STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHANDRAKANT @ CHARKHI SHANKARRAO SETARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order dated 30.4.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1986, acquitting the present respondent - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 376, 342 and 352 of IPC.

(2.) IT is the the prosecution case that the prosecutrix Madina was residing at with her father Rasulbhai Ganibhai Shikh (complainant) at Baroda along with her family, on the date of incident i.e on 01.04.1986 her father had gone to the factory for his usual work, her mother had also left the house for some personal work, in short prosecutrix (victim) Madina was present at her house along with her brother and at around 4 O'clock accused had come at the house of Madina and accused managed to send away the brother of Madina out under the pretext of buying the toffees for them, therefore, Madina was left alone in her house and accused caught hold of her and against her will and consent, accused had ravished Madina, meanwhile, the brother of Madina had returned from the toffees shop and they had seen Madina was standing near the vada and she was weeping. Thereafter, on seeing her weeping, a crowd was gathered and PSI of the nearest Police Station was informed about the accurance of the incident and, therefore, PSI Shri Katara immediately registered a complaint given by the father of the prosecutrix, Rasulbhai and immediately the complainant was directed to go to the hospital along with prosecutrix for examining her, and she was examined by the doctor on 2.4.1986 by the Medical Officer of SSG Hospital, Baroda, then accused was arrested on 6.4.1986 then, investigation was carried out, chargesheet was filed, case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, charge was framed and as the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, after full -fledged trial all the accused persons were acquitted. Against the said acquittal, the State Government has preferred the present appeal against the accused person.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned APP Ms. Mita Panchal appearing for the State that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence viz. P.W.7, Medical officer Dr. Uday Purandara below Exh. 20, PW -1, Complainant Rasulbhai (father of the prosecutrix) below exh. 13 PW -2 Madina Prosecutrix aged between 9 to 12 years (minor) exh. 14 and PW -3, Ramzan Rasulbhai, brother of prosecutrix, exh. 15 PW -4 Laxmansinh Katara, PSI who invested the matter below exh.16 to establish the case of prosecution and as per the medical evidence and certificate issued by the Medical Officer after examining prosecutrix Madina exhibited as exhibit 21 at page no. 57 two injuries were found on prosecutrix though she was examined on the next day i.e on 2.4.1986 and so far as accused is concerned, he was arrested after 5 days, therefore, though he was examined by the same officer and certificate issued below exh. 22, according to the said doctor he found once scar over the forehead of accused person even after five days and the same doctor has also issued a certificate indicating the age of the girl and according to him, she was aged around between 9 to 12 years undisputedly minor, therefore, accepting the version of the complainant, a prosecutrix and a Medical Officer deposition, the learned Judge ought to have convicted the accused person for the aforesaid offence.