C.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) JINDU has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated February 5, 1975, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 500/ -. The charge against him is that on April 29, 1974, at village Saknowal he had committed rape upon Mst. Taro.
(2.) IT was only on May 4, 1974 at 8 p.m. that the first information report was lodged by Mst. Taro at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur. The version as given by Mst. Taro at the trial is that she was returning to her home after answering a call of nature at about 4 p.m. Her house is adjacent to the cattle house of the appellant. The appellant aged 18 years caught hold of Taro by both of her arms and gagged her mouth. She was then taken inside a kotha belonging to the appellant. He broke the string of her salwar and then committed sexual intercourse with her in a forcible manner. On the alarm raised by the prosecutrix her aunt Chhindo and another person named Sadhu reached there. By that time sexual intercourse had been completed and both the above -said witnesses took her to her house. The incident was narrated by Faro to her father's elder brother and her mother. The father of the prosecutrix is said to have died about six years prior to the occurrence. The reason given for delay in lodging the first information report is that there was some attempt at compromise. Taro was medically examined by Dr. J. Chathwal P.W. 5 on May 6, 1974, and at that time she had given her age as fifteen years. The vaginal examination showed that the hymen had been torn. There were also torn edges which were slightly pinkish. The vagina admitted only one finger with difficulty and the prosecutrix complained of pain while under examination. This opinion was expressed by the doctor that she was not used to sexual intercourse and that the incident complained of may have been the first sexual intercourse committed with her.
(3.) BESIDES Taro P.W. 4, the prosecution examined Chhindo P.W. 7 So far as Chhindo is concerned, she corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix that on hearing the alarm she went to the kotha of the accused It was found that the door had not been bolted from inside It was through the chinks of the door that it was observed that the appellant was lying over Taro. The appellant was subsequently said to have opened the door himself.;