MAHENDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC, Mahender challenges the impugned judgment dated 26th March, 2014 and the order on sentence dated 28th March, 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000.00.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Mahender contends that there was delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged the incident took place on 12th Feb., 2011 and the FIR was lodged on 15th Feb., 2011. There was no allegation of rape in the FIR. The allegation surfaced for the first time in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. on 5th March, 2011. Thus, the allegation of rape is an afterthought. There are contradictions with respect to the date of incident as PW-5, father of the prosecutrix, initially stated that the alleged incident took place on 26th Jan., 2011 and later on he stated that it took place on 5th March, 2011. The CFSL report does not support the prosecution case as it does not link Mahender with the alleged offence. As per the medical examination, no fresh injury was found on the prosecutrix. Thus, the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. It is admitted by the prosecutrix and her family members in the cross-examination that there was previous enmity between her father and Mahender. The defense witnesses have deposed that the relations between the appellant and father of the prosecutrix were inimical, fortifying that the appellant has been falsely implicated.

(3.) Per contra learned APP for the State submits that the testimony of PW-1 prosecutrix coupled with the testimony of PW-2 Dr. Arti proves the prosecution case. As per the MLC, the hymen was found to be ruptured, thus, fortifying the factum of rape. Further from the testimony of PW-10, Dr. P. Arioli, the age of prosecutrix stands proved and she was minor at the time of incident. Mahender has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code on the basis of oral evidence and the circumstantial evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction or order on sentence.