(Per- Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.)

These are two connected jail appeals. In the Jail Appeal No. 7262 of 2007 there was a delay of 30 days. Vide order dated 24.10.2007, delay was condoned and appeal was admitted. The appellant in both the appeals is Hari Kishan and both the appeals are directed against the judgement and order dated 25.09.2006 passed by the trial court in S.T. No. 336 of 2005 State Vs. Hari Kishan @ Jaishree, arising out of case crime No. 53 of 2005, under section 376 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on the basis of written report dated 3.4.2005 complainant Kallu Yadav deposed that on 3.4.2005 at about 8.30 morning, his daughter Yasmin, aged about 6 years went to a shop to purchase the tea leaf. On the way when she reached in front of the under construction house of one Meharban, a labour Hari Kishan called her, caught hold and entered inside the under constructed building. It is further alleged that when his daughter did not return, he along with his wife made inquiry and thereafter it was informed by neighbourers residing there that they saw Hari Kishan entering into the constructed house with the alleged victim. On being reached there they heard the shrieks of the victim, they entered into the semi constructed house along with wife and neighbourers, they saw that Hari Kishan in a compromising position with his daughter in naked position. Hari Kishan was caught hold red handed. His daughter was profusely bleeding, thereafter they were going to report at the police station along with the injured daughter and accused Hari Kishan. The accused Hari Kishan fled away taking the advantage of crowd assembled there.

3. On the basis of written report FIR was lodged at police station as case crime no. 53 of 2005, under section 376 IPC (Chik FIR is exhibit Ka-7), its written entry was made in the G.D. Investigation was conducted, prosecutrix was medically examined at 12.30 on the same day i.e. 3.4.2005 (medical report is exhibit Ka-2). Supplementary report was prepared which is exhibit Ka-3, site plan was prepared which is exhibit Ka-5. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused-appellant under section 376 IPC.

4. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of the prosecution case P.W. 1 Kallu Yadav, P.W. 2 Halima, P.W. 3 Yasmin (victim), P.W. 4 Dr. Anshu Gupta, P.W. 5 SI Shyam Babu Mishra, P.W. 6 HCP Kailash Chandra were examined before the trial court. After close of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case. No defence evidence has been adduced.

6. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused Hari Kishan under section 376 IPC for 12 years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine awarded two months additional imprisonment. Aggrieved against the conviction order, this appeal has been preferred.

7. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the lower court record.

8. We have perused the lower court record along with material exhibits. We find that in this case P.W. 1 Kallu Yadav, father of the victim, P.W. 2 Halima, mother of the victim have been examined, they have fully supported the incident as alleged in the FIR. Further, the prosecutrix aged about six years old has been examined in this case as P.W. 3, she has specifically and categorically narrated the incident. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have been cross examined at length but nothing adverse has come out from their evidence. Further on the basis of cogent, credible and clinching evidence of the fact witnesses, the prosecution case is established and further corroborated by the medical evidence tendered by the P.W. 4 Dr. Anshu Gupta. It is pe