J.S. NARANG, J.

1. The prosecution version is that one Darshana Kumari daughter of Mahabir aged about 7 years and resident of Bharan went to the field at 5 P.M. on 16.9.1988 to fetch fodder. The accused Surja was also collecting fodder, he called her to help him to tie and lift the fodder. She went inside the field and that she was caught hold of by the accused and he made her fall on the ground. Thereafter, he broke open the cord of her Salwar with one hand put his other hand on her mouth. She was raped by the accused. She became unconscious and started bleeding from her private part. After sometime when she regained consciousness she started crying. It is at that time, her father came there and took her back to the house. Thereafter, she was taken to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. She was medically examined and was administered medical treatment accordingly. SI Sher Singh of Police Station. Meham reached the Hospital upon intimation and recorded her statement at 3 P.M. on 17.9.1988. Consequently, the FIR was registered. The accused was arrested and he was medically examined. Upon completion of investigation the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rohtak who committed the accused vide order dated 3.1.1989. A charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 376 against the accused was put to him on 16.1.1989. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2. The prosecution has examined Dr. Kamla Singh as PW1 who has deposed that on 16.9.1988 at 9.30 P.M., the prosecutrix was medically examined. She found one bluish mark below the mid of the left lower eye lid. Upon examination of her private parts she found that there were very few scantly soft brownish public hair. The vulva was inflamed reddish and tender. Libia Majora was inflamed and clotted blood was present all around the area on its anterior aspect. On libia minora there was laceration at 8 Oclock position measuring 1.5 cm x .2 cm x .2 cm and it bled profusely during examination. On slight touch, there was bleeding from the vagina. There was tenderness and even a little finger was not admissible. The witness took vaginal smears, swabs and that the salwar having multiple stains was taken into custody. All were sealed and handed over to the police for onwards transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The doctor has also stated that on the same day the prosecutrix had been examined under anaesthesia at 2.30 P.M.. She found the hymen was torn and dark clotted blood was present at introitus. Upon removal of clots, fresh bleeding ensued. There was a tear on the right lateral wall of vagina 4 cm deep to the introitus. The cuts were stitched and bleeding was controlled. These facts were noted down on the bed ticket and the statement has been made by the doctor upon perusal of the same.

3. The prosecutrix was infact admitted on 17.9.1988 at 8.30 A.M. by Dr. Sant Ram who appeared as PW3. He has deposed that since it was a case of rape the prosecutrix was required to be examined by the doctor from Gynaecology Department.

4. The accused was subjected to medical examination on 21.9.1988 by Dr. Raghbir Singh, who has appeared as PW2 and he found him fit to have sexual intercourse.

5. The persons comprising as Police party have also been produced as PWs and they have corroborated the recording to the FIR which has been exhibited as Ex.PF/1, on the basis of the ruqa which has been exhibited as Ex.PF. The statement of the Investigating Officer has also been recorded who has also recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. The prosecutrix has also appeared as PW9. She being a minor was put certain questions and the Court after coming to the opinion that she can give rational answers to the questions put to her, her statement was recorded on oath. She has categorically supported the prosecution version. Mahabir the father of the prosecutrix has appeared PW10. He has corroborated the fat that when he reached the spot he found her crying and she was bleeding from her private parts and that she was brought to the house and then she was taken to the hospital. The prosecutrix told her father that Jagdish had raped her.

6. The defence of the accused is that a false case has been registered against him because about 10 days prior to the occurrence, the father of the prosecutrix had cut the Jawar crop of the accused and thereupon, the accused had given him beatings hence this case. The accused has produced his wife Bhanti as DW1. She has stated that on the day of occurrence accused was in the field throughout with her and they looked after the Bajra crop. They returned to the house together in the evening upon their bullock cart and that the prosecutrix was with them in that bullock cart.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documentary evidence and also the ocular evidence and also examining the defence version of the accused. I am of the opinion that no case has been made out for interfering in the well reasoned judgment dated 7.8.1989 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak.

8. Darshana, the prosecutrix has pointed an accusing finger at the accused for being responsible for out raging her modesty and committing the heinous crime by way of raping her. The medical evidence brought on record confirms the fact that Darshana was subjected to rape and that she was found by her father lying at the spot in bad shape and that she was bleeding at that time. It is at this time he had asked her as to who is the person. She took the name of the accused. The plea of the accused that since the father of the prosecutrix had cut the Bajra crop standing in the field he had given him the beating therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated, does not inspire confidence. The medical evidence is corroborative of the fact that the prosecutrix had been raped and that is why she took the name of the accused. There is no reason to frame up the accused, the truthful occurrence has been disclosed. The perusal of the prosecution evidence does not show or indicate any escape route which can be accepted in favour of the accused. The doctor i.e., PW1 has given the complete details which are corroborative of the fact that the prosecutrix had been defloed and suffered the injury as a consequence thereof. The wife of the accused has appeared as a defence witness but her statement does not inspire confidence when she stated that Darshana travelled with them in the bullock cart. No doubt, the prosecutrix has admitted the fact that she returned to the house in the evening in the cart of the accused alongwith his wife however, prosecutrix is an illiterate girl and is of the tender years living in the village, she has not been able to withstand the cross-examination, especially while appearing perhaps for the first time in the court in the presence of so many persons. This deviation from the prosecution version would not be an indicator that the accused is not guilty of the rape committed upon her. The fact of the matter is that upon query by the father, the name of the accused has been taken. So, not much of importance can be attributed to the statement of the wife of the accused and we can loose site of the main thrust of the statement of the prosecutrix i.e. that she had been raped by the accused. The factum of rape has been established beyond any doubt and there is no reason forthcoming as to why she should take the name of the accused. However, the only ground that her father had been beaten up as alleged by the accused, would not be sufficient to accept false implication of the accused. There is no corroborative evidence in this regard and that the father of the prosecutrix has categorically denied that he had ever cut the crop of the Jawar belonging to the accused. He has also denied that he was every given any beating in the presence of Chander son of Molu resident of Bharan village. He has also denied that this case was registered against the accused on the count of the beating given to him. He has also denied that he has ever tutered his daughter, i.e., the prosecutrix, in this regard. The perusal of the statement of the wife of the accused shows that no such suggestion is forthcoming from her. She has not said a word in this regard in her examination in chief. Apart from her no other witness has been examined by the defence despite the fact that a suggestion had been given to the father of the prosecutrix that he had been given beatings in the presence of Chander son of Molu, the said person has not been produced in defence.

9. Thus the cummulative reading of the ocular evidence and also the perusal of the record and the weak defence set up by the accused. I find no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak. Resultantly, in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

10. It is observed if the accused is on bail, he be arrested forthwith to undergo the sentence accordingly and in accordance with law.