MOHD JAMEEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.160 of 2000, whereby the present Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.1.2000 at about 12:55 p.m., the prosecutrix (PW1), who was aged about 14 years, lodged First Information Report (Ex.P3) in Police Station Darri stating that at about 10:00 a.m., when she had taken her goats for grazing, at that time, the Appellant caught her and with an intention to outrage her modesty tried to open the lace of her underwear. At that time itself, her father Firoz Kumar (Firatram) (PW4) reached there. On this, the Appellant ran away from there. On the basis of the said report, offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by Police Station Darri. Thereafter, on 16.2.2000, when an application for grant of bail was moved by the present Appellant as well as by acquitted accused persons Mohd. Latif and Mukhtyar Ahmed, a written objection was filed by father of the prosecutrix through a Counsel. In the written objection, it was stated that on the date of incident, virtually the Appellant as well as the other acquitted accused persons, total 3 persons, had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and when the report of rape was made, the police registered the report of offence only under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the said written objection to the concerned police station for further investigation. Thereafter, on 17.2.2000, statements of the prosecutrix as well as her father Firoz Kumar were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate on 17.2.2000 itself. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Beena Agrawal (PW2). It was found by the doctor that there was no visible injury present over the body of the prosecutrix. Hymen of the prosecutrix was old ruptured at 2-3 places. 2 fingers entered in her vagina with some pain. It was opined by the doctor that sexual intercourse was done with the prosecutrix, but no definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. Report of the doctor is Ex.P4. Statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present Appellant as well as Mohd. Latif and Mukhtyar Ahmed. A charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the Appellant and against the other accused persons charge under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the accused persons denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. In defence, the Appellant and the other accused persons examined 2 witnesses, namely, Revenue Inspector Rajeshwar Singh (DW1) and Dhananjay (DW2). Before the Trial Court, it was the defence of the Appellant and the other accused persons that the prosecutrix and her mother were of lose character and her mother also used to falsely implicate persons. It was their further defence that on the date of incident, a quarrel had taken place between Firoz Kumar (Firatram) (PW4), father of the prosecutrix and the Appellant and the other accused persons and thereafter, the report was lodged exaggerating the issue to falsely implicate the Appellant and the other accused persons.