IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE 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.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

New Delhi, September 09, 2008.