HABIB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Mohd. Habib, was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rape on a minor girl, Aruna Kumari, on 19th August 1980 at about 2.00 p m. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 . In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant challenges the legality of the judgment dated 11th October 1983, holding him guilty of the above mentioned charges, and also the order of the same date sentencing him.

(2.) The central point to be noticed in this appeal is that the medical evidence falsifies the evidence of the two eye witnesses as well as of the prosecutrix. The appellant, aged 21 years, is alleged to have been arrested at the spot. He was medically examined by Dr. Suresh Kumar of the Police Hospital, Delhi, at 8.35 p.m. on the date of the incident. The medico-legal certificate is Exhibit PA. As the genuineness of this certificate was admitted by the appellant in his statement made on 15th January 1983, Dr.Suresh Kumar was not called to the witness box. It was found that the appellant had three simple injuries, one was on the skull, the second on right thumb and the third on the left hand. His male organ was found to be fully developed, but there was no injury on his penis.

(3.) The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Aruna Behl, Lok Nayak Jaya Prakash Narain Hospital, at 6.00 p.m. The medico-legal certificate prepared by that doctor (Exhibit Public Witness . 8/B) has been proved by Dr. B. Bhattacharya of J.P.N. Hospital as Public Witness . 8. He had taken the X-rays for determination of her bone age on that very day. He opined that she was between 7 to 10 years of age. This witness was not cross-examined at all although an opportunity was granted. The medico-legal certificate (Exhibit P.W. 8/B) shows that there was a bite mark on .the right thigh of the prosecutrix and that her hymen was ruptured. The doctor has not recorded that Aruna Kumari was bleeding from the vagina, nor did she find any bruises, nor any swelling, redness or inflammation.