STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH Vs. SARANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.8.19, around 8.30 P.M. a girl of the age of around 9 years (described by the Medical Officer to be between 6 to 10 years), namely, Sonia P.W.-9, belonging to a poor family living in a hut located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh was sent by her father Sham Lal P.W.-8 to bring a match box from the shop of Sarangi lal respondent, in the neighbourhood. She was allegedly made to lie on the cot and her underwear was removed and Sarangi lal allegedly attempted to commit rape on her. However, since the prosecutrix did not reach home early, her father who had sent her, followed her and found her to he weeping and coming out of the shop of the respondent. Sham Lal along with Gajadhar went to the police Station and on the way he met A.S.I. Partap Singh P.W.-7, near the Slaughter house and made his statement Ex.PK before him a 9.30 P.M. and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PJ/2 was recorded at 10.30 P.M. on the same day. Thereafter the said A.S.I. went to the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PL and sent Sonu P.W.-9 for medico legal examination. The accused was arrested and also medico legally examined.

(2.) As per report of the Forensix Science Laboratory no spermatozoa was found either on the clothes of the accused or the prosecutrix. No injury of any kind was found on the person of Sonu, the prosecutrix. Neither the hymen was fractured, nor any injury on the private part of the girl was found. The investigation of the case was conducted by A.S.I. Partap Singh P.W.-7 within 15 minutes of the informaiton received. There was obviously no eye witness. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused after being charged under Sections 342, 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) There appears to be no denial of the fact that the girl had actually one to the shop of the accused to bring a match-box. This situation is indicated by Gurdev Singh DW 1. However, it is being claimed that in fact after the girl had taken tote match-box, the accused had asked her to send her father in order to pay the balance money because he had been obtaining goods from his shop earlier also on credit. It may be the case that the complainant side had been purchasing goods from the shop of the accused and on many occasions the goods were purchased by the members of the family of the complainant on credit. The case of the accused had been that in fact when the father of the girl came, there was an altercation and some injuries were caused to the accused. He went to the Police Station. He was not heard and rather A.S.I. Partap Singh P.W.-7, who was on duty had an old enmity with him and he avenged the same and involved the accused falsely by persuading the complainant side to bring such a case. Regarding this aspect A.S.I. Partap Singh was cross-examined at length and he denied that he was on duty on the Excise barrier near Chandigarh about six months prior to the present incident. However, he denied for want of knowledge that the accused was also on duty on the said barrier. He also denied that he had any animosity against the accused. It is claimed by the prosecutrix as well as by her father that as soon as Sonu came out of the premises of the accused, she was weeping and that she was taken home. For the first time she narrated the entire incident to her mother in the presence of her father. However the mother of the prosecutrix was not produced in the witness box. From the totality of the cross-examination of A.S.I. Partap Singh P.W.-7 and that of the father of the prosecutrix such a version was put to him that some money was being demanded from him and the story set up by the prosecution witnesses cannot be read out and there could be something in the mind of the Investigating Officer to act in such a manner.