MAHADEVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence and fine imposed against him.

(2.) The facts leading to the conviction, briefly stated are that Tari aged 10 years daughter of Khesha Purohit resident of Kuda Dhevecha was returning to home at 3.30 p.m. on 9-4-94 after day's work in the field of Moti. Tari was passing near the field of Narayan that the appellant came from behind and caught her, fell her on the ground and the appellant committed rape upon her. She raised a cry and Baga PW 6 approached there and challenged the appellant. The appellant ran away. Baga PW 6 saw that the vagina of Tari was bleeding with semen. He brought Tari to home narrated the incident to her mother Jhini P.W. 2. Tari also told to her mother about the incident. Jhini also saw the 'Chaddi' in torn condition and bleeding from vagina with semen and blood and semen stains on the under garment. The father of the prosecutrix Tari had gone to Tiloda who was called from there in the morning and the whole incident was also narrated to him. Prema uncle of the prosecutrix Tari lodged first information report Ex. P-1 at Police Station, Bagoda on 10-4-94 at 9 p.m. A case under Section 376 IPC was registered and the investigation began against the appellant. Shri Shaitansingh investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and seized peices of broken bangles. He prepared the site memo and site map on 11-4-94 which Ex. P-9 and Ex. P. 10. The garment of Tari i.e. 'Nicker' bearing blood and semen stains was also taken and sealed by Ex. P-11. Kum. Tari was medically examined on 11-4-94 for injuries on person and her age. Her rediological age was more than 10 years and less than 12 years. Injuries on her private parts were present. Posterior fissure was torn right to middle side irregular extending to left. Hyman was torn posteriorly and it was inflamed and tender. Blood stained discharge was coming out from vagina. She could not tolarate the pain and did not allow the Doctor to insert little finger. The injuries have been proved by Dr. Pramod Kumar Saxena PW 7. The appellant was also examined after arrest on 11-4-94. He was well built and was physically fit to perform sexual intercourse. A chemical analyst report Ex. P-14 shows that human semen was detected on the Nicker of Tari and Adawata (Doti) of the accused.

(3.) Tari PW 3 deposed on oath about the incident. It has been supported by Baga PW 6 and her mother Jhini PW 2 and the medical evidence as well as chemical analyst report as described above.