ROHTASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of two connected Criminal Appeal Nos. 257 -SB of 1992 and 260 -SB of 1992. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 257 -SB of 1992 has been filed by Rohtas, who has since been held guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years as also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one year, other appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 260 -SB of 1992 has been filed by Smt. Kashmiri, who has since been held guilty under Section 366 -A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years as also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - or in default thereof, to further undergo RI for six months vide order of con viction and sentence dated 15.7.1992 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Accused Dharamwati, who was also tried along with the appellants, was, however, acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt.

(2.) THE occurrence of kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix, Geeta, is stated to have taken place on 8.10.1991, FIR, with regard to which came to be lodged by her father Sher Singh, which was recorded by Hari Chand, SI, PW 13 and formal FIR, on the basis of which came into being on the same day.

(3.) IN her cross -examination, she stated that there were stains on the salwar of the prosecutrix but she could not say if those were semenal stains or patient's own discharge. This fact, she, however, stated could be ascertained by the Chemical Examiner. The prosecutrix could be habitual of enjoying sexual intercourse and in her opinion there may or may not be possibility of rape as there was no sign visible of any injury. She further stated that she had not advised the investigating agency for determination of her age radiologically. It is admitted position during the course of arguments that there was no occasification test to determine the age of the prosecutrix.