The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and lack of enmity in establishing guilt under Section 376 IPC.

Per: SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 21.2.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2000/ 44 of 2003 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The victim of the case is a girl of tender year. The case has been registered on the basis of fard beyan (Ext. 4) of Rina Kumari (P.W. 5) given at Refferal Hospital Bhore on 6.8.1999 at 5.30 p.m. in presence of her mother Ramdulari Devi (P.W. 4) wherein she alleged that her father was residing abroad. She was a student of class II. On the date of occurrence she had returned to her home after final bell. In the meanwhile, uncle Yogendra Bhagat (appellant) came to her house and enticed her towards Mujwani. She was brutalized and was subjected to rape. She suffered serious injuries resulting into profused bleeding. On her cry, her mother (P.W. 4) rushed there and accused escaped. Her fard beyan resulted into formal FIR of Bhorey P. S. Case No. 64 of 1999.

3. In course of evidence injury reports of two doctors P. Ws. 10 and P. W. 11 were obtained and were marked as Exts. 5 and 6. The statement of witnesses was recorded. The place of occurrence was visited and after the case was found true the final form was submitted. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the court of session where the charge under Section 376 IPC was explained to the accused to which he denied and pleaded innocence and so the trial proceeded.

4. The defence of the sole accused was of innocence.

5. In order to prove its charge the prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses. They are P. W. 1 Amar Bhagat, P. W. 2 Bindhyachal Bhagat, P. W. 3 Kanhaiya Singh, P. W. 4 Ramdulari Devi, P. W. 5 Rina Kumari, P. W. 6 Keshwar Singh, P. W. 7 Jawahar Singh, P. W. 8 Ramashankar Bhagat, P. W. 9 Virendra Rai, P. W. 10 Dr. Madhuri Shrivastava, P. W. 11 Dr. M. Sami Ahmad, P. W. 12 Komal Kant Jha (Investigating Officer), and P. W. 13 Nagendra Mishra. P. W. 13 is a formal witness and he has proved the writing of doctors upon the injury reports and has also proved the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 31.8.1999 in which the victim has described her agony.

6. P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 were declared as hostile witness as they did not support the case in entirety, but P. W. 1 has stated that on hearing cry he went to the place of occurrence and the mother of the victim has told him that the appellant has raped the victim. At that time the victim was having blood injury. P. W. 2 has stated that the occurrence was two years earlier. P. W. 3 has stated that the wife of Ganesh Bhagat came to his house and told that Yogendra Bhagat raped Reena. Therefore, the evidence of these hostile witnesses supports the role of the appellant.

7. The victim (P.W. 5) of the case while deposing on 8th July 2001 has described her age to be 10 years meaning thereby she was barely eight years of age on the date of occurrence. She was tested with regard to competency to depose and after finding her upto mark to depose, her deposition was recorded wherein she has stated that at 4 p.m. she was playing in front of her darwaja. In the meanwhile the accused Yogendra enticed her to Mujwani field and raped her. She received serious injuries upon her private part. On her cry, her mother came and the accused escaped. Blood started coming out from her private part. She was carried to Bhorey Referral Hospital for treatment. Officer-in-charge came and recorded her statement upon which she put her signature (Ext. 1). She has identified the accused in dock and has stated that at the time of occurrence she was a student of Class II. Her statement was rec