CHATRA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 26/86 convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month in addition. The prosecution case is traceable to a written report lodged by Gulab Chand (PW -2) with the Police Station, Uniara on 4.3.1986 to the effect that on the previous day i.e. 3.3.1986 at about 1:30 p.m., while he was passing by the house of the accused -appellant for going to his well, he heard the cries of a child from inside the house and found the accused standing near Veena, minor daughter of Jagdish Prasad, who was lying in an unconscious state and bleeding from her private parts. It was alleged that on seeing the informant, the appellant who was without his dhoti, ran away there from. The informant stated that on coming out, he found Prabhu Kumhar (PW -10) coming with his camel cart from Banetha, whereupon he (informant) took the victim in his laps, placed her on the camel cart and took her for medical treatment. He stated further that at that point of time, the victim's parents were not present, but her mother Savitri arrived a little later. However, due to want of means of conveyance, information could not be lodged with the police on the very same date. On this information, a case was registered against the appellant under Section 376 IPC, and in course of the investigation, the victim was medically examined. Her wearing apparels as well as a dhoti of the appellant were seized. The vaginal swab and the apparel seized were sent for forensic examination. On the conclusion of the investigation, charge -sheet was laid against the accused -appellant under Section 376 IPC, and he was eventually, made to stand trial as he denied the charge.

(2.) THE prosecution examined several witnesses including Veena, the prosecutrix (PW -1), Gulab Chand (PW -2), Dr. Vasudev Belani (PW -14) who had medically examined the victim, Savitri (PW -3), her mother and Prabhu (PW -10). The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in course of which, he not only denied the charge, but also alleged that he was framed out of a property dispute with the father of the prosecutrix. He examined two witness in support of this plea. By the impugned judgment and order assailed, he was convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) PW -1 Veena, the prosecutrix, recorded her age to be 4 years at the trial and the learned trial court permitted her to be examined after being satisfied that she was in a mental state to understand the implication of the questions to be put to her. It appears from her statement that she was at that stage able to discern the right from the wrong and truth from falsehood. This witness noticeably, on being questioned as to whether anything happened to her vis -a -vis the appellant, kept quiet and did not speak even on repeated insistence.