(UNI) Upholding the conviction of a youth in a sexual assault case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that victim's statement alone is a good enough basis to sentence the accused.
Justice Mukta Gupta while upholding the conviction of the accused said the testimony of the prosecutrix itself is an evidence to prove the offence against the accused.
The court observed that there was no material on record to prove that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
'I do not find any infirmity with the trial court judgement convicting the appellant for offences under Section 376/363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).'
Justice Gupta listed the matter for May 8 on the plea for enhancement of the sentence of the accused and asked the Tihar Central Jail Superintendent to produce the convict before it on that date.
The case pertains to a sexual assault case in which the prosecutrix was a few months less than 18 years (a minor) at the time of commission of crime.
The trial court had sentenced the accused youth Bhagwan Dass alias Kallu to seven years of imprisonment. The conviction was on the basis of victim's statement.
Kallu approached the HC seeking acquittal on the grounds that he had married the prosecutrix and had sex with her with consent.
The HC rejected Kallu's plea saying that the marriage cannot be termed valid as the girl was minor at that time.
The victim alleged that Kallu had made her unconscious by offering some sweets allegedly laced with intoxicants, then took her to a rented room in Kotla Mubarakpur area in South Delhi in 2007 and assaulted her for three weeks.
The prosecutrix contented that she freed herself from the custody of Kallu with the assistance of a boy who opened the door of her room which was latched from outside.
The victim called her father and brother over phone from a booth who reached the place and rescued her.
The court rejected the plea of the counsel of the accused who pleaded for acquittal of his client saying that his client has been cleared of the charges of giving intoxicated sweets and kidnapping by the trial court so how can a case of sexual assault stand when the other charges which are the basis of this offence have been dropped against him.
The Court rejected the arguments of Kallu who said that there were no injury marks on the prosecutrix and her parents were tutoring her before recording of evidence under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr Pc) before the Magistrate. UNI
