J U D G M E N T

05th December 2024 By Court: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.

2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. IV, Jamshedpur convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. He further submits that the doctor who examined the victim stated that no spermatozoa was found on the private part of the victim and further the doctor stated in her cross examination that such type of injury can also be caused by fall on hard substance. He lastly submits that considering the old age of this appellant, he may be given the benefits of Section 360 Cr.PC.

4. The learned counsel for the State argues that the victim minor girl is only 3 years old and this appellant did not even spared her and ravished her causing bleeding injury on her private part. The medical evidence corroborates with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. On the aforesaid grounds, he prays that this appeal may be dismissed.

5. Based on the fardbeyan of the informant (PW1) who happens to be the father of the victim minor girl, FIR being TELCO (Birsanagar) PS Case No. 175 of 2000 was instituted under section 376 IPC. Allegation is, this appellant has sexually assaulted the victim who is a minor aged about 3 years.

6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal and the appellant was put on trial.

7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.

8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are as under:-

i. PW1 :- Krishna Bishwakarma ii. PW2 :- Mohan Barik iii. PW3 :- Gita iv. PW4 :- Pramila Senapathi @ Pramila Barik v. PW5 :- Suchitra Barik vi. PW6 :- Dr. Saroj Saha vii. PW7 :- Minakshi, IO

9. Following documents have been exhibited :

i. Ext.1 – Signature of Krishna Bishwakarma in fardbeyan of FIR ii. Ext. 2– Signature of Krishna Bishwakarma in seizure list iii. Ext.3– Medical Report iv. Ext.4 – Fardbeyan of Krishna Bishwakarma v. Ext.5 – Endorsement of SI Minakshi on back of fardbeyan vi. Ext.6 – Signature of Thana Incharge on FIR vii. Ext.7 – Seizure list made by SI Minakshi

10. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. This is a case under Section 376 IPC. The allegation is that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim who is three years old girl. The informant is the father of the girl who is PW1. He had support the FIR and stated that the girl was taken by this appellant who happens to be his neighbour. After some time when his wife went to take back her daughter, her daughter told her mother that this appellant had committed wrong act with her and there was bleeding from her private parts which is not stopping. As per his evidence, we find that he had categorically stated that the minor victim girl was raped by this appellant.

11. PW3 is the mother who found bleeding from her private part. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is quite clear that the victim was raped. We find nothing to disbelieve the statement of PW1 and PW3.

12. PW6 is the Doctor who examined the victim minor girl and found the following injuries:-.

Local examination:

Hymen injured and torn and tender. Tear of 2cm length at 7’0 clock position and tear of 1 mm length at 3’0 clock, bleeds on touch and tender. Bruises present in lower part of vestibule.

On the basis of the injuries found in