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.