Usha Vs. State (Govt.
of Nct of Delhi)  INSC 1317 (5 August 2008)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.573 OF 2007 Usha ...Appellant(s) Versus State
[Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi] ...Respondent(s) With Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2007
O R D E R 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 ....2/- -2- 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]
Delhi, September 09, 2008.