The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful scrutiny of evidence, ruling out the possibility of tutoring, and the importance of corroboration in cases involving child witnesses.

Per V.K. Ahuja , J.:-This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 5.10.1994, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 376 I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.12.1993 Kumari ‘X’ (name not mentioned), who was studying in 5th Class, aged about 10-11 years, during day time alongwith her younger sister Meena had gone to the forest to collect leaves. The appellant who is working as a servant with one Gopal Singh of the village, was also following them.

3. On the way, he took ‘X’, the prosecutrix, towards the bushes and her younger sister Meena asked him as to what he was doing. The appellant asked her to keep quite and after taking her to the bushes, he opened the salwar of ‘X’ and when she started crying, he gave one rupee coin to ‘X’. Thereafter, the appellant removed his Pajama and ‘X’ was kept on his legs by the appellant and he put his penis inside the vagina of ‘X’ and started pushing the penis inside and outside and ‘X’ became unconscious. When she regained coconscious, her sister who was sitting nearby was found weeping and ‘X’ gave said one rupee coin and sent her sister Meena to bring chewing gum and four chewing gums were brought by her and both the girls divided the chewing gum in between them two each. They proceeded towards their house and in the evening her uncle asked Meena as to how they had got the chewing gum and she replied that this was given by ‘X’ and when he enquired, she told him that this one rupee coin was given by the appellant. As to why the money was given, ‘X’ informed him that the appellant had done ‘Battmiji’ with her. Thereafter, her mother and aunt enquired from her and she told that this ‘Bura Kaam’ had been done by the appellant. Thereafter, they went to the house of Gopal where the appellant was called, who confessed his guilt and begged for pardon. On the next day, the father of ‘X’ took her to Police Station and lodged the report. The girl as well as the appellant were medically examined. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, who tried the appellant, leading to his acquittal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

5. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the prosecution were that the prosecution had fully established the case beyond any reasonable doubt from the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, namely, father and uncle who have corroborated the version given by the prosecutrix. It was further supported by the statement of the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix and issued MLC, who had opined that redness was found on the vagina of the girl, which was due to the sexual intercourse committed with her. Thus, it was submitted that there was no proved enmity on record and the matter was immediately reported to the police. But the learned trial Court had wrongly acquitted the respondent on the grounds which do not exist or had commented upon minor infirmities found in the prosecution case, which do not affect the statement of the prosecution. It was also submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix was such which could be relied upon implicitly and which finds due corroboration from medical evidence also. It was also submitted that there is nothing in the statement of the prosecution which could even suggest that she was a tutored witness and her statement is such which clearly shows that she has withstood the test of cross-examination and her statement clearly proves the guilt of the respondent and findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary are liable to be reversed. It was also submitted that it was not a case where two views are possible from the evidence, but it is a case wher