Point of Law: In-consistent testimony of prosecutrix and uncorroborated medical evidence cast doubt on testimony of victim.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11 .07.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Raibareli in S.T. No. 241/2002, case crime No. 68/2002, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Bachhrawan, District Raibarelly "State Vs. Suneel Kumar", whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant to undergo for a period of seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default provisions.

3. As per the written report dated 14.02.2002 one Krishan son of Ram Prasad gave information to P.S. Bachhrawan, Raibareli that daughter of the informant aged about 13 years while returning home after cutting barseem, Suneel called her daughter in the khalihan on the pretext of picking up a bundle of paddy straw where lot of paddy was piled. When her daughter reached there, Suneel got hold of her and dragged between the piled paddy straw and forcibly raped her. To save herself, her daughter raised alarm, hearing which, the informant who was nearby digging carrot roots ran, then, he saw Suneel running away from khalihan. Upon reaching the spot, his daughter told him that she has been raped by Suneel.

4. It is further alleged in the written report that due to fear of the accused, he is giving report today on 13.02.2002. Consequently, chik FIR was registered which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-10. Written report is Ex. Ka-1. The investigating officer has prepared the site plan which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-4. The victim was subjected to medical examination which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-5. A supplementary medical report was also prepared which exhibited as Ex. Ka-9.

5. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Committal order was passed on 06.06.2002 by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raibareli and thereafter charges were framed by the Sessions Court on 19.07.2022 under Section 376 I.P.C.

6. The prosecution in support of its case has produced following seven witnesses:-

(1) PW-1 Krishna (father of the victim)

(2) PW-2 Anita (victim)

(3) PW-3 Doctor S.L. Sharma

(4) PW-4 Ajit Kumar Singh (Sub Inspector)

(5) PW-5 Param Hans (Retired Principal)

(6) PW-6 Doctor Kalpana Chandra

(7) PW-7 Ram Babu Gautam

7. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been done on 05.03.2003 wherein he denied all the charges leveled against him.

8. PW-1 in his statement has submitted that the incident took place at 5:30 PM while he was digging carrot roots and after hearing the alarm, he ran towards khalihan where he saw accused Suneel running away; his daughter told him that Suneel has raped her; on the second day, he got the report written by known person which was read out to him and then he signed it. He has proved the written report.

9. He also stated that the victim studied in primary school of the village and the transfer certificate dated 20.05.2002 of the school has been filed by him during his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his son Ram Chandra had died either due to train accident or somebody killed him who went to Punjab with the uncle of the accused Suresh. He further stated that he met Suresh after four days of the death of his son and when he asked him regarding death of his son, he stated that he fell from the train and was cut by the train. He also stated that after the incident Suresh and others came in the village and went to their home, however, they did not tell anybody about the death of his son. They have not told truth to him.

10. He further stated that at the time of the incident happening with her daughter, he was 100-125 meters away and after hearing alarm of his daughter, he ran towards the place of occurrence and it took 20 minutes to reach at the place of occurrence. During the entire 20 minutes, he kept hearing the alarm of his daughter.

11. He further stated that although the house of the accused