SHIV NANDAN @ DABBOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 478 of 2001.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, a written report dated 06.09.2001, Exh.ka-1 was given at Police Station, Udaipur, District, Pratapgarh by the complainant, P.W. 1, Ram Naresh stating that when he came back from Ayodhya along with his wife on 5.8.2001, his daughter Vimla Devi, aged about 20 years told him that on 4.8.2001 at about 6:30 pm when she was returning back home from the flourmill of Lal Bahadur, on the way the appellant/accused came from behind and gagged her and laid her forcibly on the ground and raped her. On raising alarm, his younger daughter Sheela and his sister Foolgenda reached at the spot. The accused appellant threatened them that if the incident would be revealed to anyone else, he would finish the family. It is relevant to mention that the prosecutrix, the daughter of the complainant accompanied him to the police station on 6.08.2001 for lodging the F.I.R.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Case Crime No. 53 of 2001, Exh. ka-2 under section 376 read with section 506(2) IPC was registered at the Police Station on 06.08.2001 at 05:45 P.M. The prosecutrix was examined on 07.08.2001 by Dr. C.K. Jaiswal and the medical report of her examination is exhibit Ka-6. On 09.08.2001, on the basis of the X-ray report, Dr. C.K. Jaiswal prepared supplementary report, Exh. Ka-7, X-ray report prepared by Dr. S.C. Mishra is exhibited as Exh. Ka-5. The prosecutrix had menstruation 6 days earlier to the date of alleged incident, however, no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix was found. Neither bleeding was noticed nor was there any sign of discharge and it was opined that she was used to have sexual intercourse as her vagina easily admitted two fingers. On the basis of the said report, the age of the prosecutrix was determined to be around 19 years. Doctor could not give opinion regarding the rape of the prosecutrix. Neither any external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.PC before the magistrate.