On 15.6.16, the prosecutrix, along with her niece around 9 P.M went to Narispur Sabzi Mandi to purchase vegetables. On reaching Buddha Jayanti Park, the accused obstructed her and forcefully took her to a secluded place in the park and raped her around 9.30-10 P.M . The Prosecuterix managed to run away from the clutches of the accused, got reunited with her niece, and narrated the incident to her. After the incident, they went straight to Shani Mandir, Dasratpur where they narrated the incident to the husband of the niece, who called the police, and the accused was apprehended as he was still following them. The Trial Court convicted the accused under section 354 D and 376 of the I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order the accused approached the High Court in appeal.


The learned counsel of the appellant contended that there was the consent of the prosecutrix in the act and the consent can be adduced by the fact that she did not raise an alarm on noticing the accused following her in the mandi. The counsel further contended that the appellant did not raise an alarm at the point of the time of the alleged rape incident as well. They further contended that the niece of the prosecutrix requested the appellant and prosecutrix to get ice cream for all of them and at that point in the time prosecutrix agreed to have sex with the appellant instead of money. They further contended that no external injuries were found on the prosecutrix and that contradicts their theory of rape.


The Court by pursuing the testimonies and other evidence on record concluded that the explanation of the prosecutrix in concluding that the accused might have been shopping in the mandi as others, on observing that he was following them. Further, on the point of prosecutrix not raising an alarm at the time of incidence, the court reasoned that the place of incidence was scheduled and there even if she had raised an alarm, it would have reached no one and the MSL report indicates injuries on the appellant that depicts resistance by the prosecutrix. The argument of the accused that he befriended the niece of the prosecutrix and when requested by her to get ice cream, he offered money to prosecutrix to have sex and she consented is an afterthought as he in his statement under section 313 C.R.PC stated that he refused to pay money to the prosecutrix after having sex with her on the premise that he did not possess an amount of Rs 300. This contradicts his statement. The Court further placed reliance on the State of Himachal Pradesh v Manga Singh, which held that the conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required. The Court confirmed the conviction of the accused and directed the trial court to consider compensation to the victim in light of the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *