AMARJEET Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.No. 1361/2017(Suspension of Sentence)

(2.) The facts noted by the Trial Court are that on 13.05.2014 at about 7:50 pm, Smt. Urmila and her 7 years old daughter (hereinafter referred to as 'Child Victim') came to the P.S., where Smt. Urmila complained of sexual assault upon child victim by her husband i.e. stepfather of the child victim. The matter was entrusted to W/SI Manisha, who got the child victim and her mother counseled through a NGO counselor and thereafter recorded the statement of the complainant, to the effect that after death of her first husband Kamal, she got married to petitioner Amarjeet and from her previous wedlock the child victim was born. The appellant had tried to commit sexual assault upon the child victim on an earlier occasion also and when the complainant was about to go to the P.S., the appellant apologized and she forgave him with a warning to not repeat the same action in the future. She further stated that on 13.05.2013, she had been working at a Panni Godown and on that day, at about 3:30 pm, a lady in the neighborhood who people called Nani, came there and informed her that she had saved the child victim from the appellant who was about to sexually assault upon her. Thereafter, she along with Nani returned home, where she questioned the child victim who narrated the entire incident to her. The appellant has escaped meanwhile. Thereafter, she took the child victim to the P.S. and the FIR was lodged. During investigation, child victim was medically examined at SGM Hospital. Statement of the child victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and then under section 16 14 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein she confirmed the act of the appellant.

(3.) Mr. S.B. Dandapani, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution's story is a concocted story as the complainant wanted to get rid of the appellant so that she could remarry some other person; that the complainant deposed in her earlier statement that on an earlier occasion also the appellant had tried to commit sexual assault upon the child victim, yet she did not report the case; that there is no medical evidence to corroborate the sexual assault as alleged by the prosecutrix against the appellant; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the medical opinion of PW-5 (Dr. Rachita, Sr. Gynae) who examined the child victim on 13.05.2014 vide MLC Ex. PW5/A, wherein it was reported that the hymen of the patient was found intact which clearly establishes that no offense of sexual assault had ever taken place on the child victim; that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-9 (Majida 'Nani') on the occurrence of the act.