MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused appellant Mohan Lal has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26. 3. 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri, district Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 21/2003 whereby he has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE case arises out of a report (Ex. P. 6) that lodged by Hari Om (PW. 4) at 1. 00 P. M. On 10. 7. 2003 that at about 10. 00- 11. 00 A. M. On 22. 6. 2003 the accused Mohan finding his sister aged about 11 years and a student of class VI alone took her to his house and committed rape on her. She came weeping from there and narrated the whole story to him. He informed his parents who had gone to another village. THEy returned on the next day. He would have gone to report the matter to the police after the arrival of his parents but the people of his community asked him to talk and settle the matter amicably and they also told that the accused had run away and they would inquire when he returned. THE accused returned in the evening of 9. 7. 2003 and when he and his parents met the accused he abused them and threatened them if the matter was reported to the police. THE police station Kekri on the basis of this report registered a case under Section 376 IPC vide FIR No. 222/2003 (Ex. P. 7 ). After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant and charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty. THE prosecution examined 15 witnesses whereas the accused examined 4 witnesses in defence. After hearing the parties the trial Court by judgment dated 26. 3. 2004 convicted the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by this judgment the accused appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE prosecutrix is around 11 years of age. She says that the accused performed the act of sexual intercourse for about half an hour and he kept his penis inserted into her vagina for 5-7 minutes. However, Dr. Savita Maurya (PW. 1) has stated that when she examined the prosecutrix on 14. 7. 2003 the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact. Not only Dr. Savita Maurya (PW. 1) does not say that the prosecutrix had any injury on her private parts or any part of her body but the brother of the prosecutrix Hari Om (PW. 4) who met the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence does not say that the prosecutrix complained of any injury on her private parts or any other part of her body. Manbhar (PW. 6) who is mother of the prosecutrix and Kanta (PW. 7) who is sister of the prosecutrix met the prosecutrix on the next day but they too do not say that they saw any injury on any part of her body.