S JAISINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal made by the appellant/sole accused in a case of sexual assault before the trial Court wherein he was charged, tried and found guilty under S.376(2) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo 3 months S.I.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case as spelt out by the available materials could be stated as follows: P.W.1 Padma was residing at Door No.18, B Block, M.S.Nagar, Waltax Road, Chennai, as a tenant under P.W.3 Mallika. The daughter of P.W.1 Premavathy, a child of 8 years old was doing her III Standard in the Corporation School at Kondithope. On the date of occurrence namely 20.1.1997 at about 18.00 hours, when she went outside for ablutions, she raised alarm uttering "help, help". On hearing this, P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed and witnessed the occurrence namely the appellant/accused causing sexual assault on the child. P.W.1 proceeded to C3 Police Station and gave a complaint marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of the same, P.W.7 Pandian, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.116/97 under S.376 of I.P.C. Ex.P7 Express F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court. The Investigation Officer took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection, prepared the observation mahazar, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Along with a medical memo, P.W.2 victim was sent for medical examination to Stanley Hospital. She was medically examined by P.W.5 Dr.Dheenadhayaparan at about 2.30 A.M. on 21.1.1997. He medically examined P.W.2 victim and has given the wound certificate marked as Ex.P4. When the victim was enquired by P.W.5 Doctor, she informed that she was alleged to have been injured with the genital organs by some known person at 6.30 P.M. on 20.1.1997 near the address given by her namely her residence. The Investigation Officer recovered M.Os.1 to 3 clothes from P.W.2. At about 10.40 A.M. on 21.1.1997, the accused was arrested. His statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was brought to the Police Station, where M.Os.4 to 6, the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence were recovered under Ex.P3 Mahazar. P.W.7 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. For the purpose of medical examination, the accused was sent to the Stanley Hospital with a requisition under Ex.P8. P.W.6 Dr.Gururaj, on receipt of the direction, medically examined the accused as to the potency. The accused was aged about 20 years, and the certificate to that effect is marked as Ex.P5. P.W.6 has given the medical examination certificate under Ex.P6 and has opined that there was nothing to suggest that the individual was impotent. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet under S.376(2) of the I.P.C. against the appellant/accused.

(3.) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits and 6 material objects. After the evidence of prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to that part of the evidence which is incriminating and prejudicial to his interest, and the accused denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty under S.376(2) of IPC and awarded the punishment as referred to above.