BANSPATI MANGAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The case for the prosecution was that on September 21, 1961, when Sm. Lalli after taking bath in the river was passing by the field of one Kedar, the appellant caught hold of her, took her in, the field, threw her on the ground and forcibly committed rape on her. After he spent himself, he allowed the girl to go. She started for her home crying. On the way she related the matter to Mst. Chhoti (P. W. 3) whom she met first and on reaching home, to her mother Mst. Mugia (P. W. 1). She was medically examined but the doctor found no marks of injury on her private parts, although three abrasions were noticed on her back.

(2.) THE first and foremost question in this appeal is whether the appellant actually committed rape on Lalli. Ordinarily, corroboration of the woman raped must be looked for but that is not an absolute rule and if the Court is completely satisfied with her evidence, it is open to it to convict the accused even on her uncorroborated testimony. (See observations in Sidheshwar Ganguli v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 143). In the present case, so far as the allegation of rape is concerned, there is the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. On carefully going through her evidence and the vivid description of how the accused had carnal knowledge of her, it does not appear that this was her first experience of sex life. Dr. Kamran (P. W. 5) also stated in his report that her hyman was found torn in small tags. He stated in Court that in his opinion the girl was accustomed to sex life. There were no blood or seminal stains on any part of her body. In her statement she says that the boy had placed her body on his legs and was keeping one of his hand on her back so that she might not be drowned in the pond. She also says that when she wanted to raise an alarm, the accused put his hand on her mouth. The boy himself is a lad of 20 years and the girl is said to be of about 14. It is difficult to believe that single handed, a boy of this age would be able to forcibly rape a girl of 14, all the more so when she comes from the labour class. (See observations in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, 13th Edition, at p. 325), In the absence of any marks of violence on her private parts and having regard to the circumstances stated above, it is not possible to believe the prosecution story as given out by the prosecutrix.

(3.) BEFORE I leave this case, I must observe that in every case of rape or kidnapping, for the matter of that, the age of the prosecutrix must be positively established. Thorough medical examination should be resorted to for that purpose and all other evidence which may be available must be brought before the Court. In this case there is no evidence of X -ray examination in spite of the suggestion in the doctor's certificate. If I had come to the conclusion that the accused actually had intercourse with the girl, then having regard to the attending circumstances it would have been also possible to hold that it was a case of her consent and the question of her age would have assumed great importance.