V.N.Misra - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Buchcha accused who was convicted under Section 376 IPC by Sri Mohan Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the 28th of March, 1975, at about 6 P. M. the complainant Jagdish Prasad was at the door of his house in village Teonja, he heard cries coming from the house of Buchcha accused which was to the east and rushed towards his house. When he reached the Bagar of that house he saw that Buchcha accused was committing rape on his minor daugher Km. Malti. On alarm Gulab Singh and Gaya Prasad also arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the offence being committed. THE accused and Km. Malti were separated. THE accused was apprehended and with a report which the complainant got written out by Thakur Prasad he was taken along with the witnesses and Km. Malti to Police Station Khaga where the written report was lodged on 29th March, 1975, at 1.30 A. M. in the night. On this report a case was registered against the appellant, after investigation he was prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid. In this case three eye-witnesses of the occurrence P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad, P. W. 2 Gulab Singh and P. W. 7 Gaya Prasad were examined. Of them, P. W. 2 Gulab Singh and P. W. 7 Gaya Prasad were declared hostile by the prosecution because they stated that they did not see Km. Malti at the spot and they said nothing about her screeming. After they were declared hostile and their testimony was rejected there was the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad complainant, father of the girl, left in this case and it was urged that on his sole testimony the appellant could mot be convicted. In a case like this the sole testimony of the father was sufficient, because no father would ever falsely allege that his own daughter has been raped, because that damages chances of her happy matrimony and brings a bad name to the family.
(3.) BESIDES in this case there was not the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad to fay that the rape was committed but his testimony had significant corroboration by the testimony of the other two witnesses Gulab Singh and G Ya Prasad Gulab Singh stated that while ha passed by the side of the house of the appellant he heard confusion from his house. He later on said that there was blood near the urethra of this girl and there was blood on her frock. He also said that she was not asked anything but was weeping. P. W. 7 GaYa Prasad stated that when he reached near the house of the appellant he saw a crowd there. The complainant Jagdish Prasad had caught hold of the appellant and took him to his house and he saw blood on the thigh of this girl. Thus, though these two witnesses did not say that they saw the girl also at the spot, but they said that they heard confusion coming from the side of the appellant's house, they saw blood on the frock and on the thighs of the girl, and the appellant had been caught by the complainant.;