Shrikant Tripathi - (1.) THE appellant Rajendra has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2006 rendered by Smt. Niraja Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 17, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2004, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of two months.
(2.) IT is a case of attempt to commit the offence of rape on a minor girl of four years. IT is alleged that on 16.10.2003, at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant Raj Kumar, who is the father of the prosecutrix, got information from the witness Yunus that the appellant was seen by him sleeping in the naked condition on the prosecutrix who was also made naked. On hearing this information, the complainant Raj Kumar and his wife Kusma went to the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. They noticed that the appellant was attempting to commit rape on the prosecutrix. The appellant was arrested on spot. He was taken to the concerned police station, where the complainant handed over the F.I.R. of the occurrence, on which basis the police registered the case for investigation. The prosecutrix was then referred to P.W. 4, Dr. Sunita Kashyap, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 16.10.2003 itself. No external injury on any part of the body of the prosecutrix including the private part was noticed by the doctor. Hymen was found intact. There was to bleeding. The Investigating Officer, after making usual investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned trial Judge framed the charge under Section 376 read with Section 511, I.P.C., against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Ram Kumar is the complainant of this case and is also the father of the prosecutrix. He has proved the F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1 and has supported the prosecution story as an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Kusma is the mother of the prosecutrix and the wife the complainant. She has also supported the prosecution story and had given eye-witness account of the occurrence. P.W. 3 Preetam Singh was posted as Head Moharrir at the police station concerned. He has given evidence of formal in nature and has proved the chik report Ex. Ka-2 and copy of the G. D. Ex.-3. P.W. 4 Dr. Sunita Kashyap had medically examined the prosecutrix and proved her report as well as the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. According to this witness, the prosecutrix was aged about 3-4 years. P.W. 5 Sub-Inspector P. C. Bharti had investigated the instant case. He has proved the site plant Ex. Ka-7 and the charge-sheet as Ex. Ka-8.;