JAGDISH SON OF CHANDAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution version is that one Darshana Kumari daughter of Mahabir aged about 7 years and resident of Bharan went to the field at 5 P.M. on 16.9.1988 to fetch fodder. The accused Surja was also collecting fodder, he called her to help him to tie and lift the fodder. She went inside the field and that she was caught hold of by the accused and he made her fall on the ground. Thereafter, he broke open the cord of her Salwar with one hand put his other hand on her mouth. She was raped by the accused. She became unconscious and started bleeding from her private part. After sometime when she regained consciousness she started crying. It is at that time, her father came there and took her back to the house. Thereafter, she was taken to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. She was medically examined and was administered medical treatment accordingly. SI Sher Singh of Police Station. Meham reached the Hospital upon intimation and recorded her statement at 3 P.M. on 17.9.1988. Consequently, the FIR was registered. The accused was arrested and he was medically examined. Upon completion of investigation the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rohtak who committed the accused vide order dated 3.1.1989. A charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 376 against the accused was put to him on 16.1.1989. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) The prosecution has examined Dr. Kamla Singh as PW1 who has deposed that on 16.9.1988 at 9.30 P.M., the prosecutrix was medically examined. She found one bluish mark below the mid of the left lower eye lid. Upon examination of her private parts she found that there were very few scantly soft brownish public hair. The vulva was inflamed reddish and tender. Libia Majora was inflamed and clotted blood was present all around the area on its anterior aspect. On libia minora there was laceration at 8 O'clock position measuring 1.5 cm x .2 cm x .2 cm and it bled profusely during examination. On slight touch, there was bleeding from the vagina. There was tenderness and even a little finger was not admissible. The witness took vaginal smears, swabs and that the salwar having multiple stains was taken into custody. All were sealed and handed over to the police for onwards transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The doctor has also stated that on the same day the prosecutrix had been examined under anaesthesia at 2.30 P.M.. She found the hymen was torn and dark clotted blood was present at introitus. Upon removal of clots, fresh bleeding ensued. There was a tear on the right lateral wall of vagina 4 cm deep to the introitus. The cuts were stitched and bleeding was controlled. These facts were noted down on the bed ticket and the statement has been made by the doctor upon perusal of the same.

(3.) The prosecutrix was infact admitted on 17.9.1988 at 8.30 A.M. by Dr. Sant Ram who appeared as PW3. He has deposed that since it was a case of rape the prosecutrix was required to be examined by the doctor from Gynaecology Department.