Judgment:
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.
1. The appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated April 22, 1985 by which appellant Bachna was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Kumari Suraj, aged about 9/10 years at the relevant time d/o PW 2 Gumansingh Rajput of village Deoki, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore. On January 31, 1984, she took the cattle for grazing in the field of PW 5 Bhimsingh Rajput, situate in Mauja Deoki. At about 12 hours in the noon when she was grazing the cattle in the field of Bhimsingh. the accused came there and asked her about her brothers and sisters. Thereafter he asked her to go with him in a lonely site. She refused to accompany him. Thereupon the accused forcibly took her in a lonely side. He felled her down, untied her ghaghra, placed it aside and unloosened his dhoti. He then committed rape on her. Kumari Suraj started crying. Hearing her outcries, PW 2, Gumansingh and Bhimsingh, who accidently happened to go there rushed to the spot. Seeing them, the accused left Kumari Suraj and took to heals. Bhimsingh and Gumansingh chased him but the accused managed to escape. They found Kumari Suraj lying in the field with injuries on her body and blood oozing out from her private parts. They also noticed blood on the spot. Gumansingh made the girl to wear the Ghagra and took her to his house. He collected the persons of the locality who advised him to report the matter to the police. As no means of communication were available, nothing could be done on Jan. 31, 1984. On Feb. 1, 1984, Gumansingh took the prosecutrix to the hospital and got her medically examined. He thereafter presented writen report Ex. P 3 before the District Superintendent of police, Jalore, who directed the concerned Station House Officer P.S. Nosra to register the case and make investigation. The case was consequently registered at P.S. Nosra, The medical examination of the prosecutrix was made by the medical jurist Dr. R P. Purohit (PW 7), Govt. Hospital, Jalore. The Doctor noticed the following injuries on the person of the prosecutrix;
External:
(1) One small abrasion 1 cm midline x at 1/3 vertebral level, brownish seals;
(2) one abrasion 2cm x 2cm irregular 5cm. above injury No. 1 midline and towards left side brownish seals;
(3) one abrasion 5cm. x 1/2cm. obliquely 2cm away from injury No.2, right infra scapular region;
(4) two elongated abrasions of 10cm, x 1/2cm x 1/2 cm. apart on the medic posterior as pect of right thigh, brownish seal upper 3rd region of the thigh.
Internal: (Cenital examination)
(1) Dark clotted blood deposited over labia majora and medial side of thighs;
(2) Hymen is torn recently with margins swllen and blood oozing. Tear extending from four c.ms. to 1.5 cm. above anul margins which bleeds on touching.
3. Swab was taken and slides were prepared by the doctor. Dr. Purohit was of the opinion that rape had been committed with Kumari Suraj within 24 to 48 hours before her medical examination. He issued report Ex. P/4. The investigating Officer Shaitan Singh PW 4 arrived on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the site plan. He found blood staind soil there on the spot. It was seized and sealed. He also found broken pieces of bangles which he also seized and sealed. The ghaghra which the prosecutrix wearing at the time of the commission of the crime, was also seized and sealed as blood stains were found on it. The accused was arrested on February 5, 1984. At that time he was wearing a dhoti containing some stains of blood. His dhoti was seized and sealed. The blood stained cloths and slides were sent for chemical examination. Human blood was detected on them. Human semen was also detected on the ghagra of the prosecutrix. On the completion of investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore who in his turn committed the case for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 376 IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and filed some documents. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. the accused denied the whole prosecution story and stated that his father Chhomba was employed with Abhay Singh Rajput of village Mithri. Arjun Singh and Pratap Singh residents of Mithri did not like this. They therefore, fabricated a false case against him with the help of PW 2 Guman Singh who happens to be the stooge. On the conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge found the charge duly proved against the accused. He found merit in the defence taken by the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. D.S. Rathore learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.M. Bhandari the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully.
5. In assailing the conviction the first ground taken by Mr. Rathore is that there was inordinate delay in loding the first information report. It was alleged that the offence was alleged to have been committed in the fore-noon January 31, 1984 whereas the FIR Ex. P 3 was submitted before the Superintendent of Police on February 1, 1984. It was argued that in a case of rape this inordinate delay is fatal. No explanation is coming from the prosecution side to explain this delay. In my opinion the contention holds no ground. It is true that offence was committed in the fore-noon of January 31, 1984 and the FIR Ex. P 3 was submitted to the Superintendent of Police on February 1, 1984. The offence was committed in a village from where Jalore is far PW 2 Guman Singh has stated that no means of communication are available from village Deoki to Jalore and as such he could not proceed to Jalore or to the police Station on the day of incident. It was only on the next day morning that he got the bus to go to Jalore. His explanation is true and convincing. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was made on Februaryy 1, 1984 and the medical opinion is that the rape was committed within 24 to 48 hours i.e. on January 31, 1984. In view of these facts no undue importance should be given to the delay in lodging the FIR. In the first place, no delay is there and even if it is there, it has been satisfactorily explained.
6. It was next contended by Mr. Rathore that the identity of the culprit does not stand satisfactorily proved. It was argued that the prosecutrix PW 3 Kumari Suraj might have been raped by some unknown persons whom she could not identify. She had no occasion to see him before the incident. The prosecutrix is a girl of tender age, being 9 or 10 years in age at the time of the incident. It was argued that it appears to be a case of wrong identity of the culpritt. I again find no substance in the contention of Mr. Rathore. Kumari Suraj PW 3 has given a categoric statement that she knew the accused before the intident because he used to come with his cattle to the well of her village to provide water to them. She further stated that she had seen the accused more than once before the incident and she therefore knew him very well. She categorically denied that she did not know the accused before hand. There is nothing in her statement to show that the accused was not known to her before this incident. The accused while committing rape remained in her contact for some time and this excludes the possibility of any wrong identification of the accused. There is nothing in the statement of the prosecutrix that her claim to know the accused before hand is unfounded or false. There is nothing in her statement to put it at a discount on the point of correct identity of the culprit who committed rape on her. The contention of Mr. Rathore that it is a case of mistaken identity of the culprit is lifeless.
7. It was next contended that the story of rape as put forth during trial is highly improbable and does not stand to the reason and logic. It was argued that the prosecutrix was alone in the field of PW 5 Bhimsingh. It it not less than a miracle that when she raised cries, her father PW 2 Gurnan Singh and PW 5 Bhim Singh happened to be in the way to rush to to the spot. It was argued that PW 5 Guman Singh and PW 5 Bhimsingh by no stretch of imagination could be there at the spot and there rushing to the spot is an impossibility. There is again no merit in the argument. The offence was committed in the field of PW 5 Bhimsingh. He stated that as it was a crop season, he went to his field to have a round. It does not appear that PW 5 Bhimsingh has any bias or grudge against the accused. It is difficult to conceive that he would falsely depose against the accused for no apparent reasons. His name has been mentioned in the FIR Ex. P/3. There is thus no substance in the contention of Mr. Rathore.
8. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix, it cannot be ignored that she comes from a respectable Rajput family. She was hardly 9 or 10 years in age at the time of the incident. No respectable family concocts a false charge of rape in respect of its minor girl because the very allegation of rape brings disgrace and humility to the family. No bad blood was there between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix I am unable to comprehend that the father of the prosecturixe would foist a false charge of rape against the accused. The defence of the accused that he was a stooge in the hands of Arjun Singh and Pratap Singh of his village with whom his father was employed, is unfounded and has no relevance. It is difficult to imagine that the prosecutrix father Gumansingh would play as easily in the hands of Arjun Singh and Pratapsingh so as to involve his own daughter who is a girl of very tender age to fabricate a false case of rape.
9. In the last the submission of Mr. Rathore is that the sentence awarded to the accused is highly severe and calls for reduction. I am unable to subscribe his views. The victim of rape is a girl of tender age hardly of 9 or 10 years. When sexual offence is committed with a girl of this tender age, who is unable to defend herself, a deterrent sentence is called for. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded the sentence of 4 years which does not appear to be severe or exorbitant. No reduction is called for. The accused was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC.
10. In the result, the appeal of accused Bachna is hereby dismissed.