Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In the meantime, the I.O., W/SI Tejwati arrived at the hospital alongwith an official belonging to an NGO and took over the investigation. The statement of the victim's mother, Smt. U was recorded. She stated that she has two sons and the victim, A is her elder son. On 27.1.2016, at 3 PM, when she was sitting on the terrace and knitting, her son, A went to the room of the appellant situated in the same building for eating chicken rice. After some time, A rushed upstairs and told her that he was bleeding from the anus. On asking him how the bleeding had taken place, A informed her that the appellant had done something wrong with him. At this, the complainant raised a hue and cry and people from the locality gathered there. Arun Kumar, a distant relative of Smt. U, who was also residing in the same building, apprehended the appellant from a nearby shop and reported the matter to the police on phone. Based on her statement, the rukka was prepared and forwarded to the Police Station.

Answer: He is bad person."

Though an opportunity was afforded to the appellant to cross-examine the said witness, except for making him a suggestion that he had been tutored by his mother, the defence did not cross-examine him on any other aspect.

9. Sh. K, father of the victim (PW-5) deposed that he had two children. The victim was his older child, aged about 4 years. On 27.01.2016, he had gone to his factory situated at Bhorghar, Delhi. His wife called him up in the afternoon and stated that the appellant, who was residing on the second floor of the tenanted premises, where they too were living, had committed an act of sodomy with their son, who was bleeding from his anus. When PW-5 reached home, he saw that his son was bleeding from his anus. By then, the appellant had been apprehended by the public and the police had also reached at the spot. The victim was got medically examined by the police at SRHC Hospital and a case was registered against the appellant.

18. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied the prosecution case. In reply to question No.1, he admitted that on 27.01.2016, at about 3 PM, the victim, A, aged 4 years, had gone to his room to eat chicken rice. In reply to question No.14, he stated that PW-4 had falsely testified because he had to return him a sum of Rs.15,000/- that he had borrowed from the appellant prior to the incident. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by PW-4 and PW-5 to extort money. He sought to attribute the bleeding in the anus region of the victim to his scratching his anus by using a sua.

37. Another defence taken by the appellant was that the victim had started bleeding from his anus having scratched the same with a sua, used to stitch jute cloth. The said argument was tested and negated by the trial court for the following reasons:-

"35. The victim bleeding from his anus is a factum, which is not disputed by the accused, the same having been otherwise, emphatically established by the testimony of the victim, his mother and the MLC of the victim Ex. PW 8/A, as well as the testimony of Mr. Arun Kumar examined as PW 4, who testified that he also noticed blood on the thighs of the victim, soon after the incident. The suggestion given to PW 1 / the mother of the victim on behalf of the accused, was that the victim was bleeding from his anus because he had scratched himself with a 'Sua'. However, had this been the case, and the visit of the victim at the house of the accused, not having been disputed, where did the alleged Sua come from, was not thrown any light upon. Presumably, had this been the case, the Sua would have also been present in the house of the accused, and if a four year old child starts scratching himself and that too on his anal region, with a Sua, surely the adult person i.e. the accused would have stopped him from doing so. Going a little further, if the child had been wanting to scratch himself with a Sua, the child would have to extend his arm towards his back and only then, with great difficulty, could he have succeeded in being able to scratch just the exact place i.e. the anus without causing injury on his hips or the surrounding anal region. Going one step ahead, if the child had so succeeded and had started bleeding, the first person who noticed the blood, would have been the accused, and if he had no guilty conscience, he would have brought the child to his home and informed his mother that the child had injured himself with a Sua. The accused, however, did no such thing but rather put a latch on his room and went away. The MLC of the victim Ex. PW8/A does not note the presence of any injuries on the area surrounding the anus of the child, but merely blood being present there. The suggestions put to the witnesses and part of the defence taken by the accused therefore, is found to be too far fetched to be believable."