DASHRATHBHAI MANABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) against judgment dated March 24, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at Anand, in Sessions Case No.181 of 1999, by which the appellant is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, & 376 r.w.sec.511 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, S.I. for six months.

(2.) In view of decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Dev, 2003 A.I.R. SCW 6947, we do not propose to mention name of the victim. The age of the victim on the date of incident was 5 years. The parents of the victim are residing at village Kunjrav, Taluka : Anand. The name of her father is Dineshbhai Rameshbhai Patel. The victim has one brother. On 30th May, 1998, the victim was playing with her brother and friends Jigisha and Sagar near Ramji Mandir. At that time, accused by enticing/inducing the victim to have ice, took the victim in the field wherein lemon trees were grown to rape her. The move was resisted by little girl. Therefore, she was beaten by the appellant and made to lie on the ground. Thereafter the accused removed his pant and after removing knickers of the victim, inserted his private organ in the vagina of the victim. Therefore, Jigisha and her brother went to call parents of the victim leaving victim alone with the accused. On receiving information, the father of the victim i.e. Dineshbhai along with one Ashwinbhai came to the field and on seeing them, the accused ran away. The victim was taken to hospital where she was treated by Dr.Rakeshkumar Avasthi. Thereafter complaint came to be filed at Khambhoraj Police Station against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 323 & 511 of I.P.C. The complaint was reduced into writing by PSI Mr. K.S.Thakor of Khambhoraj Police Station and sent to Anand Police Station for further action. Investigation of the case was conducted by Ramsinhbhai Dalsukhbhai Chaudhary, Circle Police Inspector of Anand. He drew panchnama of place of incident which was pointed out by the victim as well as by the complainant. He also attached clothes worn by the victim at the time of incident. The appellant was arrested on the very day i.e. 30th May, 1998 and was sent for medical examination. The clothes put on by the appellant were also seized. The investigating officer recorded statements of the victim, complainant and other persons who were found conversant with the facts of the case. On completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted of the offences punishable under Section 363, 376, 323 & 511 of I.P.C. in the Court of learned 3rd Jt.Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand. As the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Anand, for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Case No.181 of 1999.

(3.) The learned Judge to whom the case was made over for trial framed charge against the appellant at Exh.4 of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 r.w.sec.511 of I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined (i) Dr.Rakeshkumar Avasthi, as PW.1 Exh.7, (ii) the victim as PW.2 Exh.13, (iii) Complainant Dineshbhai Rameshbhai as PW.3 Exh.14, (iv) Narendrabhai Chunibhai as PW.4 Exh.16 (panch witness of seizure of clothes of prosecutrix), (v) Jayantibhai Bhikhabhai as PW.5 Exh.18 (vi) Shashikant Gordhanbhai as PW.6 Exh.20, (vii) Ramsinhbhai Dalsukhbhai Chaudhary (Investigating Officer) as PW.7 Exh.23, to prove its case against the appellant. The prosecution had also produced documentary evidence, such as, complaint of father of the victim at Exh.15, injury certificate of the victim at Exh.8, injury certificate of the accused-appellant at Exh.9, panchnama of person of the victim at Exh.17, panchnama of seizure of clothes of the accused at Exh.19 and panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.21, in support of its case against the appellant.