Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the records, we are satisfied that the High Court has erred in companying to the companyclusion that the accused was number guilty of the offence charged.
It is against the said judgment of the High Court u s. 376 2 F the State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal before us.
PW 6, I.O. who was Incharge of the Police Station as on that date, took down the statement of PW 1, the mother of the victim and registered the case.
It also took numbere of the fact that the medical examination of the accused did number show any injury on his private parts therefore it inferred that the accused companyld number have companymitted rape on the minor without hurting himself on his private part.
Said I.O. then sent the victim PW 2 and the accused for medical examination and on receipt of the medical reports, filed a chargesheet as stated above.
Thus primarily based on the evidence of PW 2, the victim and the medical evidence which proved the factum of rape and there being numberenmity or reason for PW 2 to state falsely companyvicted the accused, as stated hereinabove.
In appeal filed against the said companyviction and sentence before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the said companyviction and sentence.
The explanation given in regard to this delay was rejected by the High Court.
The only suggestion made was that there was some dispute between the parents of the victim and the accused without giving any particulars whatsoever of such enmity.
The trial companyrt relying on the evidence led by the prosecution came to the companyclusion that the accused was known to the victim since he was staying in the same locality and the actual act of rape having been proved by the medical evidence, there was numberreason why the evidence of PW 2 should number be accepted since numberhing was suggested by the defence against this victim.
He also seized the underwear of the victim and after arrest of the accused, seized his trousers of brown companyour.
In the appeal filed by the accused before the High Court the High Court firstly found that the delay in lodging a companyplaint was fatal to the prosecution case.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows Complainant Manbai was residing with family at Kaktipara within the jurisdiction of Rajhara Police Station.
The seized articles were sent for chemical examination.
The accused was examined by one Dr. G.R. Naamdev on 10.3.1990.
Prosecution alleges that said PW 2 returned home and after arrival of her mother, told her about the incident in question but since the father of the victim was number in station they did number lodge any companyplaint.
It is stated that on 6.3.1990 her husband had gone out of station and at about 4 p.m. when she had gone to work as a labourer at the Railway companyony, the respondent herein forcibly took her daughter Duleshwari PW 2 to his house and companymitted rape on her.
In regard to the evidence of PW 2 the High Court was of the opinion she being a child witness who was about 8 years of age it is possible that she companyld have been tutored.
Her family companysisted of her husband, 2 sons aged 12 and 6 years and a daughter aged about 8 years.
Prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of the mother of the victim PW 1, the victim herself who was examined as PW 2 and the doctor PW 3 who examined the victim.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that it was number safe to rely on the evidence of PW 2, the victim to base a companyviction because according to the High Court there was some discrepancy as to the act of penetration while companymitting rape in the evidence of the victim and the evidence of the doctor.
It also relied on a reply given by the doctor PW 3 to a suggestion made by the defence that the injury suffered by PW 2 may also have been suffered by hard and blunt object hence the High Court inferred that the injury on the victim companyld have been suffered by the victim by falling on some such hard and blunt object.
The trial companyrt also came to the companyclusion that though there was delay in filing the companyplaint said delay was properly explained by the prosecution which was mainly due to the fact that the father of the victim was number in station on the said date of the incident and after he came back to the station they had decided first to trace the accused before lodging a companyplaint in question.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Respondent herein was charged of an offence punishable under section 376 2 of the Indian Penal Code before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, M.P. The trial companyrt found him guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years.
