NAGAM GANGADHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioner was charged under Section 376, IPC for sexually assaulting P.W. 3, Karuna, aged four years and convicted thereunder the sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default, to undergo S.I. for two months in S.C. No. 59/92 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, and his appeal to the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, Crl. A. No. 12/94 having been dismissed by judgment dated 13-12-1995, he is before this Court under Section 397, Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 5-2-1988 at about 12.00 noon P.W. 3, Karuna was taken by the revision-petitioner, a resident of the opposite house, on the pretext of playing. Subsequently, she came out weeping and her private parts were bleeding and she told her mother that she was raped. The mother was aghast at the scene and raised hue and cry. The neighbours gathered and found bleeding from the private parts of Karuna and entered the house of the revision-petitioner and found a bed sheet and towel spread on the floor with blood-stains. The revision-petitioner was present and his lungi was also smeared with blood. In the meantime, father of the victim reached his house. The mother in turn informed her husband who lodged a report at Police Station, Morthad, where a case in Crime No. 7/88 under Section 376, IPC was registered and investigated. The victim was referred to a Civil Hospital for examination and treatment and P.W. 5, Dr. Kantha Devi examined her and issued Ex. P. 8. The Investigating Officer seized blood-stained underwear of the victim and conducted panchanama at the scene of offence and the blood-stained bed sheet and towel were seized. The revision-petitioner was arrested and his lungi was seized and he was also referred to the Hospital for examination and P.W. 7, Dr. A. Lakshma Reddy issued Ex. P. 9 medical certificate to the effect that the tip of penis called prenum was having a cut and it is possible due to forcible intercourse with a virgin girl and that there is echymosis. With the above material, a charge sheet has been filed against the revision-petitioner alleging that he committed rape on a four year girl, Karuna and he is liable under Section 376, IPC. A charge was accordingly framed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The revision-petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all and got Exs. P. 1 to P. 10 and M.Os. 1 to 4 marked. P.W. 1, Gangaram is the father of the victim and the de facto complainant and he narrated the incident as gathered from his wife and as observed by himself that there was bleeding in her things and the underwear was drenched with blood and on his enquiry, the victim told him that the revision-petitioner took her to his house and did something (meaning 'rape') and she was getting pain in her private parts. He further testified that he immediately went to the house of the revision-petitioner and found blood-stains on the bed and that he caught hold of him and took him to M.R.O. Office and thereafter he went to the Police Station and lodged Ex. P. 1, report P.W. 2, Paske Raju is a neighbour and deposed that on the date of occurrence she was sitting in front of her house at about 12.00 noon and that she found the victim coming from the house of the revision-petitioner weeping and her mother raised hue and cry. It is also in her evidence that herself, Muthyamma and Posani went there and found blood-stains on the underwear of the victim and she stated that the revision-petitioner raped her and thereupon they all went to the house of the revision-petitioner and found blood-stains on his lungi. P.W. 3, Karuna is the victim. On the date of her evidence, she was studying IV class and aged nine years and she gave a vivid narration of the incident. She testified that the revision-petitioner took her to his house stating that she would give some nuts removed her underwear and raped her and she had bleeding from her private parts and also plain. P.W. 4, A. Lachanna is a Panch in whose presence the scene of offence was observed and it was found that the bed-sheet and a towel were having blood-stains and the same were seized under a panchanama. P.W. 5, Dr. Kantha Devi, is Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, at the relevant time and she examined the victim and found that she was irritable and restless, there was tenderness of genital area, abrasion on the private parts and that the vulva was admitting one finger and in cross-examination she has ruled out the possibility of the above injury being caused by scratching or by mosquito. P.W. 6, Y. Chinna Marrenna is a Panch for seizure of blood-stained lungi and underwear of the revision-petitioner. P.W. 7, Dr. A. Lakshma Reddy is the concerned Deputy Civil Surgeon, who examined the revision-petitioner and found a tear on the prenum (tip of penis) and he opined that it is possible due to forcible intercourse with a virgin girl. P.W. 8, M. A. Rahman is the Investigating Officer. That is all the oral evidence.

(3.) Ex. P. 1 is the earliest report lodged by P.W. 1 and it was received in the Magistrate's Court at 5.15 p.m. on the same day. Ex. P. 2 is panchanama of the scene of occurrence showing that there were blood-stains on the bed-sheet and a towel. Ex. P. 3 is the rough sketch of scene of occurrence. Ex. P. 4 is panchanama of seizure of blood-stained clothes of the victim. Ex. P. 5 is the panchanama of seizure of blood-stained lungi of the revision-petitioner. Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 are chemical examiner's reports showing that items 1 to 4 (underwear of victim, bed-sheet of the accused, towel of the accused and lungi of the accused) contained human blood. Ex. P. 8 is the case sheet maintained by P.W. 5 for treatment of P.W. 3, Karuna and the injuries found by P.W. 5 are recorded therein. Ex. P. 9 is requisition to examine the revision-petitioner and on the reverse the injuries noted by P.W. 7 are recorded. Ex. P. 10 is the printed F.I.R. It was issued on the same day at about 2.00 p.m. and reached the Magistrate's Court at about 5.15 p.m.