Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. This Appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad on conclusion of Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2006 before him.
2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :
The appellant was neighbour of the victim's family. On 26.8.2006, when 5 years old victim had gone to the appellant's house, the appellant tried to forcibly commit sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her screams, her mother and other neighbours rushed there and rescued the victim. The victim's father was informed, who gave report on which an offence was registered. Since the victim belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, an offence was registered also under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, Atrocities Act). The victim was sent for medical examination. The appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. The police recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained biological samples taken by Medical Officers and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, performed necessary panchnamas and on completion of investigation sent chargesheet to the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandwad who committed the case to the Court of Session at Niphad.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and Section 3(1) (xii) of the Atrocities Act. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put to trial at which the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses in an attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of false implication, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of Atrocities Act, but, proceeded to convict and sentence him for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both, I have gone through the evidence on record.
5. PW1 Sanjay is the victim's father, who proved his report at Exh.20. PW2 is the victim herself who stated about the assault on her. Her evidence is slightly vacillating, but, that may be on account of her tender age as rightly submitted by the learned APP. PW3 Mrs. Mangala is the victims mother. PW6 Gulyabai and PW7 Rupali are the neighbours. The evidence of PWs3, 6 and 7 is about the events after they were attracted by the screams of the victim.
6. PW4 Dr. Varsha Lahade and PW5 Dr. Sunita Tadavi who had examined the victim and issued necessary certificates. They found that there were external injuries present on genitals, though, there was no bleeding. They observed tenderness. There was contused abrasion of both sides of labia minora medially, but, the hymen was intact. In the opinion of the doctors, though there was no case of rape, but, possible attempt to commit rape. PW4 Dr. Varsha Lahade, a Gynecologist ruled out possibility of injuries (observed by her in Exh.26) having been caused by scratching of her private parts by the victim. PW5 Dr. Sunita Tadavi had also examined the appellant and she proved the certificate at Exh.33. She observed that smegma on the corona glandis was absent and this could have happened because it was rubbed off during the sexual act. Thus she concluded that the appellant had sexual intercourse within 8 to 12 hours of her examination.
7. PW8 Shakil Shaikh is the panch on the seizure panchnamas of the victim's knicker and appellant's underpant vide Exhs. 41 and 42. PW9 Sanjay Ahire is the panch on spot panchnama at Exh.45. PW10 Machindra Kasav is panch on panchnama of arrest of the appellant vide Exh.47. PW11 is ASI Prabhakar Thakur who conducted investigation. PW12 is lady Police Constable Jija Chavan who carried the victim for medical examination. PW13 is Police Nayik Bapu Chavan who carried biological samples and other property to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The reports of the laboratory show that the nicker of the victim had blood stains of âOâ group. Bloodgrouping of the appellant was found to be inconclusive.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was in fact no such act on the part of the appellant to molest the victim. As the victim had some injury to her private part and she was crying, the victims relations cooked up a case of the appellant having molested her. He pointed out that in the crossexamination the victim had stated that she always used to go to play on the platform of house of the appellant. It was suggested to her that while crossing a chair, a nail in the chair hurt her and she sustained injury. She denied this suggestion. This 7 year old child admitted that sometimes she used to urinate in the knicker itself and when knicker gets wet, she used to get itching sensation and hence she used to rub it with her nails. Upon rubbing with nail, there used to oozing of blood which burning sensation used to make her cry. She stated that on that day too she had burning sensation and she was crying. She stated that on that day too since she rubbed, there was blood stains to her nicker and that the appellant had removed her nicker to see as to what injury she had sustained. She stated that she has been told that she was to identify the clothes if shown to her and also to depose as to the ghastly act committed by the appellant.
9. The Learned Counsel submitted that in the face of this evidence by the victim, the learned trial Judge should have acquitted the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP, considering the tender age of the victim, the answers given by her would have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not that the appellant denies that there was any injury to the victim's private part. In fact, he has made two contradictory attempts to explain those injuries â first by suggesting that it was because of the nail of chair injuring the victim's private part, and secondly by suggesting that because the victim scratched her private parts that there was bleeding. Whatever may be the case, since the victim's house was just adjacent to the house of the appellant, even if the victim had some injury, it was no business of the appellant to remove the victim's nicker and examine that injury. He ought to have asked the victim to go to her mother or himself taken her to her mother. These suggestions in the crossexamination clearly show the guilty mind of the appellant. As rightly submitted by the learned APP, there is no question of parents of small child making false accusation against the appellant since the accusation of sexual assault also results in tarnishing image of the girl in the society.
10. On behalf of the appellant, PW4 Dr. Varsha Lahade had been cross-examined extensively. At the time of cross-examination, suggestions given to Dr. Varsha would show desperation of the appellant in making out whatever defence possible. It was also suggested to the Doctor that she had not verified that patient brought was really the victim in this case. She was asked about obtaining consent of the guardian for examining the victim. The entire cross-examination was thoroughly meaningless in the face of suggestions to the victim, which result in an admission that the victim had suffered injuries. The evidence of Dr.Sunita, who was examined as PW5, clearly shows that there was abrasion on Labium minsus as also on the upper side of anus. She had also examined the appellant and found that absence of smegma pointing out to his attempt to have sexual intercourse. She had also noticed abrasion on the glans penis, which would be consistent with an attempt to rape a minor. Even crossexamination of this witness is, to say the least, queer. It was sought to be suggested that the witness stated having examined the victim at the instance of lady police constable Jija Chavan.
11. Considering this medical evidence, it is clear that the victim had been submitted to sexual abuse. The defence of the appellant, as disclosed from the cross-examination of the victim, was to the effect that he had noticed some injury on the victims private part and, therefore, had removed her nicker, thus admitting his presence with the victim just before the incident. PW3 Mangala (mother of the victim), PW6 Gulyabai and PW7 Rupali (neighbours) all state about the victim having been rescued on their hearing victim's cries. They state that except the appellant, nobody was in the house. In view of this, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge about complicity of the appellant in the incident, is incorrect.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant next submitted that the medical evidence ruled out possibility of complete rape and, therefore, the learned trial Judge should not have held appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC. He submitted that in such a case, the learned Judge should have held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. For this purpose, he relied on some judgments of Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that the medical evidence rules out complete rape. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have convicted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC. Learned Counsel for the appellant next submitted that for an attempt to commit an offence, if no specific punishment is prescribed, the punishment had to be half of the sentence prescribed in the section. Therefore, according to him, his client should have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. As rightly pointed out by the learned APP ten years is the minimum sentence for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and the maximum sentence is life-term. Under the guidelines issued by the State Government for computing life term, in such cases, the life imprisonment would be 20 years. Therefore, half of that, according to the learned APP, would come to 10 years which is the sentence rightly inflicted by the learned trial Judge.
13. There can be no doubt that the logic of argument by the learned APP is unimpeachable. All the same, since the learned Judge has himself sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, when that conviction is altered to one for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC, some reduction in the sentence would be warranted. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant was just 21 years old at the time of the incident and, therefore, should be given a chance for reformation. He submits that the appellant is in jail since the date of the incident i.e. 26.8.2006 and has already undergone more than six years of imprisonment. Considering all this, the following order is passed.
The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is altered to offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1000/, or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.