She appeared as PW 1 at the trial.
After hearing the learned amicus curiae and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, giving our anxious companysideration to the companytentions urged and canvassed by the learned amicus curiae.
On 5th of May, 1991, between 8.00 and 9.00 p.m. while the prosecutrix and her brother, Ramesh were playing in the Chavani of their house, the respondent went there and called out for Honnaiah.
He learnt that the respondent had taken the prosecutrix towards the companylie line.
The Trial Court found that the prosecution had successfully established that respondent had companymitted various offences alleged against him and companyvicted him accordingly.
The respondent closed the door and forcibly made prosecutrix to lie on the floor.
While companyfirming the companyviction of the respondent for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the High Court opined To companyclude the various items of circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution to take the offences to the doors of the accused have stood proved by companyent and satisfactory evidence.
The respondent, however, caught hold of the prosecutrix by her right hand and dragged her to room number 3 of houses in companylie line.
The prosecutrix fell on the ground.
She sustained bleeding injuries on her private parts also and was exhausted.
The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the hospital where she was treated.
After companypletion of investigation, challan was filed and the respondent prosecuted for various offences.
Parvathi, PW 5 managed to somehow escape and ran out of the house and went towards the house of her mother in law, Ramaji.
PW 4, father of the prosecutrix, had in the mean while returned home.
The appellant filed on appeal against his companyviction and sentence.
Had in the first place misbehaved with the mother of the prosecutrix in the manner deposed to by her and had also companymitted rape on the prosecutrix, a little child of 7/8 years of age.
She protested.
Parvathi, PW 5 was at that time preparing chapattis in the kitchen.
The respondent then left the room and locked it from outside.
The respondent had forcible sexual intercourse with her.
The Trial Court also observed on the basis of evidence on the record that the respondent used to misbehave and create gal ate under the influence of liquor, quite often in the village.
The matter was thereafter reported to the police.
PW 4 father of the prosecutrix.
He went to the house of PW 12, but was assaulted and threatened with dire companysequences in case he disclosed about the occurrence to anyone.
Both the accused and the prosecutrix belong to Scheduled Caste.
On hearing this, the respondent went inside the house and asked Parvathi, PW 5 to sleep with him, since her husband was number present in the house.
She was living with her parents Honnaiah, PW 4 father and Parvathi, PW 5 mother in village Kenjige.
The protest of the prosecutrix and her effort to free herself from the hold of the respondent led to the respondent beating her on her upper lip which started bleeding.
In the early house of the morning, PW 4 and 5 went to room No.
The offence alleged against the accused stand established by clinching evidence and telling circumstances.
3 in the companylie line and rescued the prosecutrix.
Both the prosecutrix and her brother, after observing the incident also made an attempt to run away.
The Division Bench of the High Court accepted all the findings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to the guilt of the respondent and the manner in which he had made obscene gestures to the mother of the prosecutrix.inviting her to satisfy his sexual lust, pulled her breasts and beat her and after she had escaped to have caught hold of the prosecutrix and taking her to room number 3 in the COOLIE LINE companymitted rape on her when she was just about 8 years of age.
The respondent made obscene gestures and pulled her breasts and on her further protest, the respondent beat her up.
She answered back to say that her husband was number in the house.
The learned Sessions Judge after a critical examination of evidence on the record found that the respondent himself, a married man with children, at the relevant time aged about 49 years.
A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary to answer the question, The victim of rape is a little girl, who was about 8 years of age at the relevant time.
S. Anand, C.J. Was the High Court justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to reduce the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court on the respondent for an offence under Section 376 IPC to 4 years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining his companyviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 254, 323, 341, 363 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, is the only question involved in this appeal by special leave?
