JAGDISH Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Jagdish @ Tinku was prosecuted for rape of one Ms. Manju aged 11 years between 2.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. on 27th May, 2000. The learned Sessions Judge after analysing and appreciating the evidence as produced before him found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and convicted him. Vide an order of sentence dated 25th November, 2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observing the heinous nature of the crime on a girl barely 11 years old, sentenced Jagdish to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and, in default, simple imprisonment of three years. The learned trial Court noted that the prosecutrix had bled profusely on account of rape and had remained admitted in the hospital for treatment for nearly a month. These were considered as an aggravating factor for imposition of the sentence of life imprisonment.

(2.) Let us notice the essential facts for the purposes of this appeal. The prosecutrix had gone to purchase vegetables in the afternoon and Jagdish/accused who used to live nearby accosted her. The prosecutrix was known to the accused and she used to address him as 'Bhaiya'. As per the prosecution version, Jagdish @ Tinku caught hold of her and took her inside the house, locked the door and raped her. After the act, he let her go and threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone else otherwise he would kill her. The prosecutrix Ms. Manju returned home and disclosed the incident to her mother in the presence of her father and her elder uncle. Report was lodged with the police and Jagdish/accused was arrested. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital. We shall advert to the MLC later in this regard. The blood stained bed sheet and the piece of cloth used to wipe blood flowing down the legs of the prosecutirx were also allegedly recovered at the instance on the disclosure of the accused. The underwear, mattress and cloth of the accused along with frock and underwear of the prosecutrix were sent to the FSL for examination. Prosecution examined the mother of the prosecutrix, her father and other witnesses to which we need not advert. The MLC Ex. PW11/B duly records the admission of the prosecutrix at the Hindu Rao Hospital with the history of alleged rape. As per the MLC :

(3.) Suffice it is to notice that the medical record duly confirms the factum of rape. Mr. Sumeet Verma in support of the appeal submits that firstly the prosecutrix and the family who claimed to have known Jagdish /accused have not named him in the MLC and the MLC does not carry his name. The judgment is also assailed on the point that the MLC had not been duly proved inasmuch as no doctor had been examined to prove the MLC. It is submitted that no semen was detected or traced on the bed sheet, mattress, cloth or on the underwear of Jagdish /accused or on the frock and underwear of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the blood samples had got putrefied and hence it could not be said that the blood found on the underwear was of the appellant or that of the prosecutrix. It is also urged that the appellant was beaten by members of the public and hence there could be blood oozing on account of the injuries sustained which could explain the presence of blood on his underwear. He said that there was no sign of resistance by the prosecutrix. Apart from the injuries on the vagina, no other injuries have been found on her person or on the private parts of appellant. It is urged in the grounds of appeal that the crucial and salient witnesses were not cross examined by the Amicus Curiae appointed by the State. PW-1, the Senior Scientific Officer, PW-2 Gainda Lal, PW-3 Prosecutrix and PW-4 Sooparta Roy were not cross examined. In view of this failure to cross examine by the counsel on behalf of Jagdish/ accused, it is urged that the appellant was denied a fair trial and it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.