1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3176/2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 115/2008. (S.S. Vighne .vs. State of Mah. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the applicant/appellant. 2. The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 342, 376 (2)(f) and 506 (ii) of IPC for having committed rape on the prosecutrix namely PW5. PW5 is aged about 4 years. She deposed one year after the alleged incident. The trial Court found that she understood the sanctity of oath and that is why oath was administered to her. The appellant is the neighbour of the prosecutrix. The incident took place in the evening. Soon thereafter the prosecutrix returned 2 to her house weeping. Her mother (PW4) inquired with her as to what had happened and she narrated the incident to her mother. As the father (PW3) of the prosecutrix had gone to another village, the mother did not immediately go to Police Station. After return of her husband she narrated the incident to him. As it was late night, PW3 did not go to Police Station. On the next day morning PW3 went to the house of the appellant and accosted him. It is alleged that at that time the appellant threatened him. On that day as the prosecutrix complained of pain, she was taken to PW8 Dr. Saroj Hande, DHMS who examined her and referred her to Government Hospital. It seems that the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Tiwsa referred her to Women's Hospital, Amravati where PW7 Dr. Taslim Shabir, MBBS examined her and found that hymen was torn and there was slight bleeding. She came to the conclusion that rape might have taken place as there was possibility of forced intrusion of penis. Accordingly she issued medical certificate. Thereafter on 29.1.2007 itself report came to be lodged. Thus in the present case there has been delay of 2 days in lodging the report. However, prima facie the delay has been satisfactorily explained. There is ample evidence in support of the conviction of the appellant. Hence we are not inclined to release him on bail. The 3 application is, therefore, rejected. 3. Liberty to move for early hearing of the appeal after six months. JUDGE JUDGE halwai