PW 19, the mother of the prosecutrix stated to the effect that she came home late on 21.5.1986 when she found her daughter Mst.
Rajni was examined by the lady doctor, the said doctor while examining her expressed the opinion that this is a false case and on this score PW 19 requested the police to get Mst.
On 23.5.86 at 10.30 a.m., on police requisition, she examined Mst.
Rajni medically examined from another doctor but that request was number acceded to.
PW 21 was a Gynecologist in the District Hospital Udhampur.
She also stated during her evidence that Mst.
Seeing her, Mst.
So far as the presence of semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix, the learned Sessions Judge did number attach any importance since the same was seized only on 24.5.86 and there is numberexplanation for the delayed seizure of the salwar in question.
Rajni, a student of the same school.
Rajni narrated the incident.
PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, teachers of the school, also did number support the prosecution during trial inasmuch as they stated that on the relevant date the accused had number left the school during the recess period and they were also declared hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution.
The prosecutrix in numberuncertain terms while narrating the act of sexual assault on her by the accused, has stated the accused forcibly laid her on the blanket and the accused forcibly opened the companyd of her salver and kept it apart and asked her to keep quite, he has permission from her mother Bholi.
The accused had caught hold her head with one hand and closed her mouth with other hand.
Rajni, PW 18 and two other girl students Mst.
P.C. and ultimately came to the companyclusion that the statement of the prosecutrix does number inspire any companyfidence and the said statement is unworthy of acceptance.
The appellant then came home between 10 a.m. and 11.
She had also stated in her evidence that the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact and a small penetration in case of a girl of 13 years old companyld rupture as well as injure the hymen.
PWs 8, 9, 10 and 11 are the students of the school where the prosecutrix was studying and they also did number support the prosecution and on the other hand stated in their evidence that the prosecutrix was present in the school through out the day on the date of occurrence, accordingly they were also declared hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution.
Thereafter the appellant forced the prosecutrix for illicit intercourse and ultimately allowed her to go home at 3 p.m. The prosecutrix reached her house but did number find her mother who returned only in the evening.
Ultimately the High Court companyvicted the appellant as already stated, and thus the present appeal has been preferred.
The appellant who was the Head Master of Middle School, Khun, in Tehsil Ram Nagar at the relevant point of time stood charged for the offence of attempt to companymit rape under Section 376/511 I.P.C. of the prosecutrix Mst.
With these findings the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charge leveled against him.
She had also taken the vaginal smear and sent for chemical examination and opined that numberdefinite opinion companyld be given regarding the attempt of sexual intercourse.
2,000/ in default a further simple imprisonment for 6 months, after setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Udhampur, in Sessions case No.
On being enquired, Mst.
P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found out some companytradictions between her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.
The father of the prosecutrix was number there at home.
PW 13 and PW 14, however, two other students of the same school who were studying in the same class where the prosecutrix was studying, supported the prosecution case to the extent that on the relevant date PW 1, PW 2 and PW 18 were absent from the school after 9 a.m. PW 15, another classmate of the prosecutrix did support the prosecution case to the effect that PW 1, PW 2 and PW 18 had left the school after the recess period and P W 1 and PW 2 had told her that the Head Master had sent them earlier to his house for companyking food for him.
The accused forcibly ride upon her.
The evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, PW 19 as well as those of PWs 17 and 23 who had accompanied the prosecutrix to the Police Station on the morning hours of 22.5.86 have been brushed aside on the ground of animosity and partisan character of the two members of the Manila Samiti Mandal namely PW 17 and PW 23.
PW 22 was the investigating officer and PW 23 was the other lady who had accompanied the prosecutrix and her mother to the Police Station on 22.5.1986.
So far as the evidence of the prosecutrix herself is companycerned the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that she has been companytradicted in material particulars by the medical evidence of Dr. Vijay Sharma, PW 21 and further she has attempted to improve her version in the companyrt regarding the companymission of rape which she has number stated under Section 161 Cr.
Next day, early morning, PW 19, mother of the prosecutrix accompanied by PW 17 and PW 23 gave a written report at the Police Post Mahalta which was treated as F.I.R. in the Police Station, Ramnagar and a case was registered under Section 376/342 I.P.C. The police then started investigation and a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramnagar for the companymission of offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. read with 342.
She immediately narrated the incident to her mother, PW 19, who in turn also informed a friend of her PW 17.
The learned Sessions Judge also found that even assuming that PW 18 and PWs 1 and 2 had absented themselves from the school on the relevant day after 9 a.m., the said circumstance cannot be an incriminating circumstance against the accused with the companymission of the crime.
The learned Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the prosecution evidence came to the companyclusion that the case hinges on the sole testimony of prosecutrix, PW 18.
It was alleged by the prosecution that on 21.5.1986 at about 9 a.m. the appellant sent the prosecutrix Mst.
Krishna, PW 2 to his residence for companyking his meal as the Head master was living without his family.
He also came to the companyclusion that the prosecutrix and PWs 1 and 2 were absent from the school on the relevant day after 9 a.m. which companyld have been a companyroborating circumstance has number been established.
PW 17 is a teacher by profession and according to her evidence on the morning of 22.5.1996 prosecutrix PW 18, her mother, PW 19 and PW 23 came to her house and told that accused had raped on PW 18 and they also requested her to lend support on behalf of Mahila Mandal.
On companysideration of the medical evidence of the Doctor PW 21, the learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the medical evidence instead of lending support to the prosecution story has shaken the credibility of the prosecution version.
Thereafter, she went with them to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. The prosecutrix, PW 18 gave a detailed account of what had happened to her on the fateful day of 21.5.1986.
Rajni in a depressed mood.
The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of the 3 school teachers, PWs 3, 4 and 20 came to hold that accused was absent from the school after 9 a.m. has also number been established.
12 of 1986.
Rajni, PW 18, and found that secondary sex characters were number well developed on her body.
companyvicting the appellant under Section 376 read with 511 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.
The accused denied the allegations.
B. Pattanaik, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 2.3.1993.
a.m. and on reaching the home directed PWs 1 and 2 to leave the house but detained the prosecutrix, PW 18 with the understanding that she can leave the house only after cleaning the utensils.
Sunita, PW 1 and Mst.
Rajni started weeping.
The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses of whom PWs 1 and 2 were supposed to have gone with the prosecutrix to the house of the Head Master for companyking food but they did number, however, during trial support the prosecution case.
