ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Kishangarhwas, Distt. Alwar, dated 15-12-1988 whereby he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec. 376, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one year's RI.

(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the accused was a Teacher in Government Primary School, Jhiwana. He was charged for committing rape on his own student Ku. Mithlesh aged 11-12 years in school premises on 30th April, 88 in the Noon at 1'O Clock. He, therefore, was tried for offence under Sec. 376 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after thoroughly discussing the evidence came to this conclusion that case of the prosecution is established beyond all manners of reasonable doubt and it was none other than the accused who committed rape on Ku. Mithlesh aged about 11 to 12 years. Her statement was found to have been corroborated by the medical evidence available. He filed the appeal against his conviction and sentence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction of the accused on the ground that since the accused has not sustained any injury and there are no marks of violence, then it cannot, be said that it is a case of rape. His further submission is that her statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence to the effect that no injuries on the private parts of the accused have been detected. We are unable to be persuaded by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in as much as the circumstances in which girl had been found virtually senseless in the school premises by her relatives, coupled with her own statements and medical evidence a very strong convincing evidence is available on record. There is no warrant to arrive at a conclusion other than what the trial Court has arrived. We find no justification after going through the entire evidence to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court.