STATE OF M.P. Vs. HALKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this present appeal, the State counsel assails the judgment of acquittal rendered by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No. 123/2000 on 31st January, 2001 acquitting the sole respondent of the charge u/s 376 (f) IPC for having committed rape against the prosecutrix aged 10 years.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that on 04.07.2000 in the evening when prosecutrix aged 10 years was playing next to the house of her uncle Nirpat, the accused / respondent caught hold of her hand and took her to the roof of house of Nirpat where the respondent committed rape and threatened her of dire consequence, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix being of tender age out of fear do not disclose the said act of the respondent to any one. Two days thereafter when the prosecutrix was having a bath along with her father Munshi Lal (PW-3), near the well, Munshi Lal (PW-3) noticed the prosecutrix to be bleeding. Munshi Lal brought the prosecutrix home and informed his wife Parwati Bai (PW-2) about the injuries caused to the prosecutrix. Parwati Bai took the prosecutrix to a private place and asked her the cause behind the said injury. It was then that the prosecutrix informed her mother about the incident which took place two days back. Mother of the prosecutrix informed her husband about the incident, who in turn informed Roop Singh Thakur. Due to dearth of money, the prosecutrix could not be taken for treatment on the same day but on the next day FIR Ex.P-2 was lodged on 07.07.2000 at 10:00 am and the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on the very same day at 12:15 pm vide Ex.P-3 where Doctor Kirti Madoiya (PW-4) confirmed the incident of rape. The investigation was conducted and necessary legal formalities were completed including arrest of the accused on 13.07.2000. Vaginal swab and other seized items were sent for forensic examination vide Ex.P-11. Vide Ex.P-12 the FSL report was furnished on 04.09.2000 inter alia opining that the article B underwear of the prosecutrix was found to contain traces of semen. Vide Ex.P-4 respondent / accused was subjected to medical examination opiniing that there is nothing to suggest that the respondent is incapable of performing intercourse. Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C . of the prosecution witnesses were recorded including that of the prosecutrix. The charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge u/s 376(2)(f) IPC was framed against the respondent.

(3.) The prosecution produced 5 witnesses i.e. (PW-1), Parwati Bai (PW-2),Munshi Lal(PW-3), Dr. Kirti Madoiya (PW-4), I.M. Quraishi (PW-5). Prosecution also exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P- 13. On the other hand, defence has examined three witnesses namely Bhuribai (DW-1), Shyam lal (DW-2) and Mahendra Singh (DW-3).