SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal under Section 374 of Chapter XXIX for Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 4 th May, 1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that the appellant was living in the neighbourhood of complainant. On the day of incident i.e. 6th May, 1986, the complainant was sitting with her one and a half year old daughter just outside the house. The appellant came to her and took complainant's daughter in his lap. Since he was a neighbour, she had no reason to suspect. However, the appellant took her daughter to his room at first floor and after about half an hour, he came back with the crying girl. The girl was weeping bitterly at that time. The mother of the girl asked the appellant as to why she was crying, on which the appellant replied that she had fallen down from his hand and received injuries. The appellant, leaving behind the daughter of complainant, went away. Since the girl was weeping very bitterly, she inspected the body of her daughter to find out where she had received injuries and found that the underwear of her daughter was soaked with blood and the blood was oozing out. She removed underwear of her daughter and found that blood was coming out from her vaginal orifice. The husband of the complainant was not at home at that time. She being a village woman did not immediately rush to the police station but on the next day after return of her husband, she went to the police station and lodged a report. The girl child was immediately taken to the hospital for medical examination where she was examined and doctor opined that the injuries on the vaginal orifice were caused by penetration of fully-developed adult penis. The vaginal orifice was found lacerated and the tender areas were found raw and injured. There was evidence of sperms in the vagina of that child. The MLC was proved as Ex.PW4/A. The appellant/accused was also examined at Swami Dharmand Hospital on 8th May, 1986 and his medical examination also revealed that there was abrasion of 3 cm over the glan on 7 o'clock position. The underwear of the appellant and the victim were seized by the police and sent for forensic examination. The report Ex. PB shows that human semen was detected on both the underwear i.e. of the minor girl as well appellant. The complainant herself i.e. mother of the minor girl had appeared in the court as PW-3 and testified that the appellant had taken her daughter from her to his house upstairs and within 28/30 minutes, he came back with her daughter crying and weeping very loudly and on enquiry from the appellant, she was told by the appellant that she (victim) had fallen from stairs. However, on examination of her body she found her bleeding profusely from her vaginal orifice. The only suggestion given to this witness was that she had made false statement against the appellant due to enmity and she wanted to entangle the father of the appellant in her fold and since she failed, she falsely implicated the appellant. However, dewar of complainant appeared as PW-1 and testified that on the evening of 6th May, 1986, the complainant had come to him and narrated the incident and thereafter a report was lodged to the police station when the husband of the complainant came. The suggestion given to this witness was that the complainant i.e. mother of the victim child, was about 10 year younger to her husband and she wanted to develop illicit relations with the appellant and on his refusal he was falsely implicated in this case. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant had taken the stand that the complainant i.e. mother of the victim girl wanted to have sexual relations with the appellant but since he did not oblige, he was falsely implicated. To every other piece of evidence, the answer has been identical `it is incorrect'.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire oral evidence and medical evidence had come to conclusion that it was a case of rape of one and a half year child at the hands of appellant. The medical evidence showed split laceration of vagina and the opinion of the doctor that this injury was caused due to penetration of fully erected penis and the oral testimony of witness leaves no doubt about commission of crime by the appellant.