The trustworthiness of witness testimony and the corroboration of evidence are crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused in cases of sexual offenses against minors.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal, is to the judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2012 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which, appellant Upender Mato was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Even, fine of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed, in default whereof, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:-

That, complainant Khushbu wife of Mehar Chand was doing labour work in village Kulan. Her husband had died about two years ago. She is having two daughters. One is aged about 10 years and younger daughter (prosecutrix) is aged about 3 years. On 13.10.2010, at about 4.00 p.m., her elder daughter had gone out from the house for playing with children and after some time, even her younger daughter (prosecutrix) had gone out of the house for playing. However, when the prosecutrix had not returned back, the complainant had gone in search of her. While in the process of search, she reached the hut of Upender Mato, who belongs to District Purnia and lived in her neighbourhood, she heard screams of her daughter. She then went inside the hut and found Upender Mato to be committing rape upon her younger daughter. On spotting the complainant, Upender Mato had fled away. Blood was oozing from the private parts of her daughter and she was not wearing any underwear but only wearing a frock. The complainant raised hue and cry, upon which, several people had collected at the spot.

3. Proceedings in the present case were initiated, on the basis of the statement got recorded by the complainant. During the course of the investigation, scene of crime was inspected. Even, on the day of occurrence itself, at about 9.46 p.m. the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. Accused Upender Mato was arrested on 14.10.2010. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against Upender Mato.

4. On presentation of challan, compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made. On the basis of material coming forth, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against Upender Mato, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In endeavour to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely PW-1 EHC Satyawan, PW-2 Balwant Singh, Draftsman, PW-3 MHC Basau Ram, PW-4 EHC Ramesh Kumar, PW-5 Dr. Aradhana Ahuja, PW-6 Head Constable Mahavir Singh, PW-7 Dr. H.S. Sagoo, PW-8 SI Ganga Ram, PW-9 Khushbu and PW-10 ASI Virender Singh.

6. Even, learned Public Prosecutor tendered into evidence report of FSL Ex.P19 and Ex.20.

7. On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused-appellant denied those allegations. In fact, he had taken the plea of false implication, due to enmity and also pleaded that prosecutrix suffered injuries, when she was playing with other children and that he has not committed any rape upon the prosecutrix.

8. In defence, accused examined his wife Rekha Devi as DW-1, who deposed that complainant Khushbu wanted to marry her husband, thus, she had filed false case against her husband, as he had refused to marry the complainant. Also, she stated about the prosecutrix to have suffered injuries, while she was playing on swings in the plot and other children had also suffered injuries, at that time. The mother of the prosecutrix was called by her and her husband, at the spot. The complainant had taken away her child and also extended threats to implicate Upender Mato, in a false case.

9. The point for determination formulated by learned trial Court in the present case, reads as under:-

“Whether on 13.10.2010, the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix, aged about three years and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section