Point of Law : Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 13.02.1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No.264 of 1989, under Sections 376/511 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur by which trial court convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation, accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. As per prosecution case, on 12.08.1987 in the evening, informant's brother Shahjad left the house and went to visit Lal Imli Chauraha, when he did not get home till late, his younger sister victim aged about 9 years went to find out her brother. While going to cross road near biscuit factory of Atiullah, accused-appellant met her. He caught hold the hand of victim and started taking towards Mazar, victim / prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, accused pressed her mouth by his hand and threatened her to kill. He took her to Mazar and untied the victim's salwar. He made her to lie on the earth and tried to rape her. When victim shouted , Tahir Hussan Khan and Rakesh Singh rushed their with torches and caught the accused on spot at 9:00 p.m. Accused, on being asked, disclosed his name as Mustakeem son of Amir Ali. In the meantime, informant arrived there searching his brother and sister (prosecutrix). Accused-appellant was taken to police station concerned. F.I.R. was got registered on the written tehrir Ex.Ka-1 of informant.

3. Upon the written tehrir, Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-2 was registered bearing Case Crime no. 380 of 1987, under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. by constable muharrir P.W.-4. Entry of case was made in general diary, copy whereof is on record.

4. Investigating Officer, P.W.-5 Balram Singh, undertook the investigation, recorded the statement of victim and other witnesses, visited spot, prepared site plan and after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted charge sheet Ex.Ka.-7 against the accused-appellant before the Magistrate concerned having competent jurisdiction.

5. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Court which came to be transferred to the concerned Court who framed charges against the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, out of whom PW1, P.W. 2 and P.W.-3 are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses.

7. On closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining entire evidence and incriminating circumstances against him. Accused denied prosecution story in toto and all formalities of investigation were said to be wrong. He claimed false implication due to earlier rivalry with Tahir (not examined) over the money transaction but he led no evidence in defence.

8. Trial court, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

9. I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant, learned AGA for the State at length and perused the record.

10. Now, I examine the statement of witnesses and other evidence.

11. P.W.-1 Shamshad Husain, who is the informant of the case but not eye witness of the incident. He deposed in his statement that on being told by victim and witnesses, he received information about the incident and he has filed the F.I.R. as per their information. Since, this witness is not eye of the incident, hence close scrutiny of his deposition is not necessary.

12. P.W.-2 victim / prosecutrix, supporting the prosecution case, deposed that she was aged about 9 years at the time of incident. It was 9:00 p.m. Her brother Shahjad after taking food went to visit but he did not come back till late. She went towa