The appellant Sadhoo alias Sadhuram having been convicted by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 80/91 deciding the charges against him on 27-6-1992 and convicted for committing offence Under Sections 376(2)(f), 366A and 363, Indian Penal Code, whereunder sentenced for 10 years, 5 years and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively, has approached this Court by means of the present appeal which is being decided on merit after hearing learned counsel for the State and the accused who is present in person before this Court.Though the accused was represented through a Lawyer but was not granted bail.This Court on 1-11-1996 when the case was posted for hearing passed an order to the effect that none present for the appellant when the case was called for in the second round and directed for issuance of production warrant of the appellant of a date for hearing of this case in the presence of the appellant.The appellant is brought in person before this Court.It needs to be mentioned here that the learned State counsel Shri S. K. Gangrade, Panel Lawyer, was very fair in properly assisting the Court specially in the circumstances of the present case where the accused is the persontieither conversant with the legal position nor record, of his case.The sentences awarded to the accused/appellant Under Sections 363, 366A and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, were made to run concurrently.The prosecution case in brief is that on 17th February, 1991 Ku.Anita aged 11 years daughter of Ram Prasad (PW 2) at about 8.30 P.M. went to attend the marriage in the locality and while way back to her home at about 9.00 P.M. the accused who met her tried to catch hold her, who tried to rush towards her home but the accused who caught hold her took to the field and thereafter to a dilapidated house of guard-line and committed rape on her but her cry could not attract any body.Accused thereafter took her to a newly constructed house near the railway station where also he committed rape twice on her.P.14 dated 18-2-1991 is the report of missing of Ku.Anita (Gumsuddi report).FIR was recorded on 18-2-1991 (Ex.P.4) which was recorded by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Kotwali Damoh at about 7.45 P.M. Accused was arrested on 19-2-1991 by P.W. 7 the investigating officer.In his statement in para 3 he stated date as 20-2-1991 which apparently seems to be a typographical error and has no adverse impact on the prosecution case.Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.The prosecutrix was examined by Doctor Chanda Jain (PW. 9) and the medical report is Ex.P.5-A. The accused/appellant was examined by Dr. K. K. Sachdeo (P.W.8) and the medical report is Ex.The defence was that of denial and false implication in the crime.The defence did not examine any witness.Heard learned counsel for the State and also the accused who is present in person before the Court and has been given adequate opportunity though being illiterate is not of any assistance to the Court.Double burden rested on the State counsel which- he succeeded in discharging fairly.The basic question regarding all the three charges against the accused hinges upon the identification of the accused which is an independent factor.Narayan Singh the Naib Tahsildar (PW. 3) who conducted the identification parade stated in his statement that in the identification parade 9 persons were mixed who were made to stand in a line, and were covered by blanket upto their neck and were of same height.The prosecutrix Ku.Anita rightly identified the accused by placing her hand on him.Identification memo which is Ex.P.1 which contains his signature as well as the signature of the prosecutrix, was prepared by him.In the cross-examination he was put the question regarding showing of the accused to the prosecutrix at the police station and he denied the same, and also denied the fact that the police people went inside the jail and the accused was singly called in the jail to the spot of identification.So far as the statement of this witness is concerned it deals with the identification that identification parade was conducted by him and that the identification was proper.So far as the question of showing the accused in jail is concerned, though this witness is not the proper witness for that purpose as his scope of confinement is limited to the identification parade.He denied the facts that the prosecutrix told him that the accused was shown to her several times at the police station and also denied the fact that the police people were inside the jail.Nothing much could come out from his statement on this aspect of the matter.Though the prosecutrix in court rightly identified the accused but what is relevant for consideration is the statement of the prosecutrix herself made before the court who before the court made statement that during the identification parade she correctly identified the accused and in cross-examination (para 7) she admitted that after lodging the FIR she went to the police station continuously for 3 or 4 days.According to her on Tuesday the accused was arrested who was shown to her at the police station.She also admitted that the accused was got identified to her at the police station and at the police station one person wearing white clothes asked her for identifying the accused person, who was shown at the police station.This statement itself creates a serious doubt to the very reliability of the identification and thereby fixation of the person as to who committed the offence in question.No doubt identification in the court is substantive but the same requires corroboration by test identification parade and the Court identification needs to be careful to be acted upon and for that it is always safe to have corroboration from identification parade.In the present case, the question of corroboration does not arise in view of the statement of the prosecutrix herself as she has stated in her cross-examination that the accused person was shown to her before the identification parade was held and she was told to identify the accused and as such it becomes a case left with mere identification in the court at the time of trial for the first time and such an evidence being of feeble character cannot be reliable so to hold that it has been corroborated by the test identification parade as it could not be held to be identification parade being in proper perspective and is worth not placing reliance.It under the facts and circumstances creates grave doubt as to the very question regarding involvement of the present accused in the crime and as a result thereof the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.Though in view of this it is not necessary to dilate on other points, which very much exists in the present case as the case suffers from all round infirmities, regarding the age of the girl who was student of class IV and no school leaving certificate having been produced in the court in proof of age.The medical evidence of the doctor P.W. 9 is also not worth being placed reliance.The aspersions made by the trial Court against Dr. Smt. Jain in regard to non proper conduction of the medical examination as well as against the prosecution agency are well founded.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Cited provisions: Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code