ATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2000 and order on sentence dated 18.08.2000 whereby he had been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of 6 months.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution was unfolded in the statement of the mother of the victim Smt. Geeta (PW -2). She was the complainant of the case. As per her statement, on the fateful day i.e. on 15.08.1996 when she came back from work, she found the door of her jhuggi closed from inside; her daughter Rekha (PW -1) aged 8 years was standing near the jhuggi. PW -2 inquired about from her about the younger daughter, the victim 'Kumari P' aged 4 years. PW -1 told her that accused Attar Singh had taken 'Kumari P' inside the jhuggi. On peeping inside the room, she found that underwear of 'Kumari P' had been removed; she was wearing a frock only. The accused was committing rape upon her daughter. Alarm was raised. Police was informed. Her statement (Ex.PW -2/A) was recorded. Her daughter was bleeding from her vagina; there was blood on the rope twining of the cot as also on her underwear and on her frock. 'Kumari P' remained admitted in the hospital for 4 -6 days. In her cross -examination, PW -2 denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely and that her husband and two other persons including the accused were consuming liquor; they had a quarrel and 'Kumari P' fallen down pursuant to which she sustained injuries. She reiterated that even though 15.08.1996 was a holiday but her husband has gone for work.

(3.) ONE vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on this admission by PW -1 wherein she had stated that a police official was sitting outside the Court and was briefing her at the time of her examination in Court; submission being that this by itself substantiates that PW -1 was a tutored witness. This has been refuted by the learned counsel for the State who points out that the Investigating Officer was well within his right to refresh the memory of the witness. This submission of the learned counsel for the State carries weight. PW - 1 has reiterated her statement (Ex.PW -1/DA) which she had been made to the police; she has categorically denied the suggestion that she was tutored. Merely because she was refreshing her memory does not tarnish her credibility on this count.