STATE Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE state seeks leave to appeal, in this petition, against a judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter "ASJ") dated 27.08.2010, in SC No. 28/2010, by which he acquitted the respondents of the charge of committing offences punishable under Sections 302/376/377, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 18.07.2005 Police Station SP Badli received information (through DD No. 41B) that at about 06:05 PM the body of a girl was discovered in Sharadanand Colony. THEreafter complainant Sarita (mother of the deceased) went to police station SP Badli to file a report that her daughter Kanchan was missing. On reaching the police station she was informed that the body of a girl lying in a Jhuggie, at Bhalsva Dairy was found. She was asked to first look at the body to ascertain whether it was her daughter Kanchan. THE body was lying inside the bushes and was naked below the waist; a salwar was tied around the neck of the body. Complainant (PW-2, Sarita) identified the body as that of her daughter Kanchan. An FIR, bearing No. 515/05 was registered at Police station SP Badli at about 09:00PM and D.D. No. 20A was recorded. THE body was sent for post mortem to BJRM Hospital on that day itself and examination was done on 19.07.2005 at about 12:30 PM. On 21.07.2005, accused Ram Singh was interrogated and was medically examined at BJRM Hospital by Dr. Anil Shandilya (PW-1) who had also conducted the autopsy of the deceased. In his report Ex. PW-1/B he stated that "dried up brownish scab was present in circular shape around the corona glandis and frenulun" was present and there was simple abrasion of about 4-5 days duration. THE report further stated that if the injuries on the body of the deceased and the accused were collectively seen, then it was "prima facie suggestive of forceful penetration in a constricted hole by hard erected penis (disproportionate in size)". On 22.07.2005 the accused was taken to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and he voluntarily gave a blood sample. THEreafter the accused was released.

(3.) AFTER about two months, her husband returned from Punjab and she along with her son and husband returned to her house at Jain Colony. At that time her neighbour PW-8 Maya Devi, told her husband PW-7 that she had seen the accused taking away the deceased on the day of the incident towards the gas go-down, Bhalsva Dairy. PW-2 adds that prior to the incident, accused had molested her daughter 2/3 times and she had told her daughter not to go near him but she (PW-2) did not inform about the molestation to anyone. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the IO on the same day wherein she had mentioned about what PW-8 saw. She clarified that PW-8 had gone to her village after the incident and she returned after about 2 months and it is on her returning that she informed them (PW-2 and PW-7) regarding seeing the deceased with the accused.