CHINNA RAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is aged about 26, a married man and father of a child, faced a charge of having committed rape on a tender child aged about 4 year. As per the charge, on 15.02.2002 at 11 P.M., the appellant has taken away the victim girl, who was sleeping in front of the house of PW-1 on a cot, to a nearby neighbour's house and at the low-lying area there, committed rape on her causing bleeding injuries on the private part and umbilicus; thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. When initially questioned, the accused denied his involvement in the offence and thereupon, trial against him was taken up by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in Sessions Case No.136 of 2002. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 10, marked Exs.P1 to P17 and produced MOs. 1 to 5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved over such order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in a nut-shell, as projected by its witnesses, runs thus:-

(3.) WE have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions advanced on either side. No doubt, the appellant has committed a heinous and grave crime on a tender girl child, who was aged about 4 year at that time. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 11 P.M. on the fateful day. By 8 P.M., PWs-1 and 2 left the child sleeping on a cot in front of the residence while the daughter and wife of PW-1 had gone to a nearby house for watching T.V. Programme. Finding that the victim girl was left alone and sleeping outside the residence and using such opportunity, the accused took away the child to a nearby place and committed the offence. PWs-1 and 2 narrated the occurrence in a natural manner viz., at the time when they returned back, they found the child missing and they were searching for her with the help of a torch light and after hearing the cry of the child, reached the scene of occurrence and found her with bleeding injuries. At that time, they saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence and when the victim was questioned initially, she has stated that the accused bit at her umbilicus and had done something near the private part. Soon after the apprehension of the accused by the villagers, he had confessed the act committed by him and further stated that he was fond of girls and therefore, he carried away the child to commit such act. Thus, it is clear that the occurrence took place at about mid-night time and the witnesses were hurrying from one place to another for medical treatment of the victim and immediately after admitting the child at the Government Hospital, PW-1 returned to the village and went to the police station to lodge a complaint. Therefore, the delay occurred in lodging the complaint cannot be said to be a serious lapse so as to affect the prosecution case. Insofar as the commission of the offence and causation of injuries on the victim by the accused are concerned, we again point out that such aspect has been proved not only through the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 but also through Pws-4 and 5, who are independent witnesses in the village. They have also accompanied PWs-1 and 2 in searching the child and found the victim with injuries and the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. Since it is a small hamlet, they could not get proper medical assistance, however, PW-6, a homeopathy Doctor, after giving first aid, advised the victim to be taken to the nearby Government Hospital. On examination, PW-7 noticed injury Nos.1 to 5 and subsequently has given her opinion to the effect that the injuries could have been caused in the manner as put forth by the prosecution. On a close scrutiny and marshalling of evidence, we are of the firm opinion that such injuries have been caused on the victim only by the accused and the accused alone and therefore, we could not persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court as far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In that regard, the prosecution version is both truthful and credible. WE are clearly of the view that the appellant had taken away the victim with a view to outrage her modesty and further sexually and indecently assaulted her, resulting in grievous injuries.