Charanjit Talwar, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Mohd. Habib, was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rape on a minor girl, Aruna Kumari, on 19th August 1980 at about 2. 00 p m. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He has also been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant challenges the legality of the judgment dated 11th October 1983, holding him guilty of the above mentioned charges, and also the order of the same date sentencing him.

( 2 ) THE central point to be noticed in this appeal is that the medical evidence falsifies the evidence of the two eye witnesses as well as of the prosecutrix. The appellant, aged 21 years, is alleged to have been arrested at the spot. He was medically examined by Dr. Suresh Kumar of the Police Hospital, Delhi, at 8. 35 p. m. on the date of the incident. The medico-legal certificate is Exhibit PA. As the genuineness of this certificate was admitted by the appellant in his statement made on 15th January 1983, Dr. Suresh Kumar was not called to the witness box. It was found that the appellant had three simple injuries, one was on the skull, the second on right thumb and the third on the left hand. His male organ was found to be fully developed, but there was no injury on his penis.

( 3 ) THE prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Aruna Behl, Lok Nayak Jaya Prakash Narain Hospital, at 6. 00 p. m. The medico-legal certificate prepared by that doctor (Exhibit Public Witness. 8/b) has been proved by Dr. B. Bhattacharya of J. P. N. Hospital as Public Witness. 8. He had taken the X-rays for determination of her bone age on that very day. He opined that she was between 7 to 10 years of age. This witness was not cross-examined at all although an opportunity was granted. The medico-legal certificate (Exhibit P. W. 8/b) shows that there was a bite mark on. the right thigh of the prosecutrix and that her hymen was ruptured. The doctor has not recorded that Aruna Kumari was bleeding from the vagina, nor did she find any bruises, nor any swelling, redness or inflammation.

( 4 ) THE plea based on the medico-legal certificates, Exs. PA and PW 9/b, is two-fold : (i) that if a girl of 7 to 10 years of age is subjected to rape by a fully developed man as is the case here, there are likely to be injuries on his male organ; and (ii) that if the rape had been committed on 19th August 1980 as alleged, the lady doctor would have certainly found at least some swelling, redness or inflammation on the female organ Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant, relies on Rahim Beg v. The State of U. P. , 1972 Cri. L. J. 1260, in support of his first plea. In paragraph 26 of that judgment, it has been observed that :

"according to Dr. Katiyar, Medical Officer of District Jail, Rae Bareli, if a girl of 10 or 12 years who is virgin and whose hymen is intact is subjected to rape by a fully developed man, there are likely to be injuries on the male organ of the man. No injury was, however, detected by the doctor on the male organ of any of the two accused. The absence of such injuries on the male organs of the accused would thus point to their innocence. "in support of the second limb of the argument, learned counsel cited catena of authority. The argument is that rape, even if committed on the prosecutrix. was not on 19th August 1980 and certainly not by the appellant.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, however, cited Manga v. State of Haryana AIR 1979 S. C. 1194, in support of his contention that the medical evidence cannot be held to be conclusive and can hardly be relied upon to falsify the evidence of the eye witnesses because it (the medical evidence) is guided by various factors based on guess and certain calculat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document