1, it has
been stated as to why the First Information Report was lodged after such an
inordinate delay. Apart from this, from the evidence of P.W.14 (Dr. Usha Piple) it
does not appear that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. In view of
these facts, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the High Court was not justified in upholding the convictions of
the appellants of these appeals.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed, convictions and
sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges. The
appellants, who are in custody, are directed to be released forthwith, if not required
in connection with any other case.
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI] New Delhi, September 09, 2008.