PAPURIA RAJESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 6.8.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicting the appellant-accused under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment of six months.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that on 7th April, 1993 in the after-noon, the appellant asked the prosecutrix Seema who was grazing her cattle that her cattle has entered the field of the accused. It is then alleged that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix by forcibly ravishing her in his field. The prosecutrix, thereafter left the place and reported the matter to her mother who in turn informed her husband, who took her for medical examination and lodged F.I.R. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused and he was prosecuted as aforesaid under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in support of the case that the accused was responsible for ravishing the prosecutrix. The accused denied the deposition of the witnesses in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Cr. P.C. and has stated that the entire evidence against him is false. The report was lodged due to prior animosity between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix, he has stated that the father of the prosecutrix has passed a writing on a stamp paper stating that the injury to the private parts of the prosecutrix was caused due to fall in the field while she was running away to escape thrashing by the accused for unauthorised entry of the cattle in the field of the accused. The accused has also examined 5 witnesses in his defence. All these five witnesses said that the charge of accused having committed rape was false and that the prosecutrix was injured due to fall while running in the field. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of having committed rape on the. prosecutrix who is only 9 years old. In consonance with these findings of the guilt, the learned Judge proceeded to convict the accused for 7 years imprisonment as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction which is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the judgment is unsustainable in law for the following reasons;