1. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 17 June, 1995 rendered by Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the accused respondent Mukund Singh was acquitted in the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:-

That the complainant Kailash Kanwar was residing in a rented house B-103 and 104 of Shimbhu Singh situated in Nityanand Nagar. The sister and mother of the accused-respondent Mukund Singh were also residing in the same house on rent. It is alleged that on 17th June, 1994 at about 3.30 pm, the complainant Kailash Kanwar had gone out of the house and her daughter Sannu aged 6 years was sleeping in a room. On return to her house, she found her daughter weeping. Her daughter told that Mukund Singh had come, taken of her panties and ravished her. She was complaining pain on her vagina. The complainant looked at the panties she was wearing and found that it was blood stained. She found her vagina also bleeding. The complainant submitted a written report Ex.P/1 in police station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur whereupon police lodged FIR Ex.P/2 and commenced investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex.P/3, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, seized the panties of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.P/4, arrested the accused Mukund Singh vide memo Ex.P/6, got both the prosecutrix and the accused medically examined and after usual investigation submitted the police report under Section 173(2) of Criminal Procedure Code in the Court.

4. The accused-respondent was indicted for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove its case. In his explanation under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused claimed innocence and submitted that he had enmity with Kailash Kanwar with regard to a house and due to this enmity she falsely implicated him in this case. He has produced four witnesses in defence. On completion of trial, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent as indicated hereinabove.

5. None is present on behalf of the accused-respondent, hence, heard submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and scanned the relevant material available on record.

6. Having reflected over the submissions and scanned the relevant evidence, it is noticed that the prosecutrix Sannu was only 6 years of age on the date of occurrence. PW-8 Dr. Nalini Shekhawat examined the prosecutrix on 18th June, 1994 and found the following injuries on her person:- "Examination was painful. Vulva- Swellon and tender. Hymen #22; Hymen tear at 5'clock position. Vagina #22; Inflamed and tender. There was blood on touch. Duration of tear was 1-2 days." Findings of Doctors were consistent with penetration of hard object like erected male organ through hymenical orifice.

7. At the same time, on 20th June, 1994 PW- 5 Sheetal Jain examined he accused-respondent Mukund Singh who, though found one abrasion 1cm x 1cm with soft scars present and multiple overlapping bruises of size 6cm x 6cm. 2Cm x 4cm 4cm red in colour but did not find any injury on the penis as deposed by him before court during trial.

8. In the light of the prosecution and defence evidence as led by both the parties, the most crucial question emerging for adjudication is that as to whether it was the accused respondent who voluntarily ravished the prosecutrix against her will and without her consent?

9. Now, adverting to the statements of PW- 2 Sannu, it is found that on the date of occurrence, she was 6 years of age and studying in First standard. She deposed that on the hapless day, her mother had gone out of the house and only she and her younger brother were present there. She further stated that the accused got the door of the house opened and thereafter,