Babbo, daughter of Sardar Jagir Singh, was her friend and she used to visit the house of Sardar Jagir Singh to meet Babbo.
Charges, however, were framed only under Sections 376 and 506, IPC, and as the appellant pleaded number guilty, the trial was companyducted.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2002 in the High Court, but by the impugned judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal.
Opposite to their house was the house of Sardar Jagir Singh.
She enquired from the appellant, the son of Sardar Jagir Singh, as to whether Babbo was in the house and the appellant told her that Babbo was inside the room.
When she entered inside the room, the appellant followed her into the room, bolted the room from inside and forcibly put her on the company.
Facts The facts very briefly are that on 30.01.2001 at about 8.00 p.m., a young girl of about fourteen years accompanied by her parents, lodged the First Information Report for short the FIR in Police Station, Khajoori Khas, Delhi, in which she stated as follows She was a student of Higher Secondary School and residing with her parents at House No.131, Gali No.12, Khajoori Khas, Delhi.
At the trial, as many as fifteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the prosecutrix.
When she raised an alarm, the appellant slapped her.
After companysidering the evidence on record, the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 506, IPC.
Out of fear and shame, she did number narrate the incident to anybody, but in the evening of 30.01.2001 she narrated the incident to her mother.
He then took out her salwar and underwear and raped her.
The trial companyrt further directed that the sentences were to run companycurrently.
Her clothes and vaginal swab were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for short CFSL for analysis and as per the report from CFSL, human semen and blood was detected on the underwear of the prosecutrix, but numbersemen was detected in the vaginal swab.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 342/354/376/506, IPC.
He also threatened her with death if she narrated the incident to anybody.
On examination of the X rays report of the prosecutrix, the doctor opined that her age was above fourteen years but below sixteen years.
On 28.01.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the lights in the area went off and as the generator at the house of Sardar Jagir Singh was on, the prosecutrix went to meet Babbo.
On this statement of the girl hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix , a case under Sections 376 and 506, IPC, was registered on 30.01.2001.
The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same night.
For the offence under Section 376, IPC, the trial companyrt imposed the minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 506, IPC, the trial companyrt imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default, a rigorous imprisonment of six months.
696 of 2002 by which the companyviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC and the sentences imposed by the trial companyrt on the appellant have been maintained.
K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 06.03.2003 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
