SANJAY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28/30.5.1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months and further directing that the fine of Rs. 3000/-, if realised shall be paid to the prosecutrix Rajwanti.

(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution on 20.8.1990, at about 6 p.m., Rajwanti prosecutrix aged about 10-12 years was guarding the guava trees as her father had taken the guava garden on contract when in the meanwhile accused Sanjay came there and caught hold of her by her arm and took her inside his sugarcane fields and there he opened the string of her salwar and put her on the ground and thereafter after removing his pajama, he inserted his organ inside her vagina and while doing so he had placed his hand on her mouth to prevent her from shouting and in this manner he committed rape on her. As a result of the sexual intercourse committed by the accused upon her forcibly, she started bleeding profusely from her vagina and also became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she came to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to her mother Smt. Bimla and her father Ram Kumar and they convened a Panchayat but of no avail. Thereafter, on 22.8.1990, Rajwanti prosecutrix accompanied by her parents lodged the report with the police which was duly signed by Rajwanti, who was a student of second class. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer got Rajwanti medico-legally examined. The case was investigated by the police. After completion of investigation the challan was submitted against the accused. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Thereafter the prosecution examined its witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he had been implicated on account of previous enmity, inasmuch as his father had land dispute with Hazari and Ram Kumar and on that account he had been falsely implicated in this case. He examined DW-1 Dr. Mrs. Asha Arora and DW-2 Ram Niwas, Sarpanch.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.