UMA SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court handed down a verdict of guilty against the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 376, IPC, wherein a child aged about five years was ravished. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal was filed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is this. On 21-12 1998 Shatrughan Sharma returned to his jhuggi and found that his daughter Lalita aged about five years was not present in the jhuggi. He went in search of his daughter. He found that his neighbour, Uma Shankar, was bringing his daughter out of accused's jhuggi. Shatrughan Sharma found blood stains on her underwear. Uma Shankar bolted the door but did not come out when he was asked to do so. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and accused/appellant was arrested for the offence of rape. The prosecutrix, her father and Janki Devi her grand mother have supported the prosecution case down the line. The prosecution examined 11 P.Ws. in all.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present case is an outlandish mishmash of bewildering contradictions and infirmities. She pointed out that Dr. Poonam Lal made the following deposition. Doctor deposed that on local examination a pad was found tied on her vulva which was soaked with blood. The prosecutrix did not allow the Doctor to touch her until she was administered anesthesia. The patient remained admitted in the hospital for about six-seven days. Initially the child was taken to some local practitioner who gave her some injection TT and referred the matter to the police. On the other hand, Shatrughan Sharma, father of the prosecutrix stated that he took his daughter to Bhalla Nursing Home at about 9.30 p.m. He did not State that she was given TT injection. However, no effort was made on behalf of the appellant to get clarification on this point during cross-examination of the witness. To my view there is no incongruity at all.