(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby the respondent, who was charged with an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.
(2.) CASE of the prosecution may be summed up thus. The prosecutrix (PW4), aged about six years, used to live with her maternal grand parents and was a student of Ist Class, at the time of commission of the crime. The date of commission of crime is 18.1.1993. On that date, she had gone to the school. While returning home, around 4.30 p.m., she walked along the path that passes in front of the shop of the respondent. The respondent allured the prosecutrix by offering a candy and took her inside the shop. Then he stripped naked the lower part of her body and also took off his own pant and seated her in his lap. He then forced his male organ into her vagina. This resulted in the bleeding from her vagina. The Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? girl started crying. The respondent then released her. The girl put on her Pajami and proceeded towards her house crying. On the way, at the village well, her Massi (PW5) Veena Devi met her. On being asked the cause of her crying and the appearance of the blood on her Pajami, she narrated the entire incident to her. Her Massi took her to her house, i.e. the house of her (Massi's) father's house. There again the girl narrated the incident to her maternal grandfather Krishan Gopal (PW6). She was immediately taken to the police station by PW6 Krishan Gopal, her grandfather, where FIR Ext.PD was lodged. The girl was got medically examined. PW1 Dr. Manju Mittal, who conducted the medico legal examination on 18th January, 1993 itself, around 7.30 p.m., found presence of dried blood on the thighs and knees of the girl. She also found that the hymen was absent and mucus membrane of posterior vaginal wall was torn. The vagina on examination started bleeding. Secretion from posterior fornix of vagina was collected and slides were prepared. The same were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found no spermatozoa therein. The doctor, based on the report of the Chemical Examiner, gave the opinion that it was difficult to say whether rape had been committed or not, but vaginal injuries were there. The police took into possession Pajami Ext.P1 of the prosecutrix. The accused was arrested and got medically examined on 21st January, 1993 from Dr. K.K. Rattan (PW2). Doctor opined that the respondent was capable for performing the sexual intercourse, though he did not notice any evidence of recent intercourse by him. He noticed the presence of smegma under the prepuce.
(3.) THE trial court acquitted the respondent holding that prosecutrix, per her own deposition, had been tutored to depose against the respondent, there was no definite evidence that the prosecutrix had been raped, it was not proved that the underwear Ext.P2 on which blood and semen were found was in fact of that of the respondent and that in the past, too an attempt had been made by two persons, named Ram Kishan and Hem Raj to falsely implicate the respondent in a rape case, which rendered the explanation of the respondent that he was sought to be falsely implicated in this case also, at the instance of aforesaid two persons, plausible. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record.