DEVAN ALIAS DEVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused, who was charged, tried, found guilty under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default 6 months R.I., has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: a) P.W.2, Elumbi @ Jayalakshmi aged about 10 years is the daughter of P.W.1, Jeyaraman. The accused aged about 20 years belonged to neighbouring village and he used to visit the village of P.W.1 frequently. Thus, the accused was already known to the P.W.2, victim. On 1.11.1996 at about 4.00 p.m. when the young victim was taking bath in a lake, the accused came there and violently committed sexual assault on her. P.W.3, Vasantha, the elder sister of P.W.2, who was carrying food at that time, witnessed the said occurrence and lifted the accused, brought the victim outside and raised alarm. P.W.1, who was in the field nearby, rushed to the place and came to know about the occurrence. b) P.W.1 took P.W.2 to Thandrampet Police Station and lodged a complaint before P.w.8, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.500/1996 under Section 376 I.P.C. Express F.I.R. under Ex.P.7 was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The victim was sent to Government Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, where P.W.7, Doctor who was on duty medically examined her and recorded the statement of P.W.2. On 2.11.1996, P.w.9, the Investigating Officer received a copy of F.I.R, proceeded to the site of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2, Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.8 rough sketch. He recovered the pieces of blood stained rock and sample rock, which were marked as M.Os.1 and 2 under Ex.P.3, mahazar. He examined Ex.P.3 and recorded her statement. The victim was sent by P.w.7 Doctor attached to Thiruvannamalai Government Hospital to Zipmer hospital, Pondicherry for further treatment. She was given further treatment from 2.11.1996 to 7.11.1996. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the Zipmer Hospital and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also P.w.4, who is the mother of victim. On 3.11.1996, the accused was arrested at about 1.00 p.m. and sent for medical examination and he was found to be potent. P.w.9 Investigating Officer recorded the statement of P.w.7 Doctor, who attended the victim. P.w.9 made a requisition under Ex.P.9 to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvannamalai requesting to send the materials for chemical analysis. Accordingly, they were sent for chemical analysis and Ex.P.10 report was also received. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 376(ii)(f) I.P.C.

(3.) In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits and 2 M.Os. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.c. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witness. He denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court on consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, has found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal.