CHOTU MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 3.1.1992 whereby he has convicted the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years R.1. with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.1.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the Case are that one Mst. Sita and gone on the field situated at Bijepur on 22.1.1990 at about 4-5 in the evening where accused Chotu committed rape on her. On seeing the incident Kailashi, younger sister of the prosecutrix Came to house and narrated the story to the mother. Thereupon parents of the prosecutrix reached the place of occurrence where they saw that Sita was weeping bitterly and blood was coming out of her private part. The parents of Mst. Sita narrated the whole incident to the villagers but the accused obstructed them in lodging the report and getting the girl medically examined. On 23.1.1990, the father of the prosecutrix in the early, morning lodged a report of the said incident at P.S. Gulabpura where case was registered against the petitioner vide Ex. P.1 and investigation was started. Site inspection memo Ex. P-9 was prepared. Chaddi and Pachejat were seized vide Ex. P-b and Ex. P-11. The accused appellant was arrested on 23.1.1990 vide Ex. P-12. Mst. Sita was medically examined vide Ex. P-2. The Doctors report is Ex. P-3 and the accused appellant was also medically examined vide Ex. P-S and Ex. P-6, F.S.L. report was received vide Ex. P-15. After due investigation a challan was filed against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses and also produced some documents. No defence witness was produced by the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant he submitted that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellant as the accused has been falsely implicated. He also submitted that no semen was detected and medical evidence also does not support the prosecution fuse. He further submits that at the most it was a consent case. Mr. Gupta has also assailed the finding of the Sessions Judge on the count that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix below 16 years.