Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The age of the victim on the date of incident was 5 years. The parents of the victim are residing at village Kunjrav, Taluka : Anand. The name of her father is Dineshbhai Rameshbhai Patel. The victim has one brother. On 30th May, 1998, the victim was playing with her brother and friends Jigisha and Sagar near Ramji Mandir. At that time, accused by enticing/inducing the victim to have ice, took the victim in the field wherein lemon trees were grown to rape her. The move was resisted by little girl. Therefore, she was beaten by the appellant and made to lie on the ground. Thereafter the accused removed his pant and after removing knickers of the victim, inserted his private organ in the vagina of the victim. Therefore, Jigisha and her brother went to call parents of the victim leaving victim alone with the accused. On receiving information, the father of the victim i.e. Dineshbhai along with one Ashwinbhai came to the field and on seeing them, the accused ran away. The victim was taken to hospital where she was treated by Dr. Rakeshkumar Avasthi. Thereafter complaint came to be filed at Khambhoraj Police Station against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 323 & 511 of I.P.C. The complaint was reduced into writing by PSI Mr. K.S. Thakor of Khambhoraj Police Station and sent to Anand Police Station for further action. Investigation of the case was conducted by Ramsinhbhai Dalsukhbhai Chaudhary, Circle Police Inspector of Anand. He drew panchnama of place of incident which was pointed out by the victim as well as by the complainant. He also attached clothes worn by the victim at the time of incident. The appellant was arrested on the very day i.e. 30th May, 1998 and was sent for medical examination. The clothes put on by the appellant were also seized. The investigating officer recorded statements of the victim, complainant and other persons who were found conversant with the facts of the case. On completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted of the offences punishable under Section 363, 376, 323 & 511 of I.P.C. in the Court of learned 3rd Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anand. As the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Anand, for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Case No.181 of 1999.

4. After recording of evidence of the prosecution case was over, the learned Judge explained to the appellant the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded his further statement as required by Section 313 of the Code. In his further statement, the case of the appellant was that he had not committed rape and was falsely implicated in the case. However, no evidence was led by him to substantiate his defence.

5. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing the learned counsels of the parties, the learned Judge held that the case of the prosecution against the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 & 511 of I.P.C. was proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of this conclusion, the learned Judge has convicted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 & 511 of I.P.C. and imposed sentences referred to hereinabove by judgment dated March 24,2000, giving rise to this appeal.

7. Mr. B.D. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the prosecution has proved that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 & 511 of I.P.C. is neither unreasonable nor perverse, but is based upon the evidence on record and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. It was argued that the victim has narrated the incident in most natural manner and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of the victim, more particularly in absence of exaggerations or contradictions or omissions. It was further submitted that looking to the evidence of the victim, it is clear that after satisfying himself that the child victim understood questions put to her and was able to give rational answers to questions as well as narrate the incident as it had happened, the learned Judge had recorded her testimony and has accepted the same as it was found to be truthful and therefore, the appeal should not be accepted. It was pleaded by the learned counsel of the respondent that the contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant was falsely implicated in the offence should not be accepted, as no enmity is suggested by the appellant. He has further argued that the testimony of the victim is also corroborated by the injuries proved through medical evidence as well as contents of the complaint and sworn testimony of the complainant and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed, but the appellant should be found guilty under Section 376 IPC and not for attempt to committ rape as held by the learned Judge. The learned A.P.P. submitted that no ground is made out by the learned counsel of the appellant to interfere with the well reasoned conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 376 & 511 of I.P.C. and, therefore, the appeal should be rejected. Dealing with the alternative plea regarding reduction of sentence, the learned A.P.P. has relied upon the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2004)1 SCC 475 and submitted that leniency in sentence relating to cases of rape being against public interest and object of sentence, plea for reduction of sentence should not be accepted by this Court. He has further argued that even looking to the age of victim and the crime committed by the appellant, the appellant does not deserve any sympathy and leniency.

10. Having noticed the principles, we would discuss the evidence of the victim. The age of the victim was about 8 years at the time when her deposition was recorded by the learned trial Judge on March 2, 2000. In order to satisfy whether the victim understood the questions put to her and was in a position to give rational answers to those questions or not, the learned Judge has maintained record incorporating the answers given by her to the questions put by the learned Judge. In the first question, the victim informed the Court her name and that she was studying in 2nd standard and that she was visiting temple. Further, the victim stated before the Court that she was likely to be visited with sin if she told falsehood. On holding of preliminary inquiry, the learned Judge was satisfied that the victim was capable of giving rational account of what she had seen and what was done to her at a particular occasion and, therefore, has recorded her testimony. The victim has narrated the incident happened on May 30, 1998. She has stated that she is residing with her parents at village Kunjrav. She has asserted that she knows the appellant and he is residing in her village and that he is the accused in the case. She has maintained before the Court that on 30th May, 1998 she was playing near temple with Jigisha, her brother and Sagar and the appellant had told her to go with him for having Ice and thereafter the appellant had taken all the four to the field wherein lemon trees were grown. She has also stated that the appellant had taken out his pants and thereafter the appellant had also taken out her panties. She has mentioned in her testimony that thereafter the appellant had put his private organ on her vagina and, therefore, Jigisha and others had gone to call her father. It is also stated that on seeing her father and Ashwinbhai, the appellant had run away and she was taken at home and thereafter her father had taken her to hospital where she was treated. She had identified the accused in the court-room also. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has observed demeanour of this witness and recorded that she was scared while giving name of the appellant. In cross, she has stated that she was not knowing name of the appellant when he had taken her to field. She has further mentioned that all children playing with her were taken to field, but thereafter they had left the field and she was all alone in the field with the appellant. According to her, her father had come to the field after half an hour and was shouting and that whe was not able to state the distance at which she had seen her father. She has maintained in cross also that she was lying on the ground when her father had come to the field. This is the cross-examination of the victim. In cross-examination nothing has come out which would destroy her testimony. Her evidence with regard to putting of private organ by the appellant on her vagina has not been challenged. Considering the evidence of the victim, it can be seen that she has narrated the facts as they are and she has narrated the facts and the incident in a most natural way. The way in which she has narrated the incident, has inspired confidence of trial Court and also inspired confidence of this Court. Her evidence does not shows that she was tutored nor it is so suggested by the appellant in her cross-examination. Even her testimony is corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Rakeshkumar Avasthi and evidence of the complainant i.e. her father. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has erred in relying upon the testimony of the victim while convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 & 511 of I.P.C.