RAJU @ GAYUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Raju @ Gayur impugns a judgment dated 08.04.2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.99/04 arising out of FIR No.326/04 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. By an order dated 21.04.2005, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three and half years with fine Rs. 500/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 05.05.2004 at about 7:00 p.m. at House No.881, Gautam Puri, Phase I, Badarpur, the appellant attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 13 years. The information about the incident was conveyed to the police at 10:55 p.m. and Daily Dairy (DD) No.27 A came into existence at Police Station Badarpur. The appellant was specifically named to have outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix 'X'. The investigation was assigned to SI Tika Ram who with Constable Anil went to the spot. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report. The prosecutrix was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376/511 IPC. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Shanno) and DW-2 (Munni) appeared in defence. On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Admitted position is that the victim's Mausi used to live on the ground floor of the premises in question. The appellant along with his wife and child lived on the first floor on rent. 'X' aged 13 years had come to her Mausi's house from her village two months before to take care she being on her family-way. Ossification report (Ex.PW-10/A) revealed that 'X' was more than ten years and less than 14.9 years on the date of her examination on 07.06.2004. Apparently, she was minor on the date of occurrence.