Khem Chand Sharma, J. - (1.) Accused appellant Matadin was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence under Section 376 IPC for having committed rape on a minor girl aged about 6 year at her field on 8.3.2000 at about 12-1.00 PM. On completion of trial, the learned trial court did not find the charge under Section 376 IPC established against the appellant. However, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty of having attempted to commit rape on a minor girl and accordingly, convicted the accused appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
(2.) Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and in my opinion, rightly so. However, I consider it appropriate the re-appreciate the evidence, which led the trial court to record find of guilt against the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC.
(3.) PW 8 Dr. B.L. Gupta in his statement has stated the age of the prosecutrix as 7 years. PW 7 Dr. Kanchan Batra, who examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. Her hymen was found intact and there was no bleeding. Similarly, PW 9 Dr. Amar Singh Rathore has stated in his statement that he sent slied to the Pathelogist vide Ex.P11 and as per the report no spermatozoa was found.;