Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16/7/1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Bali in Sessions Case No. 55/85 (14/84) by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 376/511 and 366 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under: Offence Sentence awarded 366 I.P.C. 1 years R.I. 376/511 IPC 1 years R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) This appeal arises in the following circumstances: (1) A report Ex. P/1O was addressed to the Distt. Collector. Pali by one Bhika Ram (might be P.W. 31 alleged to have written on 22/1/1979 stating that on that day P.W. 3 Bhika Ram had gone outside from his house and his daughter P.W. 1 Bhanwari aged 7 years (hereinafter referred to as the child prosecutrix) went to take flowers at the well of Panna. The accused who was a student in one college at Falna had also come to his village. When the prosecutrix was collecting flowers he took her towards a tree and committed rape with her. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/1O that after that incident he went to the police station. Bali and Police told him that first get the medical examination of the child prosecutrix Thereafter he met Dr. Futar Mal Jam who was Medical Officer in the Government Dispensary at Bali and Dr. Futar Mal told him to bring requisition first from the police. But no report was lodged. In report Ex. P110, it is also mentioned that the incident took place on 28/12/1978. (2) P.W. 17 Raghu Nath. Dy. S.P. Bali has stated that he received the complaint Ex. P/10 and he enquired from P.W. 3 Bhika Ram whether he had lodged such report Ex. P110, upon this P.W. 3 Bhika Ram who is father of the child prosecutrix stated that the facts narrated in the report Ex. P110 are correct one, but he did not lodge that report. Thereafter P.W. 17 Raghunath on 3/2/1979 took the statement (Ex. P/i) of P.W. 3 Bhika Ram where P.W. 3 Bhika Ram stated those facts which are found in the report Ex. P/10 and apart from that it was further stated that after that incident P.W. 1 Bhanwari came weeping in injured condition and told the whole story to her mother P.W. 2 Janja who went to the house of accused appellant to make complaint about the conduct of the accused appellant where his mother met and stated that such type of thing could not have been done by his son (accused appellant). It is also mentioned in the statement Ex. P/i that thereafter the incident was narrated to P.W. 4 Mukut Bihari, and P.W. 15 Chunnilal it was further stated in that statement that blood was coming out and he and her wife (P.W. 2 Janja) took P.W. 1 Bhallwari to the doctor at that time P.W. 4 Mukut Bihari and P.W. 15 Chunnilal were with them and the doctor told them to come in night because there were many patients at that time. When in the night they went again, the doctor told that there was nothing wrong with the child prosecutrix and she was kept in the hospital for seven days and thereafter P.W. 1 Bhanwan Devi was discharged and from the hospital, he went to the police station to lodge the report and P.W. 4 Mukut Bihari was with her, but no report was taken by the police and police advised them first to go to the hospital, then he again came to the hospital and the doctor again told him that nothing was wrong with the child prosecutrix.
(3.) That on the above statement Ex. P/i police chalked out regular FIR Ex. p 12 and started investigation.;