JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi dated 26th September, 2003, whereby the appellant Chamaru Ram, hereinafter referred to as the "accused", has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, he is to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Prosecution Case:

2. S (PW-1) was more than seventeen years of age at the relevant time. She is mentally retarded. On 11th September, 2002 at about 12 noon she was going back to her house, after having plucked a pumpkin from the fields, accused accosted her. He snatched the pumpkin from her hands and threw it on the ground. He took her behind the house, forced her on the ground, broke the string of the salwar and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. She bled, however, she washed herself from the tap water. She also washed her pajama. She raised alarm, but nobody was around. Chamaru Ram threatened her that if she disclosed this incident either to her parents or his wife then "he would see her". She went back to her house. At about 9.00 in the night she disclosed the incident to her mother Premi Devi. Neither her father nor brother were in the house. Both of them had gone out for work. They returned back on 17th September, 2002 and the report was lodged with the Incharge, Police Post, Pangna on 19th September, 2002. On the basis of this report a case under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused.

3. Accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but, was convicted, as noticed earlier, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Aggrieved, the accused is in this appeal.

5. It may be noticed at the outset that the State did not file any appeal so far acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.

6. Heard Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. I was also taken through the evidence and relevant record.

7. Mr. Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused, prays for acquittal of the accused on the grounds. (a) S is not a competent witness being mentally retarded since birth and therefore her evidence without corroboration is not sufficient to convict the accused, particularly when her mental age has not been assessed either by the Doctor, who medically examined her. or by the Court (b) The evidence of S is neither reliable nor inspires confidence. She has materially contradicted herself with the statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (c) The version given by S is not supported by the medical evidence. (d) The prosecutrix has been tutored by her parents and had given tutored version in the Court. (e) In-ordinate delay in lodging First Information Report which is result of deliberations, concoctions. (f) S made false allegations against the accused, on tutoring by her parents, because of enmity between the parties. (g) The accused has demanded Rs. 7,000/- from the parents of S for defaming him and it is thereafter that the First Information Report was lodged.

8. There is no dispute thatS1 is mentally retarded from birth. S, appearing as PW-1, in answer to the question by the learned trial Judge, answered, "I am disabled since childhood as may legs are weaken. I also not mentally perfect."

9. Premi Devi, mother of S (PW-2) in her evidence categorically states, "my daughter, the prosecutrix is disabled from the childhood and also some mentally retarded from the childhood."

10. Nant Ram, father of the prosecutrix (PW-3), tells us, "the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document