RAHUL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Smt. Madeena a married lady who is the daughter in law of the complainant is said to be deaf and dump. She had gone to collect the grass for the animals in the field. Present accused applicant is said to have committed rape upon her which has been witnessed by the other companions of the victim, who had gone there to collect the grass, were collecting the same in different directions at some distance. The report was made to the police station but they tried to minimize the offence and challaned the accused applicant in an Excise Act and later on released him on bail. However, the F.I.R. was registered under section 376 I.P.C. on active effort made by the complainant.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in jail since 3.8.10. Prosecutrix is the mother of two issues and is aged about 40 to 45 years. F.I.R. is belated by 10 days. Investigating Officer says that he has recorded her statement which was not possible in view of the fact that the prosecutrix is admittedly deaf and dump. The prosecutrix had volunteered to the medical examination after 2 days of the lodging of the report. About his false implication, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that applicant is carpenter and some labour charge was due on the complainant. When he demanded the labour charge, he was falsely implicated in this case.