IMPORTANT POINT
It is also settled by the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the Evidence Act nowhere says that, the victim’s evidence cannot be adopted, unless it is corroborated in material particulars as the victim is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as attached to an injured witness, in case of physical violence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.06.2014 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No.452/2012 arising out of the FIR being C.R.No.I-60/2012 under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as the IPC for short) registered at Umarpada Police Station, Dist. Surat, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant – accused guilty and sentenced him as follows:

All the sentences shall run concurrently and also he has been given benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In the present judgment, I do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228A I.P.C. and in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-4 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari (AIR 2004 SC 4404).

3. The facts, as elaborated by the ld. trial Court are extracted in extenso, as follows:

(a) The incident in question was happened on 22.08.2012 at about 14:45 hours at the sim of village Govat, Taluka Umarpada, Dist. Surat. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 25.03.1998 and at the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and was studying in St. Xavier’s School, Umarpada;

(b) As per the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, she being a residence of village Salli, used to come at her school regularly from village Salli to Umarpada. On the day of incident, when she was walking on the road towards her village Salli after attending the school, at about 1:30 P.M, the accused - appellant herein came upon his motorcycle and she was caught hold and dragged to the secluded place, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse forcibly by the accused – appellant. It is further case of the prosecution that, despite her resistance, she was raped by the accused and the accused had also caused the injuries over her body and he also threatened to kill her if she further make hue and cry.

(c) It is further case of the prosecution that, after the alleged incident at about 03:30 P.M, the prosecutrix rushed to nearby farm where she met her maternal aunt Gitaben and had narrated the whole incident. It is further case of the prosecution that, she along with her maternal aunt came at the place of offence as her trouser (payjama) was left there.

(d) It is further case of the prosecution that, she along with her maternal aunt went at the home where the facts of the incident having been said by her to the parents and accordingly, they came at Umarpada Police Station for lodging the complaint and accordingly FIR of the said incident was registered as C.R.No.I-60/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376 and 506(2) of the IPC.

(e) It is further the case of the prosecution that, after registration of the offence, the investigation was undertaken by Police Sub-Inspector Mr. R.R. Vasava, Umarpada Police Station. During the course of investigation, he visited the place of incident and prepared necessary panchnama of scene of offence, sent the prosecutrix for medical examination at Umarpada CHC and for determination of the age, she was referred to Civil Hospital, Surat and recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix for the purpose of age and arrested the a