KISHAN PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2009 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/506 IPC. For the offence of rape appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 50,000/-. For the offence punishable under Section /506 IPC the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) In sustaining the conviction of the appellant the learned trial judge has held that the testimony of the prosecutrix, examined as PW-1, inspires confidence and has been corroborated through the testimony of Geeta PW-2. That the prosecutrix was subjected to a sexual intercourse had been held established with reference to the MLC Ex.PW-9/A which shows that the hymen of the prosecutrix had a tear. Further corroboration has been found with reference to the report Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW-10/D of the Senior Scientific Assistant as per which human semen was detected on the vaginal swab slide of the prosecutrix as also the salwar worn by the prosecutrix which was taken into possession by the doctor, who examined the prosecutrix the day next when, as per claim of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to sexual intercourse.

(3.) As deposed to by the prosecutrix her father had abandoned her mother who died thereby compelling the prosecutrix to sleep in the compound of GTB hospital where the accused, who was known to her as a rickshaw puller, met her and assured her that he would keep her like his daughter and would arrange for her marriage when she grew up. Thereby winning her confidence he took her to his house at New Seemapuri and told her to tell the people around that the appellant was the son of her paternal uncle (Tau). That in the night after removing her salwar the appellant committed rape upon her and gave his underwear to her to clean the semen which fell on her body. As per the prosecutrix the next day morning at 5:00 AM she told as to what had happened to her, to the landlady Geeta, by which time the accused had left to ply his rickshaw. In the evening, when he returned, Geeta made the appellant take her i.e. the prosecutrix to the police station where her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded.