JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Laxmi Kant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated September 19, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 4 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2006 whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 363 IPC for five years RI and fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months simple imprisonment and for section 377 IPC to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months additional simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on Feb. 16, 2005, Bhagwat father of prosecutrix Chanchal submitted a written report Ex. P.4. It was mentioned in the report that the accused appellant committed carnal intercourse with prosecutrix Chanchal aged 4 years on 15.2.2005 at 2.30 p.m. in his house. He taken the prosecutrix on the pretext of showing her Puppies at his residence. The police on the basis of written report lodged FIR bearing No. 22 of 2005 for offence under section 377 IPC against the accused appellant. The appellant was arrested on Feb. 17, 2005. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 A and 377 IPC. The concerned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur framed charge against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 A and 377 IPC. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4 Bharatpur vide order dated March 4, 2006 of Sessions Judge Bharatpur. 3. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. In defence the accused appellant produced two witnesses. The statement of accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 363 and 377 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. But the trial court acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under section 366 A IPC. 4. Mr. P.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial court convicted the accused appellant without considering the material available on record. The alleged incident of carnal intercourse occurred on Feb. But the trial court acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under section 366 A IPC. 4. Mr. P.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial court convicted the accused appellant without considering the material available on record. The alleged incident of carnal intercourse occurred on Feb. 15, 2005 but the report was lodged on Feb. 16, 2005 at 9.30 a.m. Thus there is a delay of one day. No satisfactory explanation has been given for the inordinate delay of about 19 hours in lodging the report. There are discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and even the prosecutrix was not produced before the court. The learned counsel submitted that Dr. Saroj Singh PW.2 in her statement stated that there was no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix. In the FSL report human semen was detected in Exhibit No.4 which is underwear. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases reported in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 2003 (1) Crimes 187 (Supreme court) , Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2006(2) C.J. (Raj.) Criminal , 2000 (1) Crimes page 58 Lalaram v. State , AIR 1929 All. 709 Bhagwati Prasad v. Emperor , AIR 1930 All. 497 Ramsaran v. Emperor and 1998 Cr.L.R. 195 (Raj.) Ramswarup v. State of Rajasthan. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that the appellant committed carnal intercourse with a girl of 4 years after taken her at his residnece on the pretext of showing her Puppies. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court.PW.1 Dr. Babulal stated that on Feb. 17, 2005 at 7.35 p.m. he medically examined Laxmikant accused appellant. As per Medical report Ex. P.1 he found that the accused appellant was capable of doing sexual intercourse.PW.2 Dr. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court.PW.1 Dr. Babulal stated that on Feb. 17, 2005 at 7.35 p.m. he medically examined Laxmikant accused appellant. As per Medical report Ex. P.1 he found that the accused appellant was capable of doing sexual intercourse.PW.2 Dr. Saroj Singh, who medically examined the prosecutrix, stated in her statement as under : " tuukax o ,uy ,Dtkfeus'ku ij eSaus ik;k fd xqIarkx ij dksbZ pksV ugha Fkh fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ CyM ugha Fkk vkSj fdlh izdkj dk CyM oxSjg ugha Fkk ,uy fLizaxVj LoLFk VkmV Fks ogka dksbZ lheu ugha Fkk vkSj ,d NksVh vaxqyh cgqr eqf'dy ls tk jgh Fkk vkSj vaxqyh Mkyus esa cgqr Vs.Mjusl Fkh eSaus nks ,uYl dh tks LykbZM nh vkSj ,d Lokc fLV~d Fkh vkSj mudks lhy djds dsfedy ijh{k.k gsrq lkSai fn;k FkkA " In the medical examination report Ex. P.2 in the column of injuries, she reported that there were three abrasions of size 5 x 4 x ⅙cm. on left leg lower 1/2 outer side and duration about 3-5 days. But in her examination in chief no such question was put to her about receiving of injury on other part of body.PW.3 Dalveer Singh constable stated that the sealed packets were given to her for delivery to FSL and for which he received Ex. P.3 receipt from FSL. He handed over the four packets and letter of the SP to the FSL.PW.4 Bhagwat, who is father of the prosecutrix stated about the carnal intercourse committed by the accused appellant with her daughter Chanchal. P.3 receipt from FSL. He handed over the four packets and letter of the SP to the FSL.PW.4 Bhagwat, who is father of the prosecutrix stated about the carnal intercourse committed by the accused appellant with her daughter Chanchal. He stated in his statement as under : " eSa o esjh iRuh pkj ikap feuV ckn uksgjs ij vk;s rks y{ehdkar ds ?kj ls papy ds fpYykus dh vkokt vkbZ rks xqM~Mh [kks[ks ds ikl ls Hkkxh ogka ij y{ehdkar uaxk [kM+k gqvk Fkk vkSj yM+dh dh xqnk ls [kwu fudy jgs gSA xqM~Mh fpYykbZ vkSj eSa Hkkxk esjs ihNs jkts'k] eksgu y{ehdkar ds edku dh vksj HkkxsA ;s gedks ns[kdj Hkkx x;k ge viuh yM+dh papy dks ?kj ys vk;sA ?kj ij geus vius firk ls dgk fd ge fjiksVZ dj jgs gS rks mUgksus dgk fd vc rks vekj gks x;h gS dy fjiksVZ djsaxsA " He lodged the report at the Police Station Nagar on 16.2.2005 at 9.30 a.m. The extracted portion of the report reads thus : " esjh eka ds lkFk pyrh og yM+dh ikl gh cfu;k dh ikVks esa fiYyk ns[kdj og yM+dh muds ikl :d x;h rHkh y{ehdkar viuh nqdku ls papy ds ikl vk;k vkSj cksyk pyks fiYyk gekjs ?kj Hkh gS eSa fn[kkma bl rjg cgykdj y{ehdkar papy dks vius ?kj ys x;kA vkSj esjh eka gekjs uksgjs ij pyh x;h] dqN nsj ckn eSa o esjh iRuh ?kj ls uksgjs ij vk jgs Fks] rks y{ehdkar ds ?kj ls papy ds jksus o fpYykus dh vkokt vkbZ rks esjh iRuh papy dh vkokt lqudj y{ehdkar ds ?kj x;h mlus y{ehdkar dks uaxk ns[kk vkSj papy ds xqIrkaxksa ls [kwu cg jgk Fkk rc esjh iRuh tksj ls fpYykbZ rks eSa Hkh mlds ikl igqapk rks eSaus ns[kk fd y{ehdkar us papy ds lkFk xqnk eSFkqu fd;k ftlds dkj.k papy ds xqnk ls [kwu cg jgk Fkk eq>s ns[kdj y{ehdkar Hkkx x;k ge viuh cPph dks ysdj ?kj vk;sA " PW.5 Guddi, mother of the prosecutrix stated about the carnal intercourse committed by the accused appellant with her daughter Chanchal, in her statement. The extracted portion of her statement implicating the accused appellant reads thus : " esjh lklw uksgjs ij cPph dks NksMdj pyh x;hA fQj esjh cPph dks cgdk dj y{ehdkar vius ?kj ys x;k fd esjs ?kj vPNs fiYys gS rw py eSa rq>s ogka fiYys fn[kkmaxkA blus vius ?kj ds cjkens esa ys tkdj cqjk gky fd;kA mldh xqnk ls [kwu vk jgk Fkk lklw vkSj yM+dh ds tkus ds ikap feuV ckn eSa esjk ifr vius ?kj ls uksgjs ds fy;s vk jgs FksA tc eSaus viuh cPph dh vkokt ikVksj o y{ehdkar ds [kks[ks ds ikl papy ds jksus dh vkokt lquh] vkokt lqudj eSa ogka ij Hkkxdj xbZA rc ogka y{ehdkar uaxk [kM+k ns[kk FkkA yM+dh dh xqnk ls [kwu vk jgk Fkk] yM+dh [kM+h FkhA vkokt lqudj eSa y{ehdkar ds ?kj x;h rc og uaxk FkkA yM+dh dh gkyr ns[kdj eSa fpYykus yxh rc esjs ifr Hkh ogka igqap x;s muds lkFk eksguLo:Ik o jkts'k ?kVukLFky vk;sA rks y{ehdkar ?kj ds mij p<+dj dwndj Hkkx x;kA " PW.6 Mohanswaroop, independent witness who was coming from village for going to village Pathoda on the day of incident stated that when he reached near well he heard the noises of woman. This witness implicated the accused appellant committing offence of carnal intercourse with the prosecutrix. The extracted portion of his statement reads thus : " tc eSa [kksj dq, ds ikl igqapk rks eSaus vkSjr ds fpYykus dh vkokt lquh oks y{ehdkar ds edku ls vk jgh FkhA ogka Hkxor [kM+k Fkk] jkts'k taxy ds jkLrs ls vk jgk Fkk ge rhuksa ,d lkFk y{ehdkar ds ?kj igqapsA geus ns[kk fd cjkens esa y{ehdkar uaxk [kM+k Fkk gedks ns[kdj y{ehdkar Hkkx x;kA geus ns[kk ogka dqekjh papy mez 1 o"kZ jks jgh Fkh vkSj mldh eEeh Hkh ogka jks jgh FkhA y{ehdkar edku ds thus ds mij p<+dj dwndj Hkkx x;kA geus ns[kk fd yM+dh [kwuksa ls yFkiFk Fkh o mldh xqnk ls [kwu vk jgk FkkA " PW.7 Rajesh Kumar, independent witness while coming back from field to village stated about the carnal unnatural offence committed with the prosecutrix Chanchal. He stated thus : " y{ehdkar ds ?kj ls ,d vkSjr dh ph[k lqukbZ nh ftl ij ge rhuksa y{ehdkar ds ?kj Hkkxs mlds ?kj esa ns[kk fd cjkens esa y{ehdkar uaxk [kM+k Fkk ,oa ikl gh [kM+h dqekjh papy jks jgh FkhA papy dh eka xqM~Mh [kM+h fpYyk jgh FkhA tSls gh ge rhuksa dks y{ehdkar us ns[kk y{ehdkar vius diM+s mBkdj thuk ls Nr ij ls Hkkx x;kA papy mez 4 o"kZ dks y{ehdkar cgyk Qqlykdj ?kj ls tkdj cPph dh xqnk ls cqjk deZ fd;kA mldh xqnk esa fyax izos'k fd;k ftlls cPph dh xqnk ls [kwu cg jgk FkkA " PW.8 Rama, grandmother of prosecutrix in her statement stated thus : " eSa uksgjs ls ?kj vkbZ eSa uksgjs ls gjk pkjk dqVus dh dgus ?kj vkbZ FkhA papy esjs lkFk pyh rks fnus'k dh ikVksj ij fiYys Fks mlus dgk fd vEek eSa fiYys ls [ksyawxh brus esa y{ehdkar vius [kks[ks ls mrj cksyk fd vPNs vPNs fiYys esjs ?kj gS fQj oks cPph dks ysdj pyk x;k bruh nsj esa gYyk ep jgk Fkk fd Nksjh jks jgh Fkh eSa ogka ls Hkkxh rks y{ehdkar ds ?kj ikl gYyk Fkk ogka ij xqM~Mh Hkxor jkts'k [kM+k Fkk rks yM+dh cksyh fd xqM~Mh yM+dh D;ksa jks jgh Fkh rks oks cksyh y{ehdkar us blds lkFk cqjk dke fd;k gS eSa okfil uksgjs ij pyh x;h mldh pM~Mh [kwu ls yFkiFk Fkh mlds xqns ls [kwu vk jgk FkkA " PW.9 Brijesh Kumar SHO, stated about the investigation done in the case by him. He stated about lodging of Ex. P.4 before him where E to F he put his signature. FIR Ex. P.5 was chalked out and he put his signature E to F. He also stated about reaching at the place of incident and preparing Ex.P.6 map of place of incident. He also stated about seizure of Chhadi by Ex. P.7 over which blood was found. Ex.P.8 Map of House of accused was also prepared by him. During investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses Guddi, Mohansarup, Rajesh Kumar, Rama and Bhagwat. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.P.9. The accused gave information about the place where carnal intercourse was done by him on the prosecutrix which is Ex. P.10. One underwear was seized from the accused vide Ex. P.11. His medical examination was done vide Ex. P.3. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.P.9. The accused gave information about the place where carnal intercourse was done by him on the prosecutrix which is Ex. P.10. One underwear was seized from the accused vide Ex. P.11. His medical examination was done vide Ex. P.3. The receipt of deposit of packets in FSL is Ex. P.3.PW.10 Sardarsingh was incharge Malkhana, he stated about placing the seized packets in malkhana in sealed condition and sending same to FSL through Dalveer Singh constable.From the above it is clear that all the prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution stated in their statements that the accused appellant committed carnal intercourse with the prosecutrix. The accused appellant taken the prosecutrix to his residence on the pretext of showing her Puppies. I have gone through the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 363 and 377 IPC. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. The accused appellant has been rightly sentenced and the sentence is not excessive. From the medical evidence and the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that the carnal intercourse done by the accused appellant with the prosecutrix has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is also clear from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the accused appellant taken the prosecutrix at his residence on the pretext of showing Puppies at his residence. Thus the sentence awarded to the accused appellant of sections 363 and 377 IPC cannot be said to be perverse. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant has already been dealt with in detail in the judgment and now there is no need to further discuss the cases cited by him. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court is confirmed. 7. For the foregoing reasons the appeal filed by the accused appellant being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The accused appellant who is in jail shall serve the remaining sentence. In absence of deposit of fine he shall also serve further sentence as ordered by the trial court.However, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the accused appellant under Section 432 Cr.P.C. for granting him the benefit of remission in accordance with law.Appeal dismissed. *******