Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal of the accused Shri Ram against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, dated the 25th June, 1951, by which the accused Shri Ram was convicted of an offence under sec. 376 I. P. C. and sentenced to 3-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a find of Rs. 100/ -.
(2.) THE facts of the case as alleged on behalf of the prosecution side are as follows: - On the 6th October 1949 the accused Shri Ram and Kisturi had gone out to graze cattle in the Jungle named Chetwala Sunda in the village Kabul. At about 11 or 12 A. M. the accused Shri Ram caught hold of Kisturi and committed rape with her. It is said the girl cried but her mouth was muffled by the accused and she could not cry. The accused having committed this offence ran away from that place. Gyarsa P. W. 5 happened to go there and he saw the accused running away from the place where Kisturi was lying naked. Gyarsa also saw that the private parts of the girl were heavily bleeding, and the girl was not in a condition to speak. Kisturi remained lying there for some time and then she got up and went to her well and there she narrated the whole story of this incident to her mother. The mother of Kisturi told her husband what had happened with the girl. Kisturi gave out the name of the accused to her mother. The next morning Moti, the father of Kisturi, left the village in a Bullock-cart along with Kisturi for Bundi where he filed the first information report and the girl was medically examined. The accused Shri Ram was not found in the village on the day on which the Sub-Inspector of Police went there to investigate the case. He was arrested on the 9th of October and was subjected to a medical examination on the 10th of Oct. 1949. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, after holding a trial held that the offence of rape was proved against the accused and the accused was therefore convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. In this appeal, the following points have been raised on behalf of the accused: - (1) That there was delay in the filing of the first information report which has not been explained by the prosecution, (2) that the statement of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by other independent witnesses, (3) that the relations between the accused Shri Ram and the father of the girl Kisturi are not happy and the accused has therefore been falsely implicated in this case, (4) that the accused was not represented by a counsel at the time of the trial and the prosecution witnesses were therefore not cross-examined. This had prejudiced the case of the accused at the trial, (5) that the language of the first information report is that of an educated person and it could not have been the language of the father of the girl. The information given by the father of the girl was therefore not recorded truly as was required by sec. 154 Cr. P. C. It may be observed that the age of the girl Kisturi has been found to be somewhere between 10 years and 14 years by her medical examination. Vide the statement of lady Doctor. The question as regards the consent, therefore, does not arise in the present case. The occurrence took place at about midday on the 6th of Oct. 1949 and the state of health of Kisturi as is revealed from the medical examination and the statement of the Doctor was not very good and she was an underdeveloped child. There was profuse bleeding on account of rape and she had to lie down for some time at the spot before she could rise and go to her mother (vide the statements of Gyarsa and Kisturi ). She went to her mother and narrated the story to her and also gave out the name of the accused to her. The statement of the mother of the girl, Kasumi, shows that Kisturi went to her some time in the afternoon on her well and Moti, the father of the girl, was also present at the well and he was informed then and there. The prosecution has not been able to put any question to Moti or to Kasumi as to why the information was not sent to the police the same evening. The Police Station is said to be only four to six miles from the village of Kisturi. It was therefore possible for the father of the girl to have immediately sent the information to the police. The learned Govt. Advocate had however argued that the state of the body of the girl was bad at that time as is revealed from the evidence of the girl as well as the mother and the father of the girl and this should have been the main reason for the father of the girl not to have left the village the same evening, for informing the police. It is very likely that this may have been the reason why the first information report was not made the same evening. The next morning of course the father left for the Police Station in a Bullock-cart and lost no time to lodge a report with the police. The name of the accused was mentioned by the girl to her mother and the father soon after the occurrence and Gyarsa also saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. No doubt can therefore be created on account of the delay in the filing of the first information report as regards the identity of the culprit. The statement of Kisturi is very clear that the accused had sexual intercourse with her and on account of penetration her hymen was ruptured and there was profuse bleeding. The statement of the Lady Doctor also fully corroborated the evidence of Kisturi. There were marks of abrasion all round the hymenal opening and vulva. The hymen of the girl was found ruptured (vide the statement of Kaushlya P. W. 1. The accused was also medically examined but no marks of any injury were found on his person. The accused was medically examined on the 10th of Oct. 1949 four days after the occurrence, and it may be that marks of any injury on his person may have healed up during this interval. The investigating officer has stated that there were some marks of blood on the clothes of the accused but no precaution was taken to get those marks chemically examined. It cannot therefore be said that the marks which were observed by the investigating officer on the clothes of the accused were those of human blood. The statement of Kisturi has therefore been corroborated by the statements of the Lady Doctor, the father and the mother of the girl, and the statement of Gyarsa, who happened to go on the spot soon after the occurrence and who saw the accused running away from the place where Kisturi was lying naked and bleeding. All the evidence fully supports the statement of the prosecutrix and it cannot be said that the statement of prosecutrix is not corroborated in material particulars by other evidence. The learned counsel of the accused has cited A. I. R. 1950 Nag. 9 but the facts and circumstances of the case were much different from the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case there were no marks of abrasion found on the outer side of the vagina of the girl whereas in this case abrasion all round the hymenal opening and Vulva were found and the hymen was ruptured. The medical examination in the present case therefore fully supported the case of the prosecution. The age of the girl in that case was 7 years only but in the present case the age somewhere between 10 and 14 years. There was no evidence of any witness in that case regarding the question of the identity of the accused but in the present case the accused was clearly seen by the witness Gyarsa after the occurrence when he ran away from the spot. The condition of the girl which was observed by Gyarsa (vide his statement) also goes to support the account given by the girl relating to the occurrence. A. I. R. 1950 Nag. 9 does not therefore help the case of the accused as the facts and circumstances in that case were much different from the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true that the accused was not represented by any counsel at the time of the case and none of the prosecution witnesses was therefore cross-examined by him, even though an opportunity was offered to the accused to cross-examine them. The accused was of 25 years of age and as he belonged to a village and was not conversant with the procedure of the trial of cases he could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses himself. It was desirable if the trial court had cared to employ the services of some lawyers amicus curae in order to assist the accused to test the veracity of the prosecution witnesses through cross-examination. The members of the learned profession of law could not have minded to take the trouble to help the ends of justice in such a case where the accused was poor and unable to defend himself. But the mere fact that the accused was not represented by a counsel would not vitiate the proceedings of the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has however examined the prosecution witnesses thoroughly and the fact of the accused not having examined the prosecution witnesses even when he was offered an opportunity to do so cannot be regarded as having prejudiced the case of the accused. As regards there being strained relations between the accused and the complainant, there is not much material on the record to substantiate this allegation. Even if it be held that the relations of the accused and the father of the girl were not very good yet by itself this cannot be said to be good reason for the father of the girl to falsely implicate the accused in a charge of rape, because nobody would, in the background of the Indian Civilization, initiate such proceedings as would involve the reputation of one's own daughter. It appears that the Superintendent of Police who took down the first information report used his own language in drafting it but the meterial facts which he had noted down are not in any way different from what the informant had stated in the court. There is therefore no force in the argument of the learned counsel of the accused that the Police officer did not write the first information report exactly in the same language in which it was communicated to him. It may be pointed out that it would be always safe if the Police officers would take down the report in the language in which it is made under sec. 154 Cr P. C, so as to avoid chances of error. The finding of the trial court that the accused did commit rape with Mt. Kisturi appears to be correct and the conviction of the accused under sec. 376 I. P. C. is therefore well founded. The sentence of 3-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment is also not excessive. This appeal is therefore dismissed. . ;