JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---By means of this appeal the appellant-The State of Maharashtra, has impugned the judgment and Order dated 31-8-1983 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1983 acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :

The prosecutrix Anita Balu Mandke (P.W. 3), aged 5 years, was a resident of Vithalnagar, Shivram Lalvani Road, Gangurchi Chawl, Mulund, Bombay-80. The respondent-Suresh Thorat was a resident of Vithalnagar Zopadpatti, Mulund, Bombay. He was known to the prosecutrix from before the incidence.

The prosecutrix had three brothers viz: Ashok, Santosh and Arvind. She had one sister Sampada. Sometimes before the incidence she started going to Balmandir School, which was near her house. Her brother Ashok also used to go to school and she had seen the said school. There is an open space around the building of Ashok's school. The prosecutrix used to play in the compound of that shcool.

On 23-2-1983 while the prosecutrix was playing near her house, the respondent took her. Thereafter, he himself took her near the taps in the school of Ashok. He told her that he would give her ten paise for sweets. There were no lights at that place. Thereafter, the respondent took out her under-wear and his full pant; made her lie on the ground and raped her. She started bleeding and her frock became smeared with blood. Thereafter one boy pushed her. Again there was bleeding from her private parts and she could not know the reason for it. She did not know the name of the boy, who pushed her. In her statement, the prosecutrix says that the bleeding commenced after Suresh (respondent) had raped her. In her statement in examination in chief, she also stated that she did not know what the respondent did after removing her under-wear.

After the incident the prosecutrix came to her father. She was crying. When her father asked her whether she had fallen down or not, she did not reply. Her clothes had become stained with blood and there was blooding from her private parts. The mother of the prosecutrix Laxmibai Balu Mandke, who was also there questioned the prosecutrix. She told her that the respondent had done something on account of which there was pain in her private part. Since the prosecutrix was profusely blooding, she made her lie down on the cot.

3.Thereafter, Laxmibai Balu Mandke and her husband Balu took the prosecutrix to a doctor, who had a dispensary in the zopadpatti, at a distance of about 25 feet, from their house. The doctor examined the prosecutrix and asked them to take her to Jasraj Hospital. They accordingly took her to the said hospital.

4.The injuries of the prosecutrix were medically examined by Dr. Shyamlal Mukhi (P.W. 6) of Jasraj Hospital, at about 9 p.m., the same day. The doctor stated that the prosecutrix told him that one male person took her in dark and tried to do something on account of which bleeding started. Dr. Mukhi sensing the gravity of the matter sent a note to Mulund Police Station to the effect that, an alleged raped victim had been admitted in the hospital.

On examining the prosecutrix Dr. Mukhi found swelling of vulva, vaginal tear communicating with rectum and anal canal and there was profuse bleeding. In Dr. Mukhi's opinion these injuries must have been caused by forcible sexual intercourse by an adult male. The injury report of the prosecutrix is Exhibit 17.

Since the condition of the prosecutrix was precarious Dr. Mukhi advised that she be taken to J.J. Hospital. Consequently, her parents took her to J.J. Hospital, where the evidence is, she was admitted for about two months and had to undergo three operations.

5.Going backwards, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged the same day at about 9 p.m. by Balu Mandke (P.W. 1), the father of the prosecutrix, at Police Station Mulund.

6.After the F.I.R. had been recorded, S.I. Gurav recorded t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document