AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 278/2007 registered at police Station, Manpur, District Dausa for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (here-in-after to be referred to as " IPC ").
FIR in the present case was lodged by Brij Mohan, father of the prosecutrix. Thereafter statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (here-in-after to be referred to as " Cr.P.C ."), wherein she alleged that on 7th August, 2007 she had been called by daughter of appellant to her house. Arti, daughter of the appellant told the mother of the prosecutrix that she was alone in her house as her mother had gone somewhere. Due to this reason, prosecutrix accompanied Arti. However, at night, prosecutrix was raped by the appellant. The prosecutrix raised alarm, but the appellant shut her
mouth. There was some discharge and prosecutrix became unconscious. Thereafter she did not know what had happened. In the morning, appellant sent the prosecutrix to her home and threatened her that in case the occurrence is narrated to anyone, she would be done to death. Prosecutrix narrated the occurrence to her mother.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
Prosecution, in order to prove his case, examined 10 witnesses during trial.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that he has been falsely involved in this case as some dispute relating to wall of the house was pending between the parties.
Trial court vide judgment / order dated 27.6.2009 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case due to dispute pending between the parties relating to wall of the house.
Prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and had not suffered any injury.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal.
PW-1 Brij Mohan, father of the prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box deposed that on Saturday he reached home at about 8.30 PM. He had come to know about the occurrence a day before, Prosecutrix, his daughter, was aged about 12-13
years. Appellant was his uncle and had raped his daughter. He lodged the report on Sunday. Daughter of the appellant had called the prosecutrix and had talked to his wife in this regard. He was informed that his daughter had been raped by the appellant by his wife.
Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 7th August, 2007 she was eating her meals. At about 7.00 PM her mother was making Chapaties. Arti, daughter of the appellant came to their house and told her mother that she should allow the prosecutrix to sleep in their house as she was alone. Mother of the prosecutrix allowed the prosecutrix to go with Arti. Appellant was present in the house. Arti told the appellant that he should sleep outside and she would sleep inside with the prosecutrix after bolting the door from inside.
Prosecutrix then went to sleep with Arti. However, at night appellant came inside. Prosecutrix noticed that Arti was not in the room. Thereafter appellant took off the clothes of the prosecutrix and raped
her. As a result, she became unconscious and in the morning she was woken up by throwing water on her face and she was sent home. After about one or two days, grand-father of the prosecutrix was sitting outside on a cot. At that time, Babu Lal, brother of the appellant told her grand-father that they could do whatever they wanted. They would repeat the offence. She had narrated the occurrence to her mother in the morning as her father was not at home.
Her mother had informed her father on phone at Jaipur qua the occurrence.
Mother of the prosecutrix Narbada while appearing in the witness box as PW-7 has corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix on material aspects.
PW-2 Dr. Anjana Bhargava deposed that on 12th August, 2007 she had medically examined the prosecutrix. She proved the report Ex.P/4.
A perusal of the report (Ex.P/4) reveals that the age of the prosecutrix, after medical examination, was opined as 13-15 years. As per the said report, hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured.
It was also opined that there was no evidence that the prosecutrix was not habitual of sexual intercourse.
Thus, in the present case, the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 13/15 years. Appellant is related to the prosecutrix. In these circumstances, the fact that the prosecutrix had been sent to the house of the appellant on a request made by his daughter appears to be natural and believable. While the prosecutrix was sleeping in the house of the appellant, she was raped by the appellant. In this regard, the medical evidence corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix.
Although the appellant has taken the plea that he has been falsely involved in this case due to dispute relating to wall of the house pending between the parties, but the said plea fails to inspire confidence. The parents of the minor girl would not have falsely involved the appellant in this case as the honour of their minor daughter was also at stake. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural inspires confidence. Prosecutrix was duly cross-examined by the learned defence counsel and she withstood the test of cross-examination.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant. No ground for interference is made out.
Appeal is dismissed.