Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Accused was arrested by the police and he was got medically examined. Victim was also sent for medical examination.

3. During investigation, statement of victim was also got recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. in State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku short).

4. In his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., victim alleged that when he returned from his school in the evening, he told the complainant that he had to go to toilet, accordingly complainant asked him to go to outside as there was darkness at the toilet located in the house. Consequently, victim went to public toilet. It was alleged that when he was inside the toilet, accused named Tinku came there to whom he knew previously. Accused had given water in a container and he also entered the toilet and bolted the door from inside. Accused had put down his pant and gave ` 20/- and asked him let him to do sodomy with him (victim). Accused asked him to stand facing towards wall and thereafter he hugged him from behind and also put down his pant and thereafter he committed sodomy with him by inserting his penis in his anus. Consequently, he started weeping. It was further alleged that at that time accused was under the influence of liquor. Public persons came there and they rescued the victim and also gave beating to the accused. It was alleged that he rushed to his house and narrated the incident to the complainant, accordingly, complainant called the police.

39. Learned defence counsel further vigorously argued that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of victim as no injury was found on the rectum of victim. It was submitted that had the full penis been inserted as deposed by the victim, there would have been some injuries on the rectum of victim but it is not so. Thus, the testimony of victim is unreliable. On the converse, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by arguing that the testimony of victim can not be discarded on the mere ground that no injury was found on his person.

40. From the MLC of victim, it is manifested that no injury mark was found on his anus. PW16 Dr. Shyam Sunder in his testimony reiterated the fact that he did not notice any injury on the person of victim. In his cross-examination he deposed that if a male of 25 years have a anal sex with a boy of 6 years old with full insertion of penis, there is every likelihood that injury would cause on the anus of the boy. However, injury may not appear, if there is a partial insertion of penis. Similarly, PW14 Dr. Avinash in his cross-examination clarified that there may be very less chance that injury may not cause on the rectum of victim aged about 6 years if there is full insertion of penis in his anus. He also clarified that there is no hard and fast rule if any injury will be caused on the penis. Thus, from the testimony State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku of PW14 and PW16, it becomes clear that injury will be caused only if there is full insertion of penis. PW1 in his testimony nowhere deposed that accused had inserted his full penis. Rather, he deposed that uncle accused hugged him from behind and inserted his penis in his anus and since he felt pain he started crying, thereafter, someone opened the door and rescued him. Even no attempt was made during his cross-examination to seek clarification whether accused had inserted his penis full or partial. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it will not be proper to arrive at a conclusion that accused had inserted full penis. PW16 has clarified that injury may not be possible if the insertion of penis is partial or insignificant. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the defence counsel.

51. In his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. victim had narrated the incident in detail and in his statement he did not state that his Nani also accompanied him. Rather he deposed that after the incident, he returned to his house and narrated the incident to his Nani. Since, there is no substantial deviation in the deposition of victim from his statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I do not find any reason to discard the victim's testimony.

52. Learned defence counsel also pointed out some improvements in the testimony of PW1 as PW1 did not state in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C that when accused inserted his penis, he felt sever pain. To my mind, the said improvement is insignificant and is not sufficient in any manner to discard the testimony of victim. PW1 also admitted that he told the name of accused as Tinku to the police but this fact is not mentioned in the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. To my mind, the said improvement is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as in his examination-in-chief, he categorically deposed that he knew the accused previously as he was working in the factory located near State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku his house. Even accused admitted in his testimony that he was working in the jeans factory. Admittedly, accused and victim are also residing in the same locality i.e. Bapa Nagar. Accused's house number is 16/168 whereas the house number of victim is 16/181. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 when he deposed that he knew the accused previously. He also deposed that accused is working in the factory where threads of jeans are being manufactured.