Sukhnandan responded by shouting - what was the matter? At this, the accused ran away leaving the bleeding and weeping girl behind.Suman was taken home, where she narrated the incident to her mother Savitri Bai (P.W. 2).Savitri Bai applied pads over the bleeding private parts of Suman, Sukhnandan contacted the village patel, arranged for a bullock cart and took Suman to the Police Station Unnai, situated at a distance of 11 Kms.JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J.The accused/appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.An amount of Rs. 400/-, out of the fine realised, has been directed to be paid as compensation to Suman Bai the prosecutrix.Savitri Bai (P.W. 2) is the widow of Sukhnandan.Suman, who was aged about 9 yearns at the time of the incident, is her daughter.Sukhnandan was alive at the time of the incident, but died during the trial and could not be examined as a witness.Sukhnandan used to run a flour-mill at the outskirts of the village and near the fields.It is alleged that on 26-8-81 at about 5 p.m., Suman went to the flour-mill to relieve her father Sukhnandan so as to enable him taking his meals.Sukhnandan went home, leaving Suman alone at the flour-mill, for keeping a watch.The accused/appellant taking advantage of loneliness approached the innocent girl with an indecent offer, which she naturally declined.The accused/appellant overpowered by his lust, forcibly dragged Suman towards the fields and made her lie down behind the thick bushes of Babool and Chhola.With one hand he kept Suman lying on the ground forcibly and with the other hand he removed the undergarments of Suman as also the undergarments of his own.Then he committed rape on Suman.Suman pierced a cry.She started bleeding profusely.Her cry was heard by Sukhnandan, who had returned to the flour-mill by that time.where Suman lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P/1, at 11.20 p.m.Suman was referred for medical examination.She was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Dipika Chaudhary, Lady Assistant Surgeon at the Female Hospital Datia.She found the girl to be 9 years of age.The sex characters were not developed.Marks of violence were not seen over the body.Labia majora and minor a were not still developed.Fresh blood was oozing out from torn hymen.Vagina admitted only the tip of the little finger with difficulty.On account of pain, Suman did not permit P/V examination.Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry could not give a definite opinion about rape by mere clinical examination.However, she prepared slide of the vaqinal swab, also seized the underwear and pads of the victim and delivered them to the Police, after sealing them, for chemical examination.The Chemical Examiner in his report, dt. 31-12-1981 (Ex. P/7) confirmed the presence of blood on the slide, underwear and pads, but seminal stains and spermotozoa could not be detected over them.The Serologist also confirmed the presence of human blood on the underwear and pads.He was promptly referred for medical examination.But nothing incriminating could be found on his person, though he was found sexually capable.Needless to say that by the time the accused was medically examined, about one and a half month had elapsed from the date of the incident.On completion of usual investigation, the accused/appellant was challaned and charged under Section 376, I.P.C. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court expressed dissatisfaction at the manner in which Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry had examined the victim of rape.Further, B. S. Sahi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the F.I.R., was examined as P. W. 6, and he stated in so many words that F.I.R., Ex. P/1; was recorded at the instance of Suman and bore her thumb mark.This witness was left totally uncross- examined.If only, the father of the prosecutrix, who unfortunately died before he could be examined at the trial, would only have been available, the little ambiguity introduced by the defence, would have been removed without any difficulty.In a charge for murder, the husband and brother of one Mst.She was weeping.The appeal Is dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code