JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE two criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellant Raghuveer Singh S/o Ranvir Singh, through two different Advocates, are directed against the impugned judgment dated 24th of September, 2003 passed by the Judge, (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 147/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (b) of the Indian Penal Code (for shot, 'the IPC') and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one month's rigorous imprisonment; under Section 354 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional twenty days rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 342 IPC to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional ten days rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) PW-19 - Gayatri Devi lodged a written-report (Exhibit P-14), at Police Station Phagi, alleging therein that her daughter Sharda, aged about 13 years, is the student of Class VI in Government Secondary School, Dabich. On 10. 11. 2000 Sharda, when came back at the home at 5. 00 PM after school time, told her that Shri Raghuveer Singh, P. T. I. of the School, when the School was going to be closed at about 3. 30 P. M. , called her to serve him water. She served him water in his room. P. T. I. shut the door of the room from inside; she raised hue and cry but he put her hand on her mouth and she was threatened of dire consequences. He removed her clothes and ravished her. On his threatening she washed her underwear in the room itself. He also told her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise she will be given a severe beating. The report could not be lodged immediately looking to involvement of their family prestige in the Society and there was no one to come with them at the police station to report the matter. Her brother-in-law (Nandoi) Ram Kalyan came to her house on 12. 11. 2000 and she narrated him the incident. Thereafter Ram Kalyan told the incident to the Sarpanch of the village and the villagers, and came to lodge the report. On the basis of the above report, F. I. R. No. 320/2000 was registered under Section 376 and 342, IPC. The prosecutrix as well as accused were medically examined. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the matter. The trial court framed charge against the appellant under Section 376 (2) (b), 342 and 354 of the IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. After completion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the present case there was delay of four days in lodging the report, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is contended that the incident took place on 10. 11. 2000 at about 3. 30 P. M. , whereas the written-report was lodged on 14. 11. 2000 and no explanation has been given for this delay in lodging the report. It is also contended that the prosecutrix PW-8 was medically examined and as per the medical-report (Exhibit P-19) only one injury was found on her cheek, which was as human-teeth- bite and no other external injury was found on her person. The hymen was found intact; there was no injury on Vulva. The discharge was present. He contended that the allegation of rape is not corroborated with the medical evidence, therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful and accused be acquitted. He also took the court through the prosecution evidence to show the contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix Sharda (PW-8) to disbelieve her testimony. It is also contended that although the age of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 13 years in the written report but as per the medical-report (Exhibit P-20) her age was found to be above 15 years and below 16 years. However, the learned trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on the record, determined the age of the prosecutrix as 18 years. He also contended that there was a political enmity in between the Sarpanch and accused, and due to that reason the present FIR was lodged after a delay of four days and in absence of corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix, the learned trial court has committed an illegality in convicting the accused appellant.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that this is a case of rape with virgin girl aged 13 years. Although as per the medical-report her age has been shown in between 15-16 years, but she was the student of Class VI, therefore, her age could not have been more than 13 to 14 years at the relevant time. It is also contended that the prosecution has explained the delay of four days in lodging the report satisfactorily. THE husband of the informant was not present in the village. It was a rural area. THE day of 11th November was a holiday on the occasion of 'guru NANAK DEO JAYANTI'; 12th November was Sunday. On 13th November they went to School and narrated the incident to the Sarpanch of the Village and the villagers, and immediately thereafter the FIR was lodged on 14th of November, 2000. It is further contended that now there is settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the Court then on her sole testimony, conviction can be based and it is not necessary that her statement should be corroborated with the medical evidence. It is contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated with the statements of PW-15 Kiran Soni, PW-16 Dhapu Soni, PW-18 Manju Sharma and PW- 19 Gayatri Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that under the threatening of the accused, the prosecutrix herself washed her underwear in the room itself, therefore, the evidence of blood or semen on her clothes could not be procured in the case. THE prosecutrix was medically examined on 15th of November, 2000 i. e. after five days of the incident, hence other injuries on other parts of her body could not be detected. It is, therefore, contended that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. Before discussing the evidence of the case and arriving at any conclusion on appreciation thereof, first I would like to discuss the citations referred by both the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. ;