Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 1/99, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months SI.

(2). The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-

On 11.8.1998 at about 9.40 PM, PW 4 Hazari lodged a written report Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Chittorgarh before PW 7 Ganpat Singh, SHO of that Police Station stating inter-alia that his daughter Nirmala, PW1 (hereinafter referred to as the child prosecutrix) was coming from the field three days back and on the way, the accused appellant picked the child prosecutrix PW Nirmala and took her towards the mines and therefore, committed rape with her. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 that the above incident was told on that day i.e. on 11.8.1998 and, thereafter, the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala was taken to the hospital, where she was admitted.

On this report Ex.P/1, PW7 Ganpat Singh chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/2 and started investigation.

During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was prepared and the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala was got medically examined for the purpose of age as well as for ascertaining whether rape was committed with her or not by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari (PW8), Dr. Radheyshyam Ladha (PW11) and Dr. Krisna Mehta (PW12). The X- ray report about age is Ex.P/10, where it has been stated that the age of the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala on the date of occurrence was between 7 to 8 years.

The medical examination report in respect of rape is Ex.P/13, which shows that three injuries were found on the person of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala.

The accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P/7 on 12.8.1998.

After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.

On 9.4.1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh framed charge for the offence under Section 376 (2) IPC against the accused appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, two witnesses were produced by the accused appellant.

After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Chittorgarh through judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:-

1. That the delay of three days in lodging the report was not found fatal to the prosecution story.

2. That reliance on the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala was placed by the learned trial Judge.

3. That the statement of the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala is further corroborated form the medical evidence.

4. That the plea of defence that the case was false one was out rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge.

5. That prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC.

Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3). In this appeal, the following submission have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant:-

(1) That from reading the medical evidence as well as the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala, no case of rape is made out and at the most if the statement of the child prosecutrix is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document