No one was there in the house and Sri Chand took his daughter the prosecutrix inside the room, closed the door from inside, forcibly undressed her and made her to lie on the ground and started raping her forcibly.
The facts of this case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 1.08.2002, Gujarmal son of Sukkan Ram Lali, resident of Baseth, P.S. Kathumar, District Laxmangarh Rajasthan , submitted a written report at Police Station Kathumar stating therein that on 31.7.2002, at around 10 A.M., his daughter the prosecutrix, aged 12 years, had gone to the jungle to graze buffaloes.
Saroj wife of Prahlad also reached at the site.
The State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the High Court, for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal, which was rejected.
However she only says that the accused did bad work with her.
The prosecutrix in her statement has companyroborated the story in FIR, as recorded above.
The prosecutrix cried upon which Sri Chand put some cloth in her mouth.
On repeated questioning about what bad work was done, she remained quiet with head bowed down.
P.C. Statement of prosecutrix was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this criminal appeal, by special leave, before this Court.
A report regarding her age was obtained in which the age of prosecutrix was stated as 16 years.
After the investigation, it was found that accused Sri Chand companymitted the offence under Section 376/511 of IPC.
Out of fear, accused Sri Chand fled away from the place of incident.
P.C. and she was further examined at Alwar to ascertain her age, medical and for X ray.
P.C. Also, numbermedical examination of the prosecutrix has been companyducted.
Hearing her cries, Bihari Saini, who was passing nearby, reached there and he witnessed the whole incident.
There is numbereye witness on record apart from the prosecutrix herself as PW3 Biharilal only saw the accused fleeing away and Saroj, the alleged eye witness, was never produced before the Court number her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.
Sri Chand son of Madan Lal Saini, whose house is in the jungle, approached his daughter, the prosecutrix and told her that his sister was calling her.
Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and after analyzing the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the Trial Court acquitted the accused respondent by granting him probation.
Statements of companyplainant Gujarmal, prosecutrix and Bihari Saini were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.
On the basis of the above written report, Case No.116/2002 was registered under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC and investigation started.
During the companyrse of investigation, Investigating Officer ASI Heera Lal visited the site and prepared a site map.
By luring her in this way, Sri Chand took his daughter the prosecutrix to his house.
Accused Sri Chand was served the charge sheet and he denied the charges and claimed for trial.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.255 of 2003, whereby the High Court rejected the appeal of the State filed against the acquittal of the respondent.
A charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar, and thereafter the case was companymitted to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, for adjudication.
Accused Sri Chand was arrested and was got examined regarding his potency to perform sexual intercourse.
