ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J - (1.) PROSECUTION Case: Vimla (the name changed) was physically handicapped. Both of her legs were crippled. She was staying with her family in south Andaman, Police Station Ograbraj. On January 27, 2011, she was doing her household works. She was in the house along with her baby. Her husband and mother both were out to join their place of work. Her brother went to his college. There was no one else in the house. While she was feeding her child, Padam, her next door neighbour, came and violated her. Vimala immediately informed Amit Khan, local Surpanch, who asked her to wait till her family members came. After sometime, her mother came and she narrated the occurrence when her mother took her to medical. The police examined and she narrated the occurrence to the police. The police took down her version and read over and explained it to her. She signed the same. She was medically examined. Her maxi and petticoat were seized by the police. She also signed on the seizure memo prepared by the police. The police arrested Padam. Padam pleaded not guilty of the offence and faced the trial.
(2.) STATEMENT of Vimala before the police is quoted below: "I am residing in my mother's house with my mother, husband and children and doing domestic works. As both my legs are handicapped, I am not doing any other work except household works. Today on 27/1/11 in the morning at about 0600 hours my mother and my husband, both went to do their job from the house and my elder brother went to the college. I was with my child in the house. When in the morning at about 0830 hours, I was feeding my 6 months child inside the house. That time Padam, who is residing next to my house, entered my house suddenly and snatched and kept aside my child who was drinking milk and then he just hold me and took me up. I shouted, as such he closed my mouth and took me to the kitchen and raped me. I was shouting he grasped my neck and told if you shout, I may kill you by grasping your neck. He was wearing only towel. He raped me and then wore his towel and ran towards the jungle from the backside of my house. I cried and went to the house of our village Sarpanch, Amit Khan and told all the matter to Amit Khan. For that, he said, "You can't walk properly, let your mother come then we will go to police station and medical." As such, I came back to the house. At about 1.30 PM in the evening, my mother returned back to house from her duty. I told all the matter for which my mother took me to PHC Tushnabad. At the time of rape for my safety I scratched several places on the body of Padam with my nails, even though he did not leave me. During this incident, my maxi was torn." The prosecution examined ten witnesses including the victim. PW 1 Vimla, was consistent at the trial. According to her, she was feeding her baby in the house when none else except her baby was present. Padam threw away the child, lifted her and took her to the kitchen where he committed 'balatkar' on her. She raised hue and cry. Padam caught hold of her by her neck and threatened her with dire consequence. She tried to save herself by scratching the body of Padam with nails. Padam thereafter fled away. She informed Amit Khan and then to her mother who took her to the hospital. Police interrogated her. She was medically examined. She signed her statement as well as the seizure memo of her wearing apparel. During cross- examination she stated, her mother came back from work at 1.30 PM. They reached hospital at 2 PM. They went to Monglutan hospital at 4 PM. On that day doctor did not examine her in Tusnabad hospital. Her maxi was seized at 7 PM that she wore between 1.30 to 7 PM. At 5 PM she was taken to Tusnabad hospital. She remained admitted for one day. She came back on the next morning at 7 AM. The accused was living with his family including his wife. She did not inform his family about the occurrence. She was unable to give estimation of the total time consumed by the accused to do the mischief. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not violate her. She rather volunteered to say, she was the mother of two children, at the same time a wife, she would not tell lie.
(3.) PW .2, the Doctor examined the accused on the request of the police. He proved his medical report. He found three scratch marks on the back of the left shoulder and two scratch marks on the lower back left side. He, however, did not mention, the injuries were fresh. He did not find any pubic hair in genital region, as told by him during cross-examination. PW 3 another Doctor, examined Vimala. According to her, she could not see any hymen. Vimala was not subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, as found by her. She collected vaginal swab and sent it for chemical examination through police. She did not find any stray hair and pubic hair. No mark of violence was found around genital region. The victim lady stated, she scratched the accused. Hence she took nail clippings and handed over the same to the police for examination. She admitted, accused was not produced before her. PW.5, the Surpanch, corroborated the evidence of Vimala. PW.8 was the mother of the victim. She also corroborated what had been stated by her daughter Vimala. She went for selling milk and came back at about 1.30 PM. She found her daughter weeping. She came to know from her, Padam violated her. She took her daughter to Tusnabad medical. The police came and took her statement. Vimala was taken to Monglutan Health Centre where the lady doctor medically examined her. Her wearing apparels were seized. She identified the signature as well as the wearing apparels. In cross- examination, she admitted, two of her daughters would reside adjacent to her house. She denied the suggestion that there had been a land dispute with the accused and the complaint had been a fall out. PW 9, the Investigating Officer during his cross-examination admitted, the CFSL report did not contain any reference of stretch(scratch) mark relating to the nails collected by the Investigating Officer. As per the report, nothing was detected from the exhibits. Medical report did not suggest any forcible sexual intercourse.;