Penetration alone is sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse under Section 377 IPC, and the absence of seminal discharge does not negate the offense.

SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Present revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Faridabad, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 13.03.2007 and as such, the present revision petition before this Court.

3. Relevant facts for the purpose of decision of this revision petition; that matter was reported to the police that on 17.1.1997, at about 3.30 PM, Budh Ram son of Ram Chander sent his sons Kishan Lal and Dharmender [victim], aged about 6 years, to look after the wheat in the fields. At about 4.30 PM, complainant Budh Ram along with his brother, Sohan Pal was going to the fields and observed that his son Kishan Lal was rushing towards them from the fields and told that one person had taken Dharmender to the sugarcane fields. The complainant and his brother rushed towards the sugarcane fields and found that one person, namely, Vinod [present petitioner] was doing carnal intercourse with his son, Dharmender against his wishes and when he noticed the complainant and his brother, he ran away from the fields. The complainant and his brother lifted their son Dharmender who was bleeding and was lying unconscious. As such, the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ex PW-9/A was registered.

4. During investigation, police inspected the spot. The victim was medico-legally examined. Accused was also medico-legally examined. Police took into possession the underwear of petitioner [Vinod] and obtained FSL report. Statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, the police presented the challan.

5. During trial, learned Court below completed various proceedings of trial including framing of charge against the accused under Section 377 IPC, recording of evidence of the witnesses and examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering the prosecution and the defence evidence on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him for commission of offence under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him on 05.09.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned trial Judge has ignored the material aspects of the case. First of all, the injuries on the body of victim, Dharmender, who was about 6 years of age, do not suggest act of 'sodomy'. More so, as per report of FSL, no semen was detected on the underwear of the accused. There was no injury on other parts of the victim though, the occurrence had taken place in the sugarcane fields. More so, learned trial Judge has completely ignored the defence version by way of statement of DW-1, Yaspal, Information Assistant, CHC, Korali so as to establish that the accused was admitted at a distance of 45 Kms., from the spot on the date of occurrence. PW-6, Dr. S.C. Bhagat, who had medico-legally examined Vinod, did not find any injury on the person of the accused.

7. Learned State counsel while arguing on this point took the plea that the prosecution case has been duly proved on the basis of statement of complainant, Budh Ram and the eye-witness, Sohan Pal, who had seen the alleged occurrence while accused was committing the offence of 'sodomy' by way of carnal intercourse with a child of six years. The ocular testimony is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. The matter was reported to the police immediately. The plea of alibi has been rightly negated by the trial Court as the same has been proved to be false version. More so, bot