ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') as under: - -

(2.) NOW we advert to the evidence of the prosecutrix, who has appeared as PW6. She was aged 12 years and questioned by the learned Court to ascertain as to whether she comprehended the meaning of oath. She was certified as a person who could comprehend what was being asked. She states that that she was studying in class 7th. On 8.6.2006 she was going to school at Khabil. The school hours were 8 AM to 2 PM. At around 7.45 AM accused Babloo met her on the way. She described the full name of the accused as Arun. She states that the accused caught her arm and asked her to accompany him to the forest and when she refused to do so, he slapped her and dragged her to the forest. He asked her to open her clothes and when she refused, he forcibly removed undressed her. He then removed his pant and committed sexual intercourse with her. She says that she felt pain and bleeding when the accused sexually assaulted her. She raised a hue and cry and the accused disappeared thereafter and she went home. Her parents used to come home late as her father was working as a labourer and mother as a Safai Karamchari in the hospital. She disclosed the incident to her mother. The accused was working in a welding shop near the school and thus she was acquainted with him. She says that she accompanied the police and mother to the house of one Sanjay who was owner of the welding shop where the accused used to work. She identified the accused in Court as the same person who had committed rape on her. She was cross examined by the defence where she admits that she had disclosed the name of Sanjay to her mother.

(3.) ADVERTING to the evidence of PW2 Dr. Sunita Kanwal, we find it very difficult to hold that the prosecutrix was in fact subjected to rape. We cannot persuade ourselves to hold that from the medical examination. that the victim had in fact been raped by the accused. On going through the statement of the prosecutrix, we find that it is not corroborated by the medical evidence that blood etc. was found on the person or clothes of the prosecutrix and on this point the medical evidence contradicts her statement. To this extent we cannot accept the testimony of the prosecutrix.