C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This is yet another case–sad and sordid in equal measure–of innocence plundered.

Case of the Prosecution

2. The case pleaded by the prosecution, and accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as “ASJ”), may be recited thus:

2.1 Innocent and unaware of the predator lurking for her around the corner, the prosecutrix–who, in view of the proscription imposed by State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh AIR 2004 SC 1290, must remain unnamed and would, therefore, be designated by the appellation ‘C’ –was, at 4 pm on 7th February 2012, playing with her friends outside her house, when it began to rain. The children dispersed in different directions. Sangeeta (PW-19)–the mother of ‘C’–made various attempts to trace her, but remained unsuccessful. Finding her alone and seizing the opportunity, the appellant, on the pretext of feeding her “ber”, coaxed ‘C’ to accompany him to a spot near the canal (nehar) in the vicinity. There, the appellant stifled her by covering her mouth, struck at her face and eyes, burnt her hair and attempted to strangulate her, whereafter he proceeded to commit rape on her. Having perpetrated the heinous act, the appellant threw the prosecutrix into the nehar, at which time Sonu (PW-16) fortunately arrived at the spot. Sonu found ‘C’ weeping and lying face down in the nehar, clinging to the weeds. Her face was swollen and her clothes were wet and blood stained. The appellant, who was standing by the banks of the nehar, was also soaked from head to toe. Chagrined at the inopportune arrival of Sonu at the spot, the appellant tried to flee from the spot, but was apprehended by Sonu who, by that time, had picked ‘C’ up from the spot in the nehar where she was found by him. Carrying ‘C’ in one arm and holding the appellant by the other, Sonu proceeded to a nearby tea-shop owned by Amit (PW-17). ‘C’, who was in a state of shock and terror, remained silent throughout. At around this time, someone, using Sonu’s mobile, called the PCR. The call, which was recorded by Ct. Alka (PW-9) was noted, by her, as “ek ladka ek chhoti bachi ke saath baitha hai, caller ko doubt hai kuchh galat kaam kiya hai” (“a boy is sitting with a young girl, the caller feels that something wrong has been done to her”).

2.2 Krishan Kumar (PW-14) was sitting at the tea stall, which belonged to Amit (PW-17), when Sonu arrived there, carrying ‘C’ in one arm and holding the appellant by the other. As he was carrying ‘C’, the clothes of Sonu were also wet. The fact of the appellant having committed rape on ‘C’ was disclosed, by Sonu, to Krishan Kumar. It was noticed by Sonu (PW-16), as well as Amit (PW-17), that ‘C’ was bleeding from her private parts. The police, having been informed, reached the tea stall 10-15 minutes later.

2.3 Krishan Kumar (PW-14) stated that he knew ‘C’s parents. The Police, thereupon, directed Krishan Kumar (PW-14) to inform them of what had happened. Krishan Kumar, therefore, proceeded to ‘C’s house, to inform Virender (PW-15), ‘C’s father, of the tragedy that had occurred.

2.4 At or around 5 pm, Krishan Kumar (PW-14) reached Virender (PW-15) and informed him that someone had done “galat kaam” (“wrong deed”) with his daughter ‘C’ and had been apprehended on the spot. On hearing this, Virender (PW-15), accompanied by his wife Sangeeta (PW-19), rushed to the tea-stall, reaching there within 5 minutes. They found ‘C’ in tears. Her hair was partly burnt and her underwear was blood stained. On removing her underwear, Virender found that ‘C’ was bleeding vaginally. She also bore marks around her neck as if someone had strangulated her. On his asking, ‘C’ informed him that the appellant had brought her to the nehar on the pretext of eating “ber” and had stifled her by covering her mouth, burnt her hair, done “galat kaam” (“wrong deed”) with her and had, thereafter, thrown her in the nehar.

2.5 We must confess, here, that we are inhibited by the inadequacy of language; the expression “g