- (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Prem Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.03.1993 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.18/90 by which, appellant herein was convicted for offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' SI. Upon realisation of fine, a sum of Rs.750 was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix Mst. R.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Pritam Solanki urges that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He urges that the statements of the victim Mst.R (PW-2) and her mother Mst. Nanu (PW-1) are totally contradicted by the testimony of Medical Jurist Dr. Jatan Lal Baid (PW-7) and thus, on this ground alone, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 376 r.w. Section 511 IPC. He urges that the trial court framed charge for the offence under Section 376 IPC against the appellant but finding that the allegation of the prosecution regarding the appellant having subjected the victim to rape, was not corroborated and was rather contradicted by the medical evidence, the trial court, proceeded to acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC and instead, convicted him for the offence under Section 376 r.w. Section 511 IPC. Shri Solanki relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (6) SC 196 and Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No.544/2018 decided on 21.08.2018) and urges that in case where the evidence of the prosecutrix is totally contradicted by the medical evidence, the test of prudence requires that the court should seek corroboration to her testimony before placing implicit faith thereupon. He thus, urges that the appellant deserves to be acquitted while giving him benefit of doubt.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He contended that the victim Mst.R (PW-2) had no cause to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. She genuinely stated that she was grazing her cattle when the accused came there, caught hold of her hand, grabbed her mouth and then forcibly subjected her to rape. He urges that the child might not have been able to precisely comprehend the exact nature of sexual violence committed upon her and thus, she appears to have made some exaggerations but by no stretch of imagination, her entire testimony can be discarded as being unreliable. He thus urges that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty for the charge under Section 376 r.w. Section 511 IPC and sentencing him as above do not warrant any interference whatsoever and prays that the impugned judgment deserves to be affirmed.;