OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kumari Rajni, the prosecutrix in this case is aged about 7 years. She was living with her father Padam Singh in a house adjoining to the house of the accused Om Parkash. As the story goes, on 11.3.1985 at about 8.30 P.M., Rajni was playing outside her house. The accused lured her away to show the television. On that pretext, she was taken to a lonely place. The accused removed his pant as well as the underwear. Seeing this Rajni started weeping. The accused asked her to keep quiet but she did not. Apprehending detection, 0m Parkash lifted a stone lying nearby and hit her on her head. She started bleeding and fell unconscious. After sometime Ram Dass, Public Witness lifted Rajni and brought her in an injured condition to her house. Puran Singh, the maternal uncle of Padam Singh (father of Rajni) made enquiries and reached OM Parkash. 0m Parkash on hearing the complaint ran away from his house. Rajni was immediately taken to Dr. R.K. Sippy, where her injuries were attended to. On the next day, the report was lodged with the Police and on that basis, a formal F.I.R. No. 207 under Sections 307/354/509 and 363 Indian Penal Code was recorded by S.I. Khushi Ram. Rajni was sent to L.N.J.P. Hospital for medical check-up. The Investigating officer moved in the matter, took into possession the blood-stained frock of Rajni, sealed the same in a pulanda, prepared the rough site-plan and on the pointing out of the prosecutrix, the accused was arrested on the same day. The I.O. in due course of time took into possession the birth certificate of Rajni, collected the M.L.C. from Dr. R.K. Sippy, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation filed the challan in the Court. On these facts, the accused was charged to stand trial for the commission of offences under Sections 363/307 and 354 Indian Penal Code . He denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) On consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the the learned lower court believed the prosecution version and convicted 0m Parkash for the offences charged with. He was sentenced to 7 years' R.I. for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code . and 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the offence under Section 363 IPC, and one year R.I. under Section 354 IPC. He was further ordered to undergo one years' R.I. in case of failure to pay fine. However, all the sentences were ordered to run con- currently. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a long gap in the commission of the alleged offence, the information of which was available with the Police and the lodging of the report which throws doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version. He has a point. PW-4, Shri Puran Singh was present in his house, when Ram Dass brought Rajni in an injured condition. He immediately took Rajni to Dr. R.K. Sippy for medical aid. Dr. R.K. Sippy appeared as PW-2 and admitted having examined Rajni and given the first-aid. As it was a medico legal case, he advised Puran Singh to take her to the hospital. It is his further case that immediately thereafter, he telephoned the Police which arrived at his clinic. The Police Officer took the child from his clinic alongwith her relations. He also handed over the clothes of Rajni to the Police at that time. The version of PW-9, Inspector Niranjan Singh, on the other hand, is that on 12.3.1985 at about 10.40. A.M. Puran Singh alongwith the girl came to the Police Post Prasad Nagar and got recorded the statement Ex. PW-4/A. The I.O. made his endorsement PW-4/9A and sent the same to the Police Station Karol Bagh for registration of the case. The I.O. there and then prepared the injury sheet of the prosecutrix and sent her to JPLN Hospital for check-up.