JAHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jahid was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 363, 354 and 367 IPC. In view of the evidence led he has not been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC but has been found guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.

(2.) Vide order on sentence, for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/ -, in default, to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. For the offence punishable under Section 367 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month.

(3.) Having perused the evidence and in particular the testimony of the tormented victim, her mother Noorjahan PW -4 and Noorjahan's sister Farjana PW -5, I am satisfied that the verdict returned by the learned Trial Judge is correct for the reason there is no reason for the prosecutrix, then aged 5 years, to cook up a false story that when she went to the market in the company of her younger brother the appellant enticed her with lure of Rs.5/ - and took her to his house and after removing her clothes fondled her and fiddled her private parts with his finger. Medical evidence rules out any rape or even attempt to rape for the reason if a male tries to put his penis in the vagina of an infant girl of 5 years and fails in the attempt to pierce the vagina there would be tenderness around the vulva. The learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded that charge under Section 376 IPC is not made out.