Dismissed

Ganapathy, M/a 56 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC19 Oct 2019CRL A/383/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a rape conviction under Section 376(2) IPC involving a five-year-old victim, the court rejected challenges regarding FIR delay, lack of medical injuries, and hostililty of co-witnesses. Upholding the trial court's findings, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the reliability of the child witness.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 376(2) IPC confirmed.

Ganapathy, M/a 56 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Judgment Reserved on 28.09.2019 Judgment Pronounced 19.10.2019 on

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.383 OF 2017

¶6

Ganapathy ... Appellant/Accused -vsState, represented by Inspector of Police, Nagoor Taluk, Nagoor. ... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.538 of 2011)

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the order of conviction passed by the Magalir Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam, in S.C.No.29 of 2013, dated 30.06.2014, convicting the Appellant for ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- or in lieu to undergo One Year Rigorous Simple Imprisonment for the alleged offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, acquit the accused/appellant of the charges levelled against him.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.M.L.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

The Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the learned Magalir Fast Track Court, Nagapattinam. He stands convicted for the offence under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, the Appellant is before this Court with this Appeal.

¶10

The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.09.2011, around 5 p.m., when P.W.3, a five year old girl studying in I Standard in Rarathimangalam Primary School, was playing with her friends near a Church, the Appellant lifted P.W.3, kept

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

¶13

her on his lap and committed rape on her. On the basis of the statement (Ex.P1) given by P.W.1 - mother of the victim, P.W.11 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagoor Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.538 of 2011 for the offence under Section 376(2) I.P.C.

¶14

During the trial, in order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 and exhibited 8 documents as Exs.1 to 8. P.W.1 is the mother of the minor victim girl; P.W.2 is the father of the minor victim girl; P.W.3 is the victim girl herself; P.W.4 is an eye-witness according to the victim girl; P.W.5 is the relative of P.Ws.1 and 2; P.Ws.6 and 7 are Panchayatdars; P.W.8 is the Co-ordinator of Child Helpline; P.W.9 is the Doctor, who registered the incident at the first instance and referred the victim girl to another Hospital; P.W.10 is the Doctor at the other Hospital; P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. and conducted the first enquiry; P.W.12 is the Doctor, who treated the minor victim girl; P.Ws.13 and 15 are Inspectors of Police, who conducted the enquiry and filed charge sheet and P.W.14 is the Doctor, who examined the Accused.

¶15

P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner and therefore, they were treated as hostile and allowed to be cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. Regarding the incriminating evidence spoken to by P.W.3 together with the evidences of Medical Officers P.Ws.9, 10 and 12 and the other official witnesses, the Appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the correctness of such incriminating evidence and did not chose to examine any witness on his side. Having considered all the above evidences, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as stated supra.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Appellant assailed the findings of the Trial Court on the following grounds: (a) The F.I.R. was registered with a delay of three days from the date of the alleged occurrence and no explanation for the delay was given in the F.I.R.

¶17

(b) P.W.10 – Doctor, who examined P.W.3 – victim girl, had spoken that there was no indication of any injury to her; (c) Dress worn by P.W.3 – victim girl as also that of the Appellant, were not sent for examination;

¶18

(d) The eye-witness to the alleged occurrence viz. Vicky had not been investigated and cited as a witness; (e) P.W.4 – eye witness, P.W.5 - relative of P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.Ws.6 and 7 -

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

¶21

Panchayatdars, turned hostile.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, and that, out of some other motive, the present case has been foisted against the Appellant/Accused. Thus, according to him, the Appellant/Accused is entitled for acquittal.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant. According to him, the delay in lodging a complaint is only on account of the fact that the parents of P.W.3 – minor victim girl had initially approached the Panchayatdars in respect of the alleged incident. As regards the contention that P.W.10 – Doctor, who examined P.W.3 – minor victim girl, had spoken that there was no indication of any injury to her, learned Government Advocate submitted that since the victim girl was taken to P.W.10 - Doctor for examination after three days of the alleged incident, no external injury was visible and in such view of the fact, one cannot expect corroboration from the medical evidence. He pointed out that, P.W.4 - neighbour of the minor victim girl, in her evidence has stated that she has not witnessed the alleged incident. So also, P.W.5 - relative of P.Ws.1 and 2, and P.Ws.6 and 7– Panchayatdars are only hearsay witnesses and are not direct witnesses to the alleged incident. Thus, according to the learned Government Advocate, there is no merit in the Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

I have carefully considered the above submissions and also perused the records.

¶25

As regards the first issue that there was delay in lodging the complaint by P.W.1, it is seen that P.W.1 – mother of the victim girl had lodged a complaint on 28.09.2011, i.e. two days after the alleged incident. P.W.11 – Sub-Inspector of Police enquired P.W.3 – minor victim girl, and obtained statement from P.W.1 – mother of the victim girl and registered a case in Crime No.538 of 2011 under Section 376 I.P.C. For the incident which took place on 26.09.2011, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered on 28.09.2011 and the same was forwarded to the Court on 29.09.2011.

¶26

The delay of two days in lodging a complaint against the Accused cannot be said to be fatal to this case, as one cannot expect the victim to rush to the Police Station with a complaint, because, rape of a girl will have adverse effect not only on the body of the victim, but also on her modesty. In a village situation, when it is alleged that a girl of tender age is raped, neither the girl nor her parents would be tempted to rush to the Police Station, immediately.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

¶29

It is a natural human conduct of the parents of the victim to have some reluctance to rush to the Police station and to make the entire event public, as it will have worst consequences on the future of the child. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the delay has been duly explained and the said delay does not create any doubt at all in the case of the prosecution.

¶30

As regards the second defence of the learned counsel for the Appellant that no injury was found on P.W.3 - minor victim girl, when the Doctors examined her, it is seen that P.W.9, who was working as an Assistant Doctor in Government Primary Health Centre in Thirukannapuram, Nagapattinam Taluk, recorded statement from P.W.3 - minor victim girl on 28.09.2011 at 11.30 a.m., as regards the alleged incident, and has deposed that, the minor victim girl had stated that she has pain in both thighs and also that, she has pain while getting up. The deposition of P.W.9 – Doctor as regards the pain suffered by the victim girl in both thighs, reads thus:

¶31

"/// FHe;ij typ ,Ug;gjhf brhd;dJ/ ,uz;L bjhilapYk; typ ,Ue;jjhft[k; brhd;dJ/ cl;fhh;e;J vGe;jnghJ typ ,Ug;gjhft[k;. ft&;lg;gl;L vGe;jJ/ ///" 12. P.W.9 – Doctor further deposed that the female Nurse, who examined the minor victim girl, has stated that the minor girl is not bleeding. As no female Doctors were available in the said Health Centre, P.W.9 – Doctor referred the minor victim girl to Nagapattinam Government Hospital, and the Out-Patient Chit is marked as Ex.P2. In his crossexamination, P.W.9 has stated that the pain suffered by the victim while getting up, cannot be imitated.

¶32

P.W.10 – Chief Residential Doctor working in Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital, who examined P.W.3 – minor victim girl on 29.09.2011, deposed that no external injuries were found on the minor girl. He further deposed that no blood stains would be found on the private part of a rape victim, after four days of rape being committed on her, however, there are chances of swelling.

¶33

Also, P.W.12 – Doctor, who was then working at Nagapattinam Government Hospital, has deposed that he admitted P.W.3 – minor victim girl for treatment on 28.09.2011 and provided first aid to her and thereafter, female Doctors examined the minor victim girl. The Medical Certificate issued by P.W.12 – Doctor is marked as Ex.P5. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.12 – Doctor has deposed that the minor victim girl has not stated that she has pain while getting up.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

¶36

The minor victim girl has categorically stated before P.W.9 – Doctor that, she has pain in both thighs and that, she has difficulty while getting up. This Court cannot simply brush aside the deposition of P.W.9 – Doctor in his chief-examination that, the minor victim girl had difficulty while getting up and his deposition in the cross-examination that the pain suffered while getting up, cannot be imitated. The evidence of P.W.10 – Doctor that no blood stains would be found on the private part of a rape victim, after four days of rape being committed on her, draws attention and the same has to be necessarily relied upon. Thus, the second defence of the learned counsel for the Appellant is negatived.

¶37

Before dealing with the other defence taken by the learned counsel for the Appellant, for better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to extract the entire deposition of P.W.3 – minor victim girl, in chief and cross-examination, as below: Kjy; tpruhiz ehd; uhuhe;jpk';fyj;jpy; FoapUe;J tUfpnwd;/ v';fs; tPl;oy; mg;gh. mk;kh. mz;zd;. mf;fh. jhj;jh Mfpnahh; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;/ M$h; vjphp bgah; fzgjp/ mtiu bjhpa[k;/ mth; uhuhe;jpk';fyj;jpy; FoapUf;fpwhh;/ ehd; goj;j !;Ty; gf;fj;jpy; kpl;lha; fil itj;jpUf;fpwhh;/ filapy; mth;. mth; bghz;lhl;o ,Ug;ghs;/ 1k; tFg;g [ goj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njd;/ 2 tUlk; 1k; tFg;g [ goj;njd;/ 4 kzpf;F !;Ty; tpl;L tPl;ow;F te;njd;/ iel;o nghl;Lf; bfhz;L vd;Dila gpu!;fSld; tpisahondd;/ vd;Dila gpud;!; 4 ngh;/ Rkpj;. uhfpzp. Rdpy;. RUjp MfpnahUld; tpisahondd;/ mkph;jh vd;w mf;fh nghd; ngrpf; bfhz;oUe;jhh;/ mkph;jh tPl;ow;F btspapy; nghd; ngrpf; bfhz;oUe;jhh;/ mkph;jh tPL nfhtpYf;F gf;fj;jpy; cs;sJ/ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; cs;s me;j ma;ah (vjphp) nfhtpy; thrypy; ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; nghfnt , y;iy/ vd;id J}f;fp bfhz;lhh;/ mth; vd; xd;Df;F nghFk; ,lj;jpy; mth; F";ir itj;J mGj;jpdhh;/ mth; koapy; cl;fhu itj;jpUe;jhh;/ vd; xd;Df;F ,lj;jpy; nghFk; mth; F";ir itj;J mGj;jpdhh;/ 2 epkplk; ele;jJ/ xU mz;zd; te;J Tg;gpl;lhh;/ mth; tplnt , y;iy/ mth; mrp';fk; bra;Jbfhz;oUe;jhh;/ me;j mz;zd; bgah; tpf;fp/ mkph;jh mf;fh vd;id ,Gj;J vd; tPl;oy; bfhz;L brd;W tpl;lhh;fs;/ $Puk; te;jJ/ xd;Df;Fnghu ,lj;jpy; typj;jJ/ mkph;jh mf;fh jhd; ghh;j;jhh;/ vd; mk;kh. mg;ght[k; M!;gj;jphpf;F ehif muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr;brd;whh;fs;/ jpUthU:h; kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;nwd;/ m';F nghyprhh; xU Mk;g [isa[k;. bghk;g[isa[k; te;J vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

vd; mg;ghita[k;. mk;khita[k;. btspapy; mDg;gptpl;L vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ gpr;irf;fz;Zt[k;. mthpd; kfDk; vd; mg;ghit moj;jhh;fs;/ vd; rk;ge;jkhfj;jhd; vd; mg;ghit moj;jhh;fs;/ M!;gj;jphpapy; lhf;lh; mk;kh OhPl;bkd;l; bfhLj;jhh;fs;/ mt;tst[jhd; brhy;yntz;oaJ/ rk;gt rkaj;jpy; ehd; mzpe;jpUe;j iel;oia nghyprhhplk; bfhLj;njhk;/ iel;oapy; ,uj;jkhf , Ue;jJ/

¶41

vjphp jug;g[ FWf;F tprhuiz

¶42

mk;kh. mg;gh brhy;tij nfl;ngd;/ brhy;ypf; bfhLg;gij brhy;ntd;/ rh;r;rpy; ghjh; brhy;ypf; bfhLg;gija[k; brhy;ntd;/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jnghJ ehd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; brhd;d tpguj;ij brhy;ypapUf;fpnwd;/ vd; mg;gh. mk;kh. rh;r;rpy; cs;s ghjh; brhy;ypf; bfhLj;J ehd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; brhd;d midj;J r';fjpfis rhl;rpak; mspj;njd; vd;why; rhl;rp , e;j tpgu';fs; vy;yhk; bjhpa[k; vd;Wk;. mth;fs; brhy;yp bfhLj;J rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhl;rp ahiua[k; mof;ff; TlhJ vd;W jhd; brhy;thh;fs; vd;W TWfpwhs;/ ehd; brhy;tJ nghy; rk;gtk; vJt[k; elf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;. rh;r;rpy; ehd; tpisahoajhy; gpur;rid Vw;gl;L mth;fs; tpul;o ehd; Xote;J tpGe;Jtpl;nld; vd;why; mg;go vy;yhk; elf;ftpy;iy/ xd;Df;F nghFk; ,lj;jpy; typ VJk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; mg;gh. mk;kh brhy;ypf; bfhLj;J brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; mg;gh mk;kh brhy;ypf; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ vd; mk;khtplk; Kjy; Kjyhf brhy;Yk;nghJ bgah; brhy;yhky; xU jhj;jh vd;dplk; jg;ghf ele;jjhf brhd;ndd; vd;why; brhd;ndd;/ mg;gh. mk;kh. rh;r;rpy; cs;s ghjh; Mfpnahh; brhy;yp bfhLj;J Kjd; Kiwahf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; mt;thW brhy;ytpy;iy ele;jij brhd;ndd;/

¶43

Coming to the third defence of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the dress worn by P.W.3 – victim girl as also, that of the Appellant/Accused, were not sent for examination, it would be relevant to look into the evidence of P.W.3 – victim girl, whereby, she has stated that the Dress (Nighty) worn by her at the time of the alleged incident, was handed over to the Police Officials and that there were blood stains in it. The deposition of P.W.3 – minor victim girl, in chief, in this regard reads thus:

¶44

"///“rk;gt rkaj;jpy; ehd; mzpe;jpUe;j iel;oia nghyprhhplk; bfhLj;njhk;/ iel;oapy; ,uj;jkhf ,Ue;jJ/ /// "

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

¶47

In cases of rape victims, the Court has to believe what is reported by the child. There are misconceptions that children lie or that they are tutored by parents to make false complaints against others. Such myths should not affect the manner in which the Court responds to cases of child sexual abuse.

¶48

In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh, 2011 (3) CTC 308, has held as under:

¶49

“12. Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from untutored part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In such an eventuality, the untutored part can be believed or at least taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. (Vide: Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (13) SCC 516)

¶50

In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the Court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.”

¶51

In the case of Sekaran vs. State by Inspector of Police, Vellore District, (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 662, this Court has held as under:

¶52

“34. In view of the foregoing discussions, since possibility of tutoring of this witness has not been ruled out, since there is no corroboration from any other source available; and since P.W.7 has resiled from her chief examination, when she was recalled and further cross-examined on 20.06.2005, in my considered opinion, it is

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶54

¶55

not safe to base conviction on the sole testimony of this witness in respect of the alleged sexual assault made on her.”

¶56

P.W.3, the victim, at the time of occurrence, was a child, hardly aged 5 years. It is common knowledge that a child is prone to tutoring. But, it does not mean that on account of the said apprehension, a child should always be viewed with suspicion and her evidence should be rejected. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the above decisions, and also in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has to believe the version of P.W.3 - minor victim girl that, her blood stained dress was handed over to the Police. However, the same has not been subjected to examination.

¶57

The fourth defence taken by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that, the eye-witness to the alleged occurrence viz. Vicky had not been investigated and cited as a witness. This Court is of the view that, non-examination of Vicky is not a ground to disbelieve the offence of rape committed on P.W.3 - minor victim girl, who withstood the cross-examination after two years of the alleged incident.

¶58

As regards the defence taken by the learned counsel for the Appellant that P.W.4 – eye witness, P.W.5 - relative of P.Ws.1 and 2, and P.Ws.6 and 7 - Panchayatdars, turned hostile, this Court opines that merely because the said witnesses turned hostile, it does not mean that the entire incident which is alleged to have taken place is false, more particularly, when the minor victim girl has withstood the cross-examination, by narrating the events, after understanding the same.

¶59

It is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 10 SCC 509, wherein, it is held that, minor contradictions in statements of witnesses cannot be treated as fatal, unless such contradictions shook the root of the matter.

¶60

As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses was required to be examined in any case, for the proof of any fact. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393, has held that an order of conviction could be passed, based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶61

"21. ... The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶63

¶64

statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."

¶65

Also, the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of P.W.1 - mother of P.W.3, is hit by the hearsay rule, cannot be accepted. According to P.W.3 - minor victim girl, she was taken to her home by P.W.4 - Amirtha Mary, her neighbour and when her mother, P.W.1 returned home from work, she narrated the entire incident. The evidence of P.W.1 is not hit by hearsay rule. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 duly corroborates the evidence of P.W.3, in full.

¶66

It is to be noted that the alleged incident of rape committed by the Appellant/Accused on P.W.3 - minor victim girl does not attract the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, as the said Act came into force only with effect from 14.11.2012, whereas, the alleged occurrence in this case was on 26.09.2011. However, the act of the Appellant/Accused in inserting his penis into the vagina of P.W.3 makes out an offence of rape.

¶67

It is needles to point out that in order to make out an offence of rape, it is not necessary that the Accused should have a complete penetration. Even partial penetration would be sufficient to make out an offence of rape. Undoubtedly, a rape on a child is graver than a rape on an adult woman. Thus, the penetrative sexual assault by penetrating the penis into the vagina, is nothing but a rape as defined under Section 375 I.P.C.

¶68

It is relevant to refer to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus:

¶69

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶70

¶71

"Rape: A man is said to commit “rape”, if he

¶72

(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do with him or any other person; or

¶73

(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

¶74

(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person;

¶75

....."

¶76

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.3, deserves only to be rejected.

¶77

As regards the further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the proceedings were a result of enmity between the parties, it is appropriate to cite an Apex Court decision in the case of Puranchand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 689, wherein, it is held that the version of the victim girl who was suffering the trauma of rape and was provoked to take the extreme step of consuming poison, cannot be doubted ignoring, even the fact that a girl would put herself to disrepute and go to the extent of supporting her parents to lodge a false case merely due to some enmity with the family of the accused, putting her honour at stake in a precarious mental state.

¶78

Though, according to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused, the victim was an incompetent witness, given her tender age, a child witness could be a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, if the statement of a child witness, after due scrutiny, inspired confidence of the Court.

¶79

For better appreciation, Sections 114 and 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are extracted below:

¶80

Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks

¶81

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶82

¶83

likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

¶84

Who may testify: All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.

¶85

Also, the evidence of P.W.14 - Dr.Mohanraj, who examined the Accused, cannot be brushed aside. He has made an entry in Ex.P.8, Accident Register, dated 30.09.2011 and has opined that the Appellant/Accused was not impotent. The entry made in Ex.P8 reads thus:

¶86

"ehd; jw;nghJ !;lhd;yp muR kUj;Jtkidapy; kUj;Jt fy;Y}hpapy kaf;ftpay; gphpt[ gapd;W tUfpnwd;/ 30/09/2011y; ehif muR kUj;Jtkidapy; gdpg[hpe;jnghJ fzgjpapd; Mz;ikj;jd;ik Fwpj;J ghpnrhjid bra;njd;/ mtUf;F 2k; epiy ghy; jd;ik ey;y epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ/ Mz; Fwp tpiwf;Fk; jd;ika[ld; fhzg;gl;lJ/ mth; Mz;ik jd;ik cilath; vd rhd;wspj;njd;/ mJ m/rh/M/8/ nghyPrhh; tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ "

¶87

There is no reason as to why a five year old girl is going to lie, more particularly, when she has withstood the cross-examination on 11.06.2013, after two years from the date of the alleged incident on 26.09.2011. That apart, parents will not try to expose the child, unless the incident is so harsh. In this case, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.3, we find that her evidence is so convincing and the same cannot be rejected at all. In fine, finding no merit in this Appeal, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved that the Appellant/Accused has committed rape on P.W.3 - minor victim girl.

¶88

accordingly, the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the Appellant are confirmed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.8269 of 2017 is closed. Sd/-

¶89

Assistant Registrar

¶90

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶91

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

aeb

To: