BALRAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balram accused-appellant was convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, for the commission of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having raped Smt. Bimla prosecutrix around 7.30 A.M. on October 22, 1984, in his agricultural field.

(2.) The prosecutrix gave her age as 15 or 16 bears on the date of the occurrence. It is, however, in evidence that she was married 8 years prior thereto. It cannot, therefore, be believed that she was married when she was only 7 years of age. It would not be out of place to mention here that she was asked to appear for ossification test for getting her age assessed from the medical expert but she did not turn up to have this test performed. It can, therefore, be safely presumed that her age would have been found to be much more than the age of consent, contemplated in the Criminal Law, if she had appeared for ossification test by the medical expert.

(3.) Besides it, Dr. (Mrs.) R.K. Grover, PW 1, who medically examined the prosecutrix on October 22, 1984, did not find any marks of struggle or resistance on her person nor was any sign of mud detected on her person or clothes worn by her which could justify the allegation of digging or throwing her on the ground in the agricultural field before the commission of the nefarious act of rape on her person by the accused.