SANTOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Santosh to challenge the legality and propriety of a judgment dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16/10 arising out of FIR No. 223/09 PS Dabri by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 342/366/376 I.P.C. By an order dated 19.08.2011, he was sentenced to undergo R1 for ten years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C.; R1 for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 366 I.P.C. and RI for one year under Section 342 I.P.C. All the sentences were to operate concurrently. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 11.07.2009 at about 04.00 P.M., the appellant kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged about 11 years and sexually assaulted her after confining in his house. The incident was reported to the police on 17.07.2009. First Information Report was lodged after recording victim's statement; she was medically examined. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction-as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant was falsely implicated due to a previous enmity with the prosecutrix father. Inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report has renamed unexplained. Various discrepancies aid contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses make it unsafe to base conviction. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecutrix has attributed specific role to implicate the appellant and here statement without major infirmities cannot be disbelieved.

(3.) Admitted position is that the accused is the prosecutrix' 'Mausa' and lives in the vicinity. It is also not denied that he and prosecutrix' father were engaged in the same business. 'X' was sexually assaulted on 11.07.2009 at around 04.00 P.M. by the appellant in his house after he enticed her there on the pretext to count sticks used in the business. PW-4 (Manju), prosecutrix' mother on return from her job in the evening at around 06.00 P.M., noticed blood on X' salwar. When she enquired from 'X' about that, she divulged the incident to her. She took her to Gandhi Nursing Home where she was medically examined and treated. PW-11 (Dr. Juhi Sharma) deposed that on the night intervening 11/12.07.2009 at around 01.00 A.M., 'X' aged about 11 1/2 years was brought by her mother with the alleged history of bleeding from vagina following a 'fall from stairs on a sharp object'. The patient could not be examined ion the bed due to pain and bleeding. Her examination was done under aesthesia. On examination, she found a clear tear on the right side of vaginal wall about 1 inch to 1 1/2 inch long with an active bleeder.