KAMAL SINGH @ TINGU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Having attempted to commit rape and sodomy on a small child of nine years, having been convicted for offences under Sections 363, 376/511 and 377/511 IPC, vide judgment dated 03.03.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Bhilwara, the appellant, Kamal Singh, has approached this Court.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that Mahesh Chandra Sharma (P.W.2) submitted a written report at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, wherein he claimed that at 9:00 PM, he looked for his daughter, the prosecutrix (name withheld), as it was time for her to have milk. However, he could not find her. Therefore, he asked the children, who were playing outside his house, about her whereabouts. Poonam (P.W.7) told that Kamal Singh, the appellant, aged about 20-22 years, who lives opposite his house, has taken his daughter. She had seen them near the Balaji Temple around 8:30 PM. He collected his neighbour's son, Yogendra Nagar, with hire, they went towards the Balaji Temple. They saw Kama[ Singh walking with his daughter. The moment they saw him, he left the prosecutrix and ran away towards the water-works. His daughter told him that Kamal Singh had enticed her, taken her behind the bushes, he took off the clothes, lay her down, and tried to put his male organ into both her private parts and in her anus, and he put his penis in her mouth. He also threatened her. The child is still crying out of her sheer fear. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.615/2007, was registered for offences under Sections 363, 376/511 IPC. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 376, 377/511 IPC.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, and submitted eleven documents. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant pleaded that his father, who tends to drink, had fought with Mahesh Chandra Sharma, the complainant. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the defence neither produced any witness, nor submitted any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC and was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and was further directed to undergo three months' simple imprisonment in default thereof. He was also convicted for offence under Section 376/511 IPC and was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, and was further directed to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment in default thereof. Lastly, he was convicted for offence under Section 377/511 IPC and was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,500/-, and was directed to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Hence, this appeal before this Court.