I.S. ISRANI, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated June 15, 1982 passed by learned Sessions-Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 18-A/82 by which the accused-apppe-llant was convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of the fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of 3 months. He was also convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. It will suffice for the purpose of this appeal to state that on Feb. 2, 1982 at about 6.45 p.m.. Pw 1 Smt. Gafooran wife of Shri Samme, resident of village Bandipura District Alwar lodged a written report, Ex. P. 1 to the effect that on the same day at about 1.00 p.m. she was going with her mother-in-law Smt. Dassi Pw 4 to take grass from the field. Her mother-in-law was engaged in excavating the grass from a field and she herself started breaking on mustared from the mustared field of one Nabbi Khan. All of a sudden, accused-appellant came and caught-hold of Mst. Gafooran and made her to fall on the ground and forcibly open her Salwar and thereafter forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On hearing the cries of Gafooran, her mother-in-law came there. On seeing her mother-in-law, accused-appellant stood-up inflicted a lathi blow on Mst. Bassi, as a result of which she fell down on the ground. On hearing the cries, Banda and Himmat came at the site, and on seeing them accused-appellant ran away. After registering the report the matter was investigated and the trial court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, convicted the accused-appellant as stated above.

3. Shri R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellant contends that from the medical-evidence the accused-appellant was 50 years old at the time of incident and it is doubtful that the accuseds-appellant was capable of performing sexual-intercourse. It is also contended that there is no medical evidence to prove that any sexual intercourse had been committed. It is further contended that the only two independent witnesses who were mentioned in the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1 itself i.e. Banda Pw 5 and Himmat Pw 6, do not support the version of the prosecution and, therefore, were declared hostile. It is therefore, pointed out that the trial court has seriously erred in relying upon the statement of prosecutrix Pw 1 and Mst. Bassi her mother-in-law Pw 4.

4. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the testimony of prosecutrix does not need any corroboration and the trial court had rightly relied-upon the same inspite of there not being any independent-witness.

5. I have heard both the parties, gone through the documents and evidence on record.

6. Ex. P.2 is medical for verification of age and rape. The prosecutrix is said to be of age of 18 to 19 years. No definite opinion has been given regarding recent intercourse. It is mentioned that she is accustomed to intercourse. Ex. P. 4 is Pathological report of accused-appellant and Ex. P. 5 is medical report of the prosecutrix. Ex. P. 7 is medical report of Mst. Bassi Pw 4 mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. It states that even though she claims to have pain but no superficial mark of injury was found and there was no tenderness also. Mst. Gafoo-ran PW 1 states in her examination in chief that accused-appellant came behind her and caught hold and opened the rope of her Salwar and forcibly committed intercourse with her threw her on the ground and committed intercourse. She shouted and was given also beatings with fists to the accused-appellant. On hearing her shouts her mother-in-law Mst. Bassi came at the time when the accused--appellant was still committing rape with her. On seeing Mst. Bassi, the accused appellant got-up. Mst. Bassi abused him whereupon appellant gave a blow with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document