- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. For the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.05.1993 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1992 (State Vs. Hanuman Singh, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and has also imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. It is further provided that in case of failure to pay fine, the appellant shall further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.
(3.) THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14.06.1991 at 6.00 p.m. The first information report was lodged by the father of the victim namely Ram Singh on 14.06.1991 at 10.00 p.m. It was alleged in the first information report that on 14.06.1991 his daughter had gone to nearby fields along with complainant's grandson namely Shrawan Kumar, Guddu and Nanhu son of Sukh Lal. It was further stated in the first information report that at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant Hanuman Singh forcibly caught hold of the prosecutrix and raped her without her consent. The three children who were with the prosecutrix rushed to the house of the complainant and informed him about the occurrence. The complainant immediately reached the spot and saw the appellant running from the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix narrated the entire story to her father and went to the police station to lodge the first information report. A case under Section 376 IPC was registered at police station Bhadokhar, District Rae Barely and the prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for medical examination. The investigation of the case was handed over to P.W. 6 Sub Inspector N. Lal who visited the place of occurrence, in the presence of the prosecutrix and on her identification prepared the site plan and also recovered the broken pieces of bangles from the spot and prepared the recovery memo. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Vinita Singh, P.W. 4 who examined the prosecutrix and prepared the medical examination report. She was referred to the x -ray department for determination of age. The vaginal smear was also sent to the pathology department for investigation. P.W. 5 Dr. S.K. Dwivedi took x -ray of various joints of the prosecutrix and on the basis of x -ray report, P.W. 4 Dr. Vinita Singh prepared the supplementary medical examination report and in her opinion the prosecutrix was about 18 to 19 years of age. It appears that on the request of complainant the prosecutrix was again subjected to medical examination and this time Dr. S.K. Malviya, P.W. 3 examined the prosecutrix and found two minor abrasions on the left arm of the prosecutrix. However, Dr. S.K. Malviya could not give any opinion with regard to duration of injuries. The Investigating Officer after completing all the necessary formalities of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant.;