IN RE: MYILSAMI ALIAS MYLAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Myilsami alias Mylan appeals against his conviction for an offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) P .W. 1 deposes that on or about the 5th day of June, 1968, at about 5 p.m. in the sugarcane field of Raju Chettiar the appellant committed rape on her. She is a minor girl who is more than 13 years and less than 14 years. She says she knew the accused who has his own lands 3 fields away from her fields. The appellant was cultivating his land. On the 5th day of June, 1968, she went to graze cattle on the morning as usual. At about 5 p.m. the appellant came from the east. He questioned her if she snatched a sugarcane. He pulled her by hand. She tried to extricate herself. He lifted her and took her into the sugarcane field, laid her on the ground removed her saree and pavadai and laid himself on her. He removed his dhoti, pressed his male organ on her female organ and pressed it inside. The male organ did not go inside. It went only a little. She did not bear the pain. He did all that he could do. P.W. 1 raised a cry. He caught hold of her throat and pressed. At that juncture P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and Rangaswami Chettiar (not examined) came. They have lands next to her land. At that crucial time the accused was still lying on her. Seeing them, he attempted to run. The accused was caught by them. The accused caught hold of her breast and squeezed the same. There are nail marks on her breast. He forcibly had committed intercourse. P.W. 1 attempted to extricate herself but could not. There were nail marks on her breast and hands. She did not see what happened to her private parts. She felt pain in her private parts. Her father and mother came and asked her. She told them what happened. Her mother took her home. The other persons held the accused. Then her father, P.W. 5, and other witnesses took the accused to the police station. The head constable (P.W. 8) seized her clothes, M.Os. 1, 2 and 3. She was taken to the doctor, P.W. 2 who examined her.

(3.) IT is suggested in the course of the cross -examination of P.W. 1 that it was usual for her to climb on the bull and ride it at the time of grazing. A faint attempt has been made in developing this alternative theory for explaining the injury on her private parts by the defence. But the suggestion itself lacks substance. It is also suggested to P.W. 1 that because the appellant charged her with having stolen sugarcane, her father P.W. 5 after consultation with P.Ws. 3, 4 etc., has given a belated complaint. I find no useful material in favour of the innocence of the accused from the entire cross -examination. I am of the view that the evidence of P.W. 1 remains absolutely unshaken.