What is MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR?

It is a landmark Supreme Court judgment important for judiciary exams.

Why is this case important for PCS-J and HJS?

It helps in understanding legal principles, ratio decidendi and judicial reasoning.

MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR

Head Note

Supreme Court of India 24 Apr 1992

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Detailed Summary

PETITIONER: MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Vs. RESPONDENT: NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION: &nbsp;1992 SCR &nbsp;(2) 921&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1992 SCC &nbsp;(3) 204 &nbsp;JT 1992 (3) &nbsp; 270&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1992 SCALE &nbsp;(1)957 ACT: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Indian Penal Code, 1860 : &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Ss. &nbsp; 375,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 376-Rape-Accused-Medical &nbsp; graduate-Causing slight&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penetration &nbsp;into &nbsp;vulva of &nbsp;8&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;years &nbsp;girl &nbsp;without rupturing &nbsp;hymen-Medical evidence indicating &nbsp;hymen &nbsp;intact, abrasion &nbsp;on medial side of labia majora and redness &nbsp;around labia &nbsp;minora-Offence-Whether constituted &nbsp;rape-Trial &nbsp;court not accepting prosecution evidence recorded acquittal-Appeal against&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acquattal-High &nbsp; Court &nbsp; held&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; victim&#39;s &nbsp; evidence satisfactory and found sufficient corroboration on &nbsp;material aspects, believed extra-judicial confession of accused being voluntary not obtained by force, coercion etc., but accepted victim&#39;s &nbsp;evidence in part, convicted accused under &nbsp;s.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 354 and &nbsp;sentenced&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;him &nbsp;to fine of Rs. &nbsp;3000 only-Legality&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of- Conviction altered to one under s. 376 by Supreme Court. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;penology-Sexual &nbsp;assault &nbsp;on &nbsp;female &nbsp; children-Accused committed &nbsp;rape&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; on &nbsp;8&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;years &nbsp;girl-Conviction-Sentence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;to commensurate with gravity of offence. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;S.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 24-Extra-judicial &nbsp;confession-Corroboration-Whether necessary. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;S.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;45-Expert &nbsp;opinion-Medical &nbsp;witness-Evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of- Whether of advisory character-Legal opinion of witness as to nature of offence-Whether can be accepted. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;S.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 378-Appeal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;against&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; acquittal-High &nbsp; &nbsp;Court&#39;s jurisdiction-Whether &nbsp;plenary &nbsp;and unlimited to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; review&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the entire evidence. ^ &nbsp; &nbsp; The respondent, a medical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; graduate, was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;indulged &nbsp;in gratifying &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; animated passions and sexual &nbsp;pleasures &nbsp;by sexually assaulting and molest- &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 922 ing young girls. &nbsp; HEADNOTE: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;victim &nbsp;girl (PW. 13) aged about 8 years &nbsp;was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the daughter &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;neighbour of the respondent.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; She &nbsp;was &nbsp;a friend&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of respondent&#39;s niece and both the children used &nbsp;to play &nbsp;together.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; According to the prosecution case, &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the fateful&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; day &nbsp;when respondent&#39;s niece and PW. &nbsp;13 &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her younger&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; brother were playing in respondent&#39;s drawing &nbsp;hall, and there was no one else in the house, the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;sent his niece with younger brother of PW. 13 outside. He &nbsp;bolted the door from inside, completely stripped off himself,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;made PW. &nbsp;13&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; completely &nbsp;naked and asked &nbsp;her &nbsp;to &nbsp;do &nbsp;fellatio. Thereafter he slightly inserted his penis into her vulva and lay &nbsp;over her. After sometime he freed the child. While&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; she was leaving the drawing hall, the respondent threatened&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her not &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; disclose &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;affairs&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;anyone. &nbsp;She, &nbsp;however, narrated the incident to respondent&#39;s niece. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In the evening PW. 13 told her mother (PW. 6) that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent &nbsp;had asked her to suck his private part. She did not &nbsp;narrate &nbsp;the whole incident out of fear. The &nbsp;next&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; day when &nbsp;PW. &nbsp;13 &nbsp;and respondent&#39;s niece were &nbsp;talking &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the incident, &nbsp;their friend PW. 12 came there. PW.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;13 &nbsp;narrated the &nbsp;incident &nbsp;to her and other girl friends. On &nbsp;the &nbsp;third day, &nbsp;PW. &nbsp;13 &nbsp;told the entire incident to &nbsp;her&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; mother&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; who conveyed it to her neighbours PWs. 9 and 10 on telephone. At about &nbsp;9 p.m. when the appellant (PW.5), the father &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the victim girl, returned home and learnt about the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; occurrence, he &nbsp;accompanied&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; by &nbsp;PWs. 7,9 and 10 &nbsp;went &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;respondent&#39;s house,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;but he was not there and they informed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;brother and sister-in-law of the respondent of the purpose of &nbsp;their visit.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;They &nbsp;all &nbsp;waited &nbsp;there &nbsp;till&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;midnight &nbsp;when&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent &nbsp;came. The respondent, assessing &nbsp;the &nbsp;situation, voluntarily &nbsp;confessed his crime. He admitted that he &nbsp;raped PW. &nbsp;13&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;also &nbsp;committed &nbsp;the &nbsp;same &nbsp;crime&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; on &nbsp;earlier occasions with his niece and other minor girls, but being &nbsp;a doctor&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;he &nbsp;had&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; been careful enough not &nbsp;to &nbsp;rupture &nbsp;their hymen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;brother of the respondent begged of PW. &nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and others&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;not to do anything till the arrival of his &nbsp;parents. Next &nbsp;morning &nbsp;when respondent&#39;s parents reached, &nbsp;he &nbsp;again admitted his abominable crime of sexual assault on PW. 13. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; took &nbsp;2-3 &nbsp;days &nbsp;more to PW. 5&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;get &nbsp;a &nbsp;written complaint &nbsp;(Ext. P.7) lodged with the police through PW. &nbsp;8. The &nbsp;police &nbsp;investigation culminated in the &nbsp;trial &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent for an offence of rape committed on PW. 13. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;trial court held that the prosecution against&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent &nbsp;was launched due to some enmity between the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; two families and that the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 923 prosecution &nbsp;did &nbsp;not &nbsp;adduce any &nbsp;acceptable &nbsp;evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; for holding&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent guilty of offence under s. 376&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;IPC. It accordingly acquitted the respondent. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;State&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; filed an appeal an &nbsp;against &nbsp;the &nbsp;acquittal before the High Court. The complainant-appellant also &nbsp;filed a criminal revision challenging the legality of the order of acquittal. &nbsp;On&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;basis of an &nbsp;artical &nbsp;relating &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the incident &nbsp;published &nbsp;in a foreign magazine, a &nbsp;petition&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was addressed &nbsp;to the Chief Justice of India with a copy to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Chief Justice &nbsp;of the High Court concerned and on its &nbsp;basis another criminal revision petition was registered. The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court disposed of all the three cases by a common &nbsp;judgment. It accepted the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and the &nbsp;extra-judicial confession made by the &nbsp;respondent.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; It, however, &nbsp;held the respondent guilty of an offence under &nbsp;s. 354 &nbsp;IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 &nbsp;only. The complainant-appellant filed the appeal by special &nbsp;leave to this Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The State did not file any appeal. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was contended on behalf of the appellant &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High Court erred in holding the respondent guilty of a minor offence under s. 354 IPC when all the necessary&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; ingredients to &nbsp;constitute&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;an offence punishable under s. 376 &nbsp;IPC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; had been &nbsp;satisfactorily established; and the sentence &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;fine alone &nbsp;imposed was grossly inadequate and &nbsp;not&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Allowing &nbsp;the appeal and setting aside the judgment &nbsp;of the High Court, this Court, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;HELD &nbsp; :&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1. &nbsp;The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;prosecution&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;has &nbsp; satisfactorily established &nbsp;its case that the respondent committed rape &nbsp;on PW. 13 by proving all the necessary ingredients required &nbsp;to make &nbsp;out &nbsp;an offence of rape punishable under&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 376 IPC. [p. 947 B] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2. When the evidence of PW. 13-that the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; put his &nbsp;male &nbsp;organ &nbsp;inside her vagina &nbsp;and &nbsp;clutched &nbsp;her&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and thereafter &nbsp;she suffered pain-is taken with the evidence &nbsp;of medical officer who found an abrasion on the medical side of labia &nbsp;majora and redness present around the &nbsp;labia &nbsp; minora with &nbsp;white &nbsp;discharge even after 5 days, it can &nbsp;be &nbsp;safely concluded &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; there was partial &nbsp;penetration&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; within&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the labia &nbsp;majora &nbsp;or the vulva or pudenda which &nbsp;in &nbsp;the &nbsp;legal sense is sufficient to constitute the offence of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 924 rape. &nbsp;Moreover, &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;himself &nbsp;confessed &nbsp;twice admitting the commission of rape without rupturing the hymen which &nbsp;confession is not disbelieved by the High Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; [p. 946 C; E-F] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3.1. &nbsp;The evidence of PW. 13 is amply corroborated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not only by the medical evidence and the evidence of PW. 12&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but also &nbsp;by the &nbsp;plenary confession of the respondent &nbsp;himself. [p. 947 A] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3.2 &nbsp;Even&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;in &nbsp;cases &nbsp;wherein there &nbsp;is &nbsp;lack &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can &nbsp;be safely&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;recorded, provided the evidence of the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;victim&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the &nbsp;`probabilities factor&#39; does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a &nbsp;general &nbsp;rule, &nbsp;corroboration cannot&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; be &nbsp;insisted &nbsp;upon, except&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;from the medical evidence, where, having &nbsp;regard &nbsp;to the &nbsp;circumstances &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the case, medical &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;can &nbsp;be expected to be forthcoming. [pp. 939 GH; p. 940 A] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rameshwar&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State &nbsp;of &nbsp;Rajasthan, &nbsp;[1952] &nbsp;SCR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;377; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [1988] &nbsp;3 SCC 217; Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, [1980] 3 SCC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;159, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4.1 &nbsp;In &nbsp;order to constitute an offence &nbsp;of &nbsp;`Rape&#39; &nbsp;as envisaged &nbsp;by &nbsp;the first Explanation to s. &nbsp;375&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; IPC, &nbsp;while there &nbsp;must &nbsp;be&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; penetration in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;technical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sence,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the slightest penetration would be sufficient and a complete act of sexual intercourse is not at all necessary. [p. 945 D-H] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Parikh&#39;s&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Textbook &nbsp; of &nbsp;Medical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Jurisprudence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and Toxicology; &nbsp;Encyclopedia &nbsp;of Crime and Justice&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (Vol.4) &nbsp;at page 1356; Halsbury&#39;s &nbsp;Statutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) &nbsp;Volume &nbsp;12; Harris&#39;s Criminal Law &nbsp;(Twenty &nbsp;Second Edition) &nbsp;at page 465; Gaur&#39;s &quot;The Penal Law of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; India&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 6th Edn. &nbsp;(Vol. &nbsp;II) &nbsp;p. &nbsp;1678; &nbsp;Code &nbsp;236&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;Penal &nbsp;Code&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;of California, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;R.v.Hughes, &nbsp;[1841[ 9 C &amp; P 752; R.v. Lines, &nbsp;[1844] &nbsp;1 Car &nbsp;&amp; Kir 393; R.v. Nicholls, [1847] 9 LTOS 179; &nbsp;Natha &nbsp;v. Emperor, &nbsp;26 &nbsp;Cr.L.J. &nbsp;[1925] &nbsp;page &nbsp;1185; &nbsp;Abdul &nbsp;Majid &nbsp;v. Emperor, &nbsp;AIR 1927 Lahore 735 (2); Mussammat Jantan &nbsp;v.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The Crown,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; [1934]&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Punjab&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Law &nbsp;Reporter&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(Vol. &nbsp;36) &nbsp;p.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 35; Ghanashyam &nbsp;Mishra &nbsp;v. State, [1957] Cr.L.J. &nbsp;469 &nbsp;AIR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1957 Orissa 78; D. Bernard v. State, [1974] Cr.L.J. 1098; &nbsp;Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [1989] 1 SCC 432; In &nbsp;re Anthony, AIR 1960 Mad. 308, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4.2 &nbsp;In &nbsp;the &nbsp;instant &nbsp;case &nbsp;there&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is &nbsp;acceptable&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and reliable evidence that &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 925 there&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;was &nbsp;slight &nbsp;penetration &nbsp;though &nbsp;not&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;a &nbsp; complete penetration. [p. 946 B] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4.3. &nbsp;The medical officer was of the opinion &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the abrasion measuring one and a half inches in length found &nbsp;on the &nbsp;medial side of the labia majora and the redness &nbsp;around the &nbsp;labia &nbsp;minora &nbsp;could have been caused on &nbsp;the &nbsp;date &nbsp;of incident. &nbsp;[pp. 942 H; 943 A] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Merely &nbsp;because the inexperienced medical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;officer&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has opined&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that it was an attempt to commit rape,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;probably &nbsp;on the &nbsp;ground that there was no sign of complete&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penetration, her legal opinion as to the nature of the offence &nbsp;committed by the respondent cannot be accepted. (p. 943 CD] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4.4. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the &nbsp;Court is not a witness of fact and the &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;given by &nbsp;the medical officer is really of an&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; advisory &nbsp;character given &nbsp;on &nbsp;the basis of the symptoms found &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;examination. The &nbsp;expert witness is expected to put before the Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the &nbsp;conclusion&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and enlighten the Court &nbsp;on &nbsp;the &nbsp;technical aspect&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;the case by explaining the terms of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; science &nbsp;so that &nbsp;the &nbsp;Court although, not an expert may &nbsp;form &nbsp;its&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; own judgment &nbsp;on those materials after giving due regard to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the expert&#39;s &nbsp;opinion &nbsp;because &nbsp;once &nbsp;the &nbsp;expert&#39;s&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; opinion &nbsp;is accepted, &nbsp;it is not the opinion of the medical officer&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but of the Court. [p. 943 D-F] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;R. v. Ahmed Ali, 11 WR Cr. 25; Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1307, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Medical &nbsp;Jurisprudence &nbsp;and Toxicology, &nbsp;(Twenty &nbsp;First Edition) by Modi, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;5. Law does not require that the evidence of an &nbsp;extra- judicial &nbsp;confession &nbsp;should in all cases &nbsp;be &nbsp;corroborated. However, &nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;confession &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp; amply corroborated &nbsp;by the evidence of the victim (PW. &nbsp;13) &nbsp;whose testimony in turn is &nbsp;corroborated by PWs. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and also by the medical evidence. [p. 939 B-C] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Piara &nbsp;Singh &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State of Punjab, [1978]&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1 &nbsp;SCR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;597, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;6. In view of s. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to s. 417 of the old Code), in cases &nbsp;of appeals&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; against acquittal as a matter of jurisdiction,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the whole case is at large for review by the High Court both &nbsp;as to the facts and the law and it is clothed with the plenary &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 926 powers to go through the entire evidence and to come to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; its own &nbsp;conclusions &nbsp;of &nbsp;guilt or&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;otherwise &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;indicted persons&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; as &nbsp;the &nbsp;established facts &nbsp;warrant &nbsp;and &nbsp;to &nbsp;award appropriate &nbsp;sentence &nbsp;which will be commensurate &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the gravity of the offence in case of conviction. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;[pp. 940 DE; 941 EF] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) &nbsp;Wilayat Khan &amp; Others v. State of U.P., AIR &nbsp;(2),&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1953 S.C. &nbsp;122; Surajpal Singh and others v.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The &nbsp;State, &nbsp;[1952] SCR 193; Tulsi Ram v. &nbsp;The State, AIR 1954 S.C.I.; Aher Raja Khima &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State &nbsp;of Saurashtra, [1955] 2 &nbsp;SCR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1285; &nbsp;Radha Kishan&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;v. State of U.P., [1963] Supp. 1 SCR &nbsp;408; &nbsp;Jadunath Singh &nbsp;and others, etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1971] &nbsp;3 SCC &nbsp;577; &nbsp;Dharam Das v. State of U.P., [1973]&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;2 &nbsp;SCC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;216; Barati v. State of U.P., [1974] 4 SCC 258 and Sethu Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala, [1975] 3 SCC 150, referred to. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7.1. &nbsp;The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;findings &nbsp;of the &nbsp;High&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Court,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;rendered &nbsp;in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are findings of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;fact which &nbsp;cannot &nbsp;be &nbsp;reopened in appeal &nbsp;especially &nbsp;when&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent has not challenged those findings and when &nbsp;there is &nbsp;absolutely&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;no &nbsp;reason muchless &nbsp;compelling&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; reason&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; for holding that those findings are either in utter disregard of the evidence or unreasonable and perverse or any part of the evidence in favour of the respondent is jettisoned. [p.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 936 FG] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7.2. &nbsp;Although the High Court was fully satisfied&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with the &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;of &nbsp;the victim PW. 13 &nbsp;and &nbsp;found &nbsp;sufficient corroboration on all material particulars from the &nbsp;evidence of &nbsp;PWs. &nbsp;5, &nbsp;6, 9, 10 and 12 &nbsp;and &nbsp;held &nbsp;the &nbsp;extrajudicial confession &nbsp;given &nbsp;by &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;as &nbsp;true &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;made voluntarily and not obtained by any inducement, coercion &nbsp;or threat and that there could be penetration without &nbsp;rupture, yet, &nbsp;having &nbsp;accepted the entire &nbsp;prosecution&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;in toto, &nbsp;it &nbsp;committed an error in entertaining a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; doubt&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with regard&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;to the accusation of rape holding that there was &nbsp;no sign of injuries and that the offence was not one punishable under &nbsp;s. 376 IPC or under s. 376 read with s. 511 &nbsp;IPC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but only one under s. 354 IPC. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [p. 936 A-C] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;7.3. &nbsp;The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court even after &nbsp;observing &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;the respondent&#39;s &nbsp;activities were menace to the neighbours&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has shown &nbsp;a misplaced sympathy to the respondent which has&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; led to the miscarriage of justice.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The finding that the offence is one of outraging the modesty of woman for which &nbsp;sentence of &nbsp; imprisonment &nbsp;is &nbsp;not &nbsp;compulsory&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp; erroneous&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and untenable. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;[p. 942 A-C] &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 927 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;8. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the repugnant &nbsp;crime &nbsp;of rape perpetrated on PW. 13&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; who &nbsp;was &nbsp;8 years &nbsp;old &nbsp;on the date of the commission &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;offence, while convicting the respondent under Section 376 IPC he &nbsp;is sentenced to undergo &nbsp;rigorous imprisonment for a period &nbsp;of seven &nbsp;years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;victim girl. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [p. 948 B-C] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;9.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Though all sexual assaults on female &nbsp;children&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are not &nbsp;reported &nbsp;and &nbsp;do not come to light &nbsp;yet &nbsp;there &nbsp;is &nbsp;an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences &nbsp;committed on &nbsp;children. &nbsp;This is due to the reasons that children&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are ignorant &nbsp;of the act of the rape and are not able &nbsp;to &nbsp;offer resistence and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the &nbsp;unscrupulous, &nbsp;deceitful and insidious &nbsp;art &nbsp;of &nbsp;luring female children and young girls. &nbsp;Therefore, such &nbsp;offenders who &nbsp; are &nbsp;menace &nbsp;to &nbsp;the &nbsp;civilised &nbsp;society&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; should&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;be mercilessly &nbsp;and inexorably punished in the severest &nbsp;terms. [p. 948 EF] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;A.R. &nbsp;Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another, [1988] &nbsp;2&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; SCC 602 at page 673, referred to. &nbsp; JUDGMENT: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;CRIMINAL &nbsp;APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; No. 447 of 1988. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;From &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Judgment &nbsp;and Order dated &nbsp;5.9.1986 &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1023/83. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Ms. Pinky Anand and D.N. Goburdhan for the Appellants. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;B.P. Singh and umanath Singh for the Respondents. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The Judgment of the Court was delivered by &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;S.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The factual matrix leading &nbsp;to the &nbsp;filing &nbsp;of this appeal which is quite simple &nbsp;gives &nbsp;an account&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;sordid and obnoxious &nbsp;incident&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;wherein&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent, a medical practitioner who had created a private hell &nbsp;of &nbsp;his own was gratifying his animated &nbsp;passions&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;pleasure by sexually assaulting and molesting &nbsp;young girls &nbsp;not &nbsp;only in utter disregard of the &nbsp;universal &nbsp;moral code, human dignity, his professional ethics and values&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but also in flagrant violation of the law of the country. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp; brief &nbsp;facts&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;this &nbsp;shameless &nbsp; intrigue&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;as unravelled by the prosecution at the trial are as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 928 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The respondent/accused who just then graduated from the Medical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; College was staying with the family &nbsp;consisting &nbsp;of his parents, his brothers, his sister-in-law Smt. Tara Dubey and &nbsp; niece &nbsp;Richa &nbsp;Dubey, &nbsp;who&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is &nbsp;the &nbsp;daughter &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent&#39;s &nbsp;step-brother &nbsp;Niraj Dubey, &nbsp;in &nbsp;Adarsh &nbsp;Nagar, Jabalpur. &nbsp; His&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; father&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Bhagwan Dass &nbsp;Dubey &nbsp;(DW-2) &nbsp;was &nbsp;a retired&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Professor and his sister-in-law Tara &nbsp;Dubey &nbsp;(DW-1) was &nbsp;a lecturer. &nbsp;His another elder brother at the &nbsp;relevant time &nbsp;of &nbsp;this occurrence was working as &nbsp;Superintendent &nbsp;of Police&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;in Rajgarh District. &nbsp;Opposite to his house at&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;some distance Satish Bhasin (PW-9) and Sapna Bhasin (PW-10)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;were residing &nbsp;with their minor daughter Priti. &nbsp;Within the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;same locality &nbsp;3 &nbsp;or&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 4 &nbsp;houses &nbsp;away &nbsp;from&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;house &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent/accused, &nbsp;the appellant Madan Gopal Kakad &nbsp;(PW-5) was living with his wife, a German lady, by name, &nbsp;Elesabeth Kakad (PW-6), his sister Veera (PW-7) and his minor daughter Tulna &nbsp;Sheri &nbsp;(PW-13),&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;a girl aged about 8 &nbsp;years &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his younger&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; son Pulkit. &nbsp;The family members of &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent and PW-5 were on cordial relationship making frequent visits to the houses of each other. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Tulna Sheri (PW-13) the unfortunate victim in this case was &nbsp;studying &nbsp;in the third standard in St. &nbsp;Joseph &nbsp;Convent along &nbsp;with her class-mate Richa Dubey.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Tulna used to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;come frequently to the house of the respondent to play with Richa Dubey and her other girl friends. &nbsp;Tarun Lata Joshi &nbsp;(PW-12) was living with her father who was a tenant in the house &nbsp;of PW-5. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;According to the prosecution, the respondent who had &nbsp;a crush &nbsp;on &nbsp;young girls used to develop friendship &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the girls &nbsp;who used to come to his house to play with his &nbsp;niece Richa &nbsp;Dubey &nbsp;by narrating interesting&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;stories&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; from &nbsp;comic books.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; On &nbsp;the day of this deplorable&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; incident, &nbsp;i.e. &nbsp;on 2.9.1982 at about 4 or 5 p.m. &nbsp;Richa Dubey called Tulna (PW- 13) &nbsp;stating that her mother wanted her. &nbsp;Accordingly &nbsp;Tulna wearing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; underwear &nbsp; and jeans accompanied &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;her &nbsp;younger brother&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Pulkit went to the house of Richa, but&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; found&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;none except&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent. &nbsp;The respondent &nbsp;found&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; fault&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with Tulna &nbsp;for &nbsp;having come there in jeans&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;accompanied &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her brother. &nbsp; When&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;two girls, &nbsp;namely, &nbsp;Tulna &nbsp;and &nbsp;Richa started&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;playing &nbsp;in &nbsp;the &nbsp;drawing &nbsp;room, &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;respondent whispered &nbsp;something &nbsp;in the ears of Richa, &nbsp;who &nbsp;then&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;told Tulna that she had been asked by her uncle (the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent) to take Pulkit outside and narrate him some stories and that the respondent would `make love&#39;, presumably meaning that he would&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;tell &nbsp;some &nbsp;lurid &nbsp;tales &nbsp;of &nbsp;sex &nbsp;to &nbsp;her &nbsp; thereby stimulating immoral thoughts so that Tulna might fall a prey to his lewd and lascivious behaviour. &nbsp;As soon as Richa went outside taking Pulkit, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 929 the &nbsp;respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; bolted&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the door &nbsp;from&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; inside, &nbsp;completely stripped &nbsp;off &nbsp;himself; removed the jeans and &nbsp;underwear &nbsp;of Tulna &nbsp;and &nbsp;made her naked and asked Tulna to &nbsp;do &nbsp;fellatio, that &nbsp;is &nbsp;to &nbsp;suck his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penis.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Thereafter &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent cuddled and pined Tulna close to him, and slightly &nbsp;inserted his &nbsp;penis &nbsp;into &nbsp;her vulva and started&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sucking &nbsp;her &nbsp;lips. Within a few seconds, he ejaculated and freed the girl&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;from his &nbsp;clutches &nbsp;and thereafter put on his pyjamas &nbsp;and &nbsp;asked Tulna &nbsp;to wear her jeans. &nbsp;Again the respondent longing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; for his &nbsp;lascivious&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; passion, laid down Tulna on a sofa &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his drawing room and remained lying on her and closed her &nbsp;mouth so &nbsp;that &nbsp;the girl could not scream. &nbsp;A little&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;later &nbsp;after wetting&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his &nbsp;sexual &nbsp;appetite he got up; &nbsp;opened &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;door allowed the girl to go out. &nbsp;While the girl was leaving&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the drawing hall, the respondent threatened her not to &nbsp;disclose his &nbsp;affair to anyone, otherwise his elder brother who is &nbsp;a high &nbsp;ranking &nbsp;police &nbsp;office &nbsp;would &nbsp;mercilessly &nbsp;beat&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her parents. &nbsp; Tulna came out of the room and told Richa &nbsp;as &nbsp;to what all happened inside the room. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the evening of that day she told her mother &nbsp;(PW-6) that the respondent was a dirty fellow and he had asked&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her to suck his private part, to which PW-6 instructed not to go to &nbsp;the house of respondent thereafter.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; However, Tulna&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; did not &nbsp;narrate the entire episode to her mother on the day &nbsp;of the &nbsp;incident &nbsp;evidently &nbsp;out of &nbsp;fear.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;When&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Tulna &nbsp;again narrated &nbsp;this&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;incident to Richa, the latter told her&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that her Chacha, referring to respondent, was like a dog and that he &nbsp;used to do the same thing with her also by stripping &nbsp;of her &nbsp;whenever she came from the school and whenever she&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was lying &nbsp;on her bed and further told that the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;when asked as to why Tulna and Priti are in fair complexion,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her chacha&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;replied that their complexion is fair &nbsp;because&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;they sucked&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;his male organ and that if Richa also did &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;same thing she would also become very fair in her complexion. PW- 12, &nbsp;Tarun Lata Joshi, who was present nearby &nbsp;seeing &nbsp;Tulna and &nbsp;Richa &nbsp;whispering each other asked them &nbsp;what &nbsp;was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Tulna narrated the incident to her and other&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;girl friends. &nbsp; On the next day, seeing the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;standing near &nbsp;the gate of his house &nbsp;Tulna repeated the same &nbsp;remark to her mother (PW-6). &nbsp;Thus on the third day, Tulna told her mother&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the entire incident which took place in the &nbsp;drawing hall of the house of the respondent on 2.9.1982. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;On&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; hearing &nbsp;this horrid episode, PW-6 &nbsp;was &nbsp;very&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;much annoyed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;conveyed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;this painful and &nbsp;jarring &nbsp;piece &nbsp;of information &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; PW-7 &nbsp;(Veera).&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Then &nbsp;PW-6, &nbsp;reeling &nbsp;under terrible shock, telephoned to her neighbours &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 930 PWs &nbsp;9&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and &nbsp;10 and informed them &nbsp;about &nbsp;the &nbsp;sexual &nbsp;abuse perpetrated &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent on her daughter. &nbsp; At &nbsp;about 9.00 &nbsp;p.m. &nbsp;the appellant, Madan Gopal (PW-5) &nbsp;came &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his house &nbsp;and &nbsp;learnt &nbsp;about the occurrence. &nbsp; Faced &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the traumatic &nbsp;situation, the helpless &nbsp;panic &nbsp;stricken &nbsp;parents who have been so deeply disturbed by the dehumanising act of the respondent rushed with boiling blood to the house of the respondent &nbsp;accompanied by PWs 7, 9 and 10 and searched&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; for the &nbsp;respondent, &nbsp;but could not find him there.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;They&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;then informed the purpose of their visit to the elder brother and sister-in-law &nbsp;of the respondent who told PWs 5 and &nbsp;6&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that the respondent had gone to a cinema hall and they would send the &nbsp;respondent&#39;s younger brother to fetch him.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;All &nbsp;those including the rightful indignanted parents of victim &nbsp;Tulna, assembled in the house of the respondent, kept waiting&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;till mid night. &nbsp;The respondent after returning from the &nbsp;theatre realising &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;the entire atmosphere was thick &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the charge of sexual molestation against him and finding him &nbsp;in culde-sac &nbsp;voluntarily confessed his crime stating &nbsp;that &nbsp;he had &nbsp;raped &nbsp;Tulna and also had committed the &nbsp;same &nbsp;kind &nbsp;of sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;assault on earlier occassions with Richa, Priti&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and other girls of that locality, but being a Doctor he had been careful&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; enough&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not to repture their hymen. &nbsp;When &nbsp;PW-5 &nbsp;on being &nbsp;acerbated &nbsp;and &nbsp;mentally&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; perturbed &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;hearing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the confessional &nbsp;statement&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; rushed towards&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;to attack&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;him, respondent&#39;s brother and sister-in-law fell &nbsp;at the &nbsp;feet &nbsp;of &nbsp;PW-5 and pathetically &nbsp;beseeched&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;to &nbsp;do anything &nbsp;till the arrival of the parents of the &nbsp;respondent in the next morning. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Coming &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; know to the arrival of the &nbsp;father &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent &nbsp;Bhagwan &nbsp;Dass (DW-2) with his wife on &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;next morning, Madan Gopal, (PW-5) along with PWs 6, 9 and 10&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; met DW-2 &nbsp;who took strong objection for PW-5&#39;s behaviour on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the last &nbsp; night.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;When &nbsp;PW-5 &nbsp;informed &nbsp;DW-2 &nbsp;that &nbsp; his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; son (respondent) &nbsp;had raped his minor daughter Tulna, &nbsp;DW-2&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was not prepared to believe their accusation. &nbsp;Thereafter at the request&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;PW&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 5, he called his son &nbsp;and &nbsp;questioned&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;him. Though&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;first&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; abjured &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; complicity, however, admitted his abominable crime of sexual assault &nbsp;on Tulna.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Thereupon Bhagwan Dass gave his stick to Madan Gopal and &nbsp;said &nbsp;that it was for PW 5 either to show mercy &nbsp;or &nbsp;to give corporeal punishment as he deemed fit and also made &nbsp;an earnest appeal to PW-5 not to precipitate any action against his &nbsp;son. &nbsp;Presumably, PW-5 and his family members &nbsp;thinking that &nbsp;the &nbsp;police &nbsp;might not take &nbsp;any&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;action&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;against&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent since his brother was a Superintendent of &nbsp;Police and &nbsp;his family was wielding a high influence in &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;area and also fearing that any publicity &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 931 of &nbsp;this &nbsp;incident &nbsp;would bring only a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;disrepute &nbsp;to &nbsp;their family&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and that the future life of their daughter would &nbsp;be completely &nbsp;shattered, suffered in silence for 2 or 3 &nbsp;days, without approaching any authority. &nbsp;However, on 7.9.1982 PW- 5 &nbsp;mustered &nbsp;his strength and decided to &nbsp;lodge&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; a &nbsp;criminal complaint &nbsp;against the respondent. &nbsp;Accordingly, &nbsp;he &nbsp;handed over &nbsp;a written complaint Ext. P-7 to his &nbsp;friend. &nbsp; Subhash Bhujbal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (PW-8) and got it delivered at the police &nbsp;station. On &nbsp;the strength of Ext. &nbsp;P-7 a case was registered &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the SHO &nbsp; of &nbsp; Goprakhpur &nbsp;Police &nbsp;Station&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (PW-11) &nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the investigation &nbsp;was &nbsp;entrusted to ASI &nbsp;(PW-14).&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; During&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the course&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;the investigation the victim Tulna&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(PW-13)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was examined by Dr. Chitra Tiwari (PW-4) on 7.9.82 on being sent by &nbsp;the police.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; According to PW-4 there was an abrasion &nbsp;on the &nbsp;medial &nbsp;side of Labia Majora about&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 1-1/2&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in &nbsp;length, redness&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; present &nbsp;around &nbsp;the &nbsp;labia &nbsp;minora &nbsp;with &nbsp;a &nbsp;white discharge, &nbsp;and hymen was intact and admitted tip of &nbsp;little finger.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;PW-4 has opined that an attempt to rape &nbsp;had&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;been made.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Ext. &nbsp;P-6 &nbsp;is the &nbsp;medical &nbsp;certificate. &nbsp; PW-4&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has further stated that she prepared a slide for confirmation of the &nbsp;white &nbsp;discharge &nbsp;found around labia &nbsp;minora. &nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the cross-examination &nbsp;she has deposed that the white &nbsp;discharge was not flowing out, but it was at the same place where&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; she noticed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the redness and the discharge could have been as &nbsp;a result&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;infection &nbsp;which itself could &nbsp;have&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; caused&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the redness&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; found around labia minora. &nbsp;Further she has &nbsp;stated that &nbsp;she &nbsp;did&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;not find any crest &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;labia &nbsp;majora.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The Chemical &nbsp;Examiner after examination of the slide, sent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his report Ext. &nbsp;P-13 which did not reveal any seminal stains in the &nbsp;virginal smear. &nbsp;PW-2, a Medical Officer &nbsp;examined&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent on 13.9.82 and found him as a virile person&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with well &nbsp;built body capable of performing sexual &nbsp;inter-course, but &nbsp;found &nbsp;no injuries on his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;person.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;Investigating Officer after examining all the witnesses and completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the &nbsp;respondent for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The respondent took his trial on the indictment that he committed &nbsp;rape on Tulna between 4 and 5 p.m. on &nbsp;2.9.82 &nbsp;in the &nbsp;drawing hall of the house of respondent. &nbsp;The &nbsp;totality of the evidence on the basis of which the prosecution &nbsp;rests its case consists of three categories, namely, (1) the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;oral testimony of the PW-13 corroborated by PWs 6 and 12; (2) the extra-judicial&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;confession &nbsp;made by the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; two occassions; and (3) the medical evidence. &nbsp;Of the &nbsp;witnesses examined &nbsp;Tulna&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (PW-13) &nbsp;alone&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; speaks&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; about&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp; actual commission &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;rape &nbsp;on her.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Though&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Tulna &nbsp;reported this unpleasant incident to Richa immediately after coming out of the drawing &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;932 hall, &nbsp;Richa &nbsp;has &nbsp;not&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;been &nbsp;examined&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;by &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; prosecution obviously &nbsp;for the reason that Richa is none other than&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the niece&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent &nbsp;himself.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;next &nbsp; set&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;of corroborating&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;witnesses &nbsp;who&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;speak &nbsp;about &nbsp;the &nbsp; victim&#39;s reporting &nbsp;about &nbsp;the &nbsp;incident are PW 6 &nbsp;and &nbsp;12. &nbsp; On&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the evening&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of the date of incident even though Tulna &nbsp;reported to her mother that the respondent was a bad man and that &nbsp;he asked &nbsp;her to suck his penis, she did not reveal &nbsp;the &nbsp;other part of the incident relating to the commission of the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;rape obviously &nbsp;fearing that her parents would beat her. &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was only &nbsp;on the third day, the mother (PW-6) came to know&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;from Tulna about the actual incident, presumably after the victim girl &nbsp;started &nbsp;reporting this incident to PW-12 and &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her other &nbsp;playmates. &nbsp; The second category of evidence &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the extra-judicial confession made by the respondent before&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; PWs 5, &nbsp;6,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;7, 9 and 10 in the house of the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent &nbsp;himself after he had been sent for from the cinema hall. &nbsp; According to the above witnesses, this confession was made not only in their presence, but also in the presence of the respondent&#39;s brother&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and sister-in-law (DW-1). &nbsp;(It is but natural&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that the &nbsp;brother and sister-in-law of the respondent &nbsp;would&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not figure&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;as &nbsp;witnesses &nbsp;on the side of &nbsp;the &nbsp;prosecution&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and depose against the respondent.)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; According to the &nbsp;witnesses the confession made by the respondent was thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;I have raped the girl, but I have not ruptured her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; hymen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;You should not be perplexed, I &nbsp;know&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;what &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are &nbsp;my limits, I am a doctor.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; You need not to &nbsp;go &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to any doctor.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Thereafter on the next day morning the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;made the similar confession before his parents in the presence of PWs &nbsp;5, 6, 9 and 10 when PW-5 asked the respondent &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;tell the truth before his father by catching hold of him. &nbsp;On the two &nbsp;occasions the respondent confessed in English &nbsp;&quot;I&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;have raped &nbsp;the &nbsp;girl &nbsp;but not ruptured &nbsp;her&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; hymen&quot;. &nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;last category of the evidence is that of the Medical Officer (PW- 4), &nbsp;who &nbsp;examined &nbsp;the victim girl Tulna &nbsp;on &nbsp;7.9.1982&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and opined that there was an attempt of rape on Tulna. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;Trial&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;for &nbsp;the &nbsp;discussions &nbsp;made &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; its judgment &nbsp;arrived &nbsp;at &nbsp;a &nbsp;conclusion &nbsp;that &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; prosecution launched &nbsp;against the respondent on account of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;some &nbsp;enmity between&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the two families and that the prosecution &nbsp;has&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not adduced&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any acceptable evidence for holding the &nbsp;respondent guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and consequently acquitted &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;respondent. &nbsp;The reasons, &nbsp;assigned &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Trial Court for such a conclusion &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 933 are based on its following findings: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (1) The evidence of PWs 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 is highly &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; tainted and as such no safe reliance can be &nbsp;placed &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; on their testimony. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (2) &nbsp; The &nbsp;extra-judicial &nbsp;confession&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; which&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent had retracted cannot be said to be&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;free &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; from threat, coercion or promise. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (3) The extra-judicial confession as such seems &nbsp;to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; be &nbsp;unnatural&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and it is wholly the product &nbsp;of &nbsp;an &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; illegal advice and false fabrication. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (4) &nbsp;The &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;of the victim &nbsp;(PW-13) &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; corroborated by other independent evidence. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (5) The First Information Report has been belatedly &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; lodged&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and there is no reasonable explanation&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; for &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; such a delay. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;On&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial &nbsp;Court acquitting &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent, the State preferred &nbsp;an &nbsp;appeal before&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the High Court challenging the order &nbsp;of &nbsp;acquittal. It &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;seen from the judgment of the High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the complainant &nbsp;who &nbsp;is the appellant before &nbsp;this&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;also filed a revision in Criminal Revision No. 596/83 questioning the &nbsp;legality of the order of acquittal and further one&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Jay Rao of New York (U.S.A.) on the basis of an article relating to &nbsp;this incident that appeared in a German Magazine &nbsp;called `Der Spiegel&#39; and after visiting Jabalpur sent a petition of grievance &nbsp;addressed &nbsp;to the Chief Justice of India &nbsp;with &nbsp;a copy &nbsp;to the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh. &nbsp;On the &nbsp;basis of this petition, another revision in criminal Revision&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; No. 599/83 was registered.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The High Court disposed of the State appeal and the two criminal revisions by a common &nbsp;judgment, whereby it allowed the State appeal for the reasons assigned therein&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; accepting &nbsp;the oral testimony&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; prosecution witnesses &nbsp;particularly of PWs 6, 12 and 13 and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;extra- judicial &nbsp;confession made by the respondent. &nbsp; Now &nbsp;separate orders were passed in the criminal revisions. &nbsp;However,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High &nbsp;Court found the respondent guilty of the offence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;only under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and also directed a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the fine &nbsp;amount if collected to be paid over as compensation to PW-5. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The State has not preferred any appeal before this Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;However, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 934 the &nbsp;father &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;victim &nbsp;girl, &nbsp;namely &nbsp;PW-5, &nbsp; feeling aggrieved &nbsp;by the judgment of the High Court has filed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;this criminal appeal mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) The&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court has erred in finding the respondent guilty of a &nbsp;minor offence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; under&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 354 &nbsp;IPC &nbsp;when&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; all &nbsp;the &nbsp;necessary ingredients &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; constitute &nbsp;an&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; offence &nbsp;punishable &nbsp; under Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 376 IPC have been satisfactorily &nbsp;established;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (2) that &nbsp;the sentence of fine alone imposed by the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; High &nbsp;Court under &nbsp;Section 354 IPC for this serious offence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is &nbsp;grossly inadequate &nbsp;and is not commensurate with the gravity &nbsp;of the offence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; committed by the respondent. &nbsp;When the matter&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;came up for admission before this Court on 25.8.88, the following order was made: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Special &nbsp;leave granted, confined to the nature &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the offence and the sentence to be awarded.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is pertinent to note that the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;has not &nbsp;challenged the findings of the High Court by filing &nbsp;an appeal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and as such the findings of the High Court &nbsp;rendered with &nbsp;reference to the evidence adduced by the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; prosecution and &nbsp;the conviction based upon those findings &nbsp;have &nbsp;reached their finality so far as the respondent is concerned. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Before &nbsp;pondering over the question with regard to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the nature&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of the offence and the quantum of punishment &nbsp;to &nbsp;be awarded, we feel that it is necessary to recall some of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the findings of the High Court. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. &nbsp;The &nbsp;High Court after observing, &quot;there &nbsp;is &nbsp;no &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; reason&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; as to why a small innocent girl would&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;have &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; laid such a serious charge against the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; if &nbsp;it&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was not true&quot;, held that &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Tulna&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;has &nbsp;been &nbsp;materially &nbsp;corroborated &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; friend Tarun Lata (PW 12). &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. &nbsp;Referring to the confession of the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; it &nbsp;has been held by the High Court, &quot;Though &nbsp;there &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; can be penetration without rupture, the absence &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any sign of injuries, negatives a case of rape with &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; a small girl&quot;. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 3. As regards the evidence of Tulna, the Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; held &nbsp;thus, &quot;The statement of Tulna can &nbsp;be &nbsp;safely &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; accepted &nbsp;to the extend that the &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;after &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; undressing himself and Tulna, asked her to suck his &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; organ and he then lay over her. &nbsp;She has been fully &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; corroborated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;by &nbsp; her &nbsp;mother &nbsp; Elsbeth, &nbsp; father &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Madangopal, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 935 &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; friend Tarun Lata and neighbours Satish and &nbsp;Sapna. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; They &nbsp;have no axe to grind against the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; No &nbsp;adverse inference can be drawn for lodging&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; report 5 days after the incident.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Then referring the corroboration required to the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; extra judicial confession made by the respondent on &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; two &nbsp;occasions, &nbsp;the High Court &nbsp;has &nbsp;recorded&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; following observation: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;After &nbsp;realising &nbsp;that his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;misdeeds &nbsp;have&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;been &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; exposed and he can no longer hide himself, he had &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; not option but to confess. &nbsp;This was only &nbsp;option &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; left&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; when he was cornered by his own &nbsp;neighbours &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;relations..............................There &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; was no question of any coercion or inducement &nbsp;in &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; presence &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his &nbsp;family &nbsp;members &nbsp;in &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; own &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; house......................The &nbsp; confession&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; nothing &nbsp;but by way of repentance for the &nbsp;wrongs &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; done&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;the young girls and &nbsp;other&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; girls.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; appears &nbsp;that &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent &nbsp;was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;a &nbsp;perverted &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; person &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;was satisfying his &nbsp;sexual &nbsp;urge &nbsp;by &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; outraging &nbsp;modesty of young girls who &nbsp;fell&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;easy &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; prey to his designs.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 5. Commenting on the finding of the Trial Court &nbsp;as &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; regards &nbsp;the confession, the High Court &nbsp;has &nbsp;said, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;The evidence of extra-judicial confession has&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; been &nbsp;accepted&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; because &nbsp;the &nbsp;witnesses &nbsp;have&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; repeated &nbsp;like parrots in the same words &nbsp;what&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respondent &nbsp;had &nbsp;uttered but the substance &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; same &nbsp;i.e. &nbsp;the respondent confessed &nbsp;that &nbsp;he&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; had &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; violated &nbsp;(sic) &nbsp;the &nbsp;girl but&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp; ruptured&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; hymen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Whether the witnesses said the same &nbsp;thing &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in Hindi or English would not make any difference&quot;. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 6. &nbsp;Coming to the probity question of the &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of Tulna, the Court said thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Although &nbsp;she &nbsp;was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;a &nbsp;child, &nbsp;she&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;had &nbsp;modesty &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; alright and was ashamed to tell everything to her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mother. &nbsp;She was also not sure what would be&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; reaction &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her mother. &nbsp;Therefore, &nbsp;there&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; hesitation on her part. &nbsp;But she did tell to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; classmate Richa and also to her friend &nbsp;Tarunlata &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (PW 12) about it on the next day. &nbsp;Tarunlata&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; corroborated her,.....................We are also &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; satisfied &nbsp;that Tarunlata has &nbsp;deposed &nbsp;regarding &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; what she was told by Tulna.....................&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 936 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;above findings and observations made by &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court &nbsp;clearly show that the High Court was fully &nbsp;satisfied with &nbsp;the &nbsp;evidence of the victim Tulna (PW &nbsp;13) &nbsp;and &nbsp;found sufficient &nbsp;corroboration on all material &nbsp;particulars&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;from the &nbsp;evidence of PWs 5, 6, 9, 10 and 12 and that the &nbsp;extra- judicial confession given by the respondent was true and &nbsp;it was &nbsp;not obtained by any inducement, coercion or threat&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but on &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; other hand it was voluntarily made and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; that &nbsp;there could &nbsp;be penetration without rupture.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Having accepted&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the entire&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;evidence adduced by prosecution in toto, &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court &nbsp;nonetheless &nbsp;entertained a doubt with regard &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the accusation of rape holding there was no sign of injuries and held &nbsp;that the offence is not one punishable &nbsp;under &nbsp;Section 376 IPC or under Section 376 read with 511 IPC but only&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; one under Section 354 IPC on the ground that the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has outraged &nbsp;the &nbsp;modesty&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of Tulna &nbsp;by &nbsp;&quot;feeling&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;pleasure &nbsp;in getting him and the victim made necked, asking unwary &nbsp;minor girls &nbsp;to &nbsp;fiddle with his organ&quot; taking &nbsp;advantage &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the absence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;the other adult family members &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his &nbsp;house. Coming to the question of sentence, the High Court gave&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the following reason: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;The &nbsp;learned&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Govt. Advocate has &nbsp;nothing &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; say &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; about the sentence. &nbsp;There can be no doubt that the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; act of the respondent is most reprehensible, he was &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; attempting &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; corrupt innocent and &nbsp;unwary &nbsp;minor &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; girls&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and &nbsp;his &nbsp;activities &nbsp;were &nbsp;menace &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; neighbours, but since he is now gainfully &nbsp;employed &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;there is nothing to show that he is &nbsp;indulging &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in his nefarious activities, no useful purpose will &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; be served by again sending him to jail and sentence &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of fine will meet the ends of justice.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;As&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; we &nbsp;have pointed out in the preceding part &nbsp;of this judgment, &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;findings &nbsp;of the &nbsp;High&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Court,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;rendered &nbsp;in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are findings of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;fact which &nbsp;in &nbsp;our&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;opinion cannot be reopened &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;this &nbsp;appeal especially &nbsp;when &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent has not &nbsp;challenged &nbsp;those findings &nbsp;and &nbsp;when there is absolutely no &nbsp;reason &nbsp;muchless compelling reason for holding that those findings are either in &nbsp;utter &nbsp;disregard &nbsp;of the evidence &nbsp;or &nbsp;unreasonable&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and perverse &nbsp;or &nbsp;any &nbsp;part of the evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in &nbsp;favour &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent is &nbsp;jettisoned. &nbsp;However, we would like to &nbsp;point out &nbsp;that &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;trial court has&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; allowed &nbsp;some&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;inadmissible evidence to be let in by the prosecution which evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has also &nbsp;been taken note of and discussed by the Courts &nbsp;below, such &nbsp;as &nbsp;the statement alleged to have been made &nbsp;by &nbsp;Richa (not &nbsp;examined)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to Tulna about&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;respondent&#39;s &nbsp;abnormal sexual behaviour with her &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 937 despite&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the fact she falls within the prohibited degree &nbsp;of consanguinity and the evidence touching the character of the respondent that he has sexually assaulted not only Richa and Priti but also a number of minor girls.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; We, while analysing and evaluating the evidence and considering the findings &nbsp;of the High Court quo the sexual assault committed on PW 13 &nbsp;by the &nbsp;respondent, proceed only on the basis of &nbsp;the &nbsp;evidence legally&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;permissible &nbsp;without&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;being &nbsp;influenced &nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the inadmissible &nbsp;evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and some of &nbsp;the &nbsp;observations&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;made thereon&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;by &nbsp;the &nbsp;Courts &nbsp;below. &nbsp; Before &nbsp;expressing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; our independent &nbsp;opinion &nbsp;on &nbsp;the &nbsp;evidence, &nbsp;we &nbsp;give &nbsp;a &nbsp;brief background &nbsp;of the status of the witnesses and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;cordial relationship &nbsp;between the family members of &nbsp;the &nbsp;respondent and the witnesses. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;material &nbsp;prosecution&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; witnesses &nbsp;are&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; all &nbsp;highly educated and respectable people of the same locality &nbsp;within which &nbsp;the &nbsp;houses of the respondent and the &nbsp;witnesses&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are situated. &nbsp; PW 5, the father of the victim girl had been &nbsp;in Germany&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; working &nbsp;in the field of journalism for &nbsp;nearly &nbsp;18 years &nbsp;and he is well conversant with English,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Germany&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and Hindi &nbsp;languages. &nbsp;His wife PW 6 is a German lady who &nbsp;after having settled in India has learnt to speak in Hindi. &nbsp;PW 7, who &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the sister of PW 5, is also a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;well &nbsp;educated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;lady working&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; as &nbsp;a Teacher in a School. &nbsp;PW 6 was &nbsp;enjoying&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the facility &nbsp;of a telephone connection in his house. &nbsp;PW &nbsp;9, &nbsp;a Contractor and his wife PW 10, who are the parents of &nbsp;Priti are &nbsp;very respectable people enjoying a high &nbsp;social &nbsp;status and &nbsp;having &nbsp;their &nbsp;house &nbsp;near&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; about&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;house &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent, &nbsp;provided with all modern &nbsp;facilities &nbsp;including telephone etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It is said that the people in that &nbsp;locality inclusive &nbsp;of the family members of the respondent &nbsp;used &nbsp;to visit &nbsp;their house to make use of their telephone. &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that way &nbsp;the &nbsp;family members of the respondent, &nbsp;PWs &nbsp;5, &nbsp;9&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and others&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;were &nbsp;having a very close and &nbsp;cordial&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;relationship till &nbsp;this &nbsp;incident &nbsp;occurred.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;As &nbsp;earlier &nbsp;pointed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;out, respondent&#39;s &nbsp;father was a retired Professor and &nbsp;his &nbsp;elder brother&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was &nbsp;then occupying a key position &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;Police Force &nbsp;in the rank of a Superintendent of Police &nbsp;posted &nbsp;in the &nbsp;district &nbsp;of Rajgarh during the relevant &nbsp;period.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; His sister-in-law &nbsp;(DW-1) &nbsp;was a Lecturer and his &nbsp;uncle &nbsp;was &nbsp;a leading&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; lawyer. &nbsp; It &nbsp;is &nbsp;said&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; that &nbsp;the &nbsp;family &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent was wielding high influence in that area. &nbsp; There is &nbsp;absolutely no evidence, even to remotely &nbsp;suggest,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that there was any enmity or any kind of misunderstanding between the &nbsp;families of the respondent and PW 5 till this &nbsp;incident to &nbsp;raise the accusing finger against the respondent &nbsp;either by &nbsp;the little innocent girl (PW 13) or by PW 5 and to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;make this ignoble allegations at the risk of their family &nbsp;honour and the future prospects of PW 13. &nbsp;Of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;938 course,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the respondent has suggested a motive against PW &nbsp;5 evidently &nbsp;drawing &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; same &nbsp;from &nbsp;the &nbsp;fertility &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his imagination &nbsp;that Tulna had told him that her &nbsp;parents&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;were getting&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; money for spying for German Embassy and PW 5 &nbsp;after coming&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;to know of this disclosure of spying has &nbsp;fabricated this &nbsp;false &nbsp;story &nbsp;of molestation &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;his &nbsp;minor &nbsp;daughter fearing that he would be exposed to criminal prosecution &nbsp;by the respondent&#39;s brother, the Superintendent of Police which defence theory on the face of it has to be thrown &nbsp;overboard and &nbsp;which in fact did not find acceptance at the &nbsp;hands &nbsp;of the High Court. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Ms&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Pinky Anand, the learned counsel appearing for&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the appellant having thoroughly marshalled the facts, &nbsp;presented her persuasive submissions so eloquently in an effective and at the same time in a very supplicatory manner by taking &nbsp;us through&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the entire evidence very meticulously&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;and &nbsp;pleaded that &nbsp; the &nbsp;spine-chilling &nbsp;facts &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp; circumstances surrounding &nbsp;the &nbsp;case do demand the &nbsp;interference &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;this Court with the judgment of the High Court so that the &nbsp;wrong done due to the erroneous conclusion of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; may be remedied. &nbsp;Though Ms Pinky Anand initially put forth&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; her arguments &nbsp;on &nbsp;two &nbsp;alternative grounds, &nbsp;namely, &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the conviction should be altered into one under Section 376&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; IPC or &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sentence of fine imposed for the &nbsp;conviction &nbsp;under Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 354 &nbsp;IPC &nbsp;which is &nbsp;grossly &nbsp;inadequate &nbsp;should &nbsp;be enhanced. &nbsp; But&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; she left out the alternative &nbsp;argument&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and stressed &nbsp;the first part of her submission that the &nbsp;offence made &nbsp;out is nothing short of rape punishable under &nbsp;Section 376 &nbsp;IPC. &nbsp;At one point of time, she feebly stated &nbsp;that &nbsp;at least &nbsp;the offence will be falling under Section &nbsp; 376&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;read with &nbsp;511 IPC on the opinion of PW 4, if not &nbsp;under &nbsp;Section 376 IPC which submission she completely gave up subsequently and proceeded vehemently contending that the offence of rape within the definition of Section 375 is clearly made out. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;learned counsel appearing for the respondent&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;took much &nbsp;pain in strenuously opposing the plea, articulated &nbsp;by Ms Pinky Anand and in supporting the impugned judgment.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;He urged &nbsp;that the conclusion arrived at by the High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;is the &nbsp;reasonable&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;plausible&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; one &nbsp;and, &nbsp;therefore,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that conclusion need not be disturbed. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Though &nbsp;it&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is &nbsp;not necessary for us to &nbsp;enter &nbsp;upon &nbsp;a reappraisal &nbsp;or&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; reappreciation&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of the evidence &nbsp;since&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the findings of fact of the High Court have not been challenged, yet we after most carefully and closely scrutinis- &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 939 ing &nbsp;the galaxy of the proven facts, have no &nbsp;hesitation &nbsp;in agreeing &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp; extra-judicial confession made by the respondent which is not shown to have been &nbsp;obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;hope etc. &nbsp;is &nbsp;plenary in character and voluntary in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; its &nbsp;nature acknowledging his guilt-i.e. the gravely incriminating&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;fact of &nbsp;the commission of rape on Tulna-in precise and &nbsp;explicit words.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;This confession has been made in presence of a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;body of &nbsp;person on two occasions inclusive of the family &nbsp;members of &nbsp;the respondent as well as PWs 5, 6, 9 and 10. &nbsp;PW 7&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was present&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; only &nbsp;on &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;first &nbsp;occasion&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; along&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with &nbsp; other witnesses. &nbsp; As ruled by this Court in Piara Singh v. &nbsp;State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 = [1978] 1 SCR 597 law does&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not require&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; that the evidence of an &nbsp;extra-judicial &nbsp;confession should in all cases be corroborated. &nbsp;However, coming to the facts of the case, the confession of the respondent is amply corroborated &nbsp;by &nbsp;the evidence of the victim (PW &nbsp;13) &nbsp;whose testimony &nbsp;in turn is corroborated by PWs 5, 6, 7, 9 and &nbsp;10 and also by the medical evidence. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;As&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; regards &nbsp;the &nbsp;evidence of PW &nbsp;13 &nbsp;relating &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the incident, &nbsp;the High Court has accepted only one part of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the accusations, &nbsp;namely, that the respondent asked Tulna to &nbsp;be an &nbsp;active &nbsp;agent of oral copulation by sucking&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his &nbsp;penis, notwithstanding&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;fact that the High Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;without&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any compunction &nbsp;has &nbsp;accepted the evidence of PW &nbsp;13 &nbsp;as &nbsp;being substantially corroborated and the extra-judicial confession of the respondent as being free from any vice and held&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that &quot;it is beyond comprehension that the complainant would&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;have laid &nbsp;a false and reckless charge against the respondent &nbsp;by involving &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;own minor daughter Tulna in &nbsp;such &nbsp;unsavoury incident for nothing not caring about her future and his own reputation and honour.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;There is no reason as to why a small innocent girl would have laid such a serious charge &nbsp;against the &nbsp;respondent, &nbsp;if it was not true.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; In &nbsp;our &nbsp;considered view, the High Court was not at all justified in reaching &nbsp;a distorted &nbsp;conclusion which has resulted in &nbsp;miscarriage &nbsp;of justice. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;On a careful scanning of the entire records, we have no reservation &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; accepting &nbsp;the evidence &nbsp;of &nbsp;PW-13 &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; its entirety and the extra-judicial confession of the respondent which clearly makes out a case for an offence under &nbsp;Section 376 IPC, the reasons for which we will discuss infra. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;There are a series of decisions to the effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of &nbsp;a &nbsp;prosecutrix, &nbsp;a conviction can &nbsp;be &nbsp;safely &nbsp;recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 940 any basic infirmity, and the `probabilities factor&#39; does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general &nbsp;rule, corroboration &nbsp;cannot &nbsp;be &nbsp;insisted upon, &nbsp;except &nbsp;from&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the medical evidence, where, having regard to the &nbsp;circumstances of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; case,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;medical&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; evidence &nbsp;can&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;be &nbsp;expected &nbsp;to &nbsp;be forthcoming. &nbsp; Vide Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, &nbsp;[1952] SCR 377; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of &nbsp;Gujarat, [1988] 2 SCC 217; Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, [1980] &nbsp;3 SCC 159. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;We shall now briefly deal with the principles regarding the &nbsp;powers of the High Court to review the &nbsp;evidence &nbsp;while examining &nbsp;an &nbsp;order of acquittal sitting in &nbsp;its &nbsp;appellate jurisdiction. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;An appeal against acquittal provided under Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 378 of &nbsp;the Code of Criminal Procedure falls under Chapter&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;XXIX under &nbsp;the caption &quot;Appeals&quot;. &nbsp;This Chapter covers &nbsp;Sections 372 to 394. Whilst Section 374 deals with the `Appeals&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;from Convictions&#39;, &nbsp;Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;377 deals with the &nbsp;`Appeal &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the State Government against sentence&#39;. &nbsp;As stated above Section 378 of the new Code (corresponding to Section 417 of the old Code) gives the High Court full power to review at large the evidence &nbsp;upon which the order of acquittal was founded&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and to &nbsp;reach its own conclusions upon that evidence &nbsp;either &nbsp;by reversing &nbsp;the order of acquittal or disposing of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;same otherwise &nbsp;as &nbsp;facts therein warrant. &nbsp;In other&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; words,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High Court is clothed with the plenary powers to go &nbsp;through the &nbsp;entire evidence and to come to its own &nbsp;conclusions &nbsp;as warranted by the facts of the case concerned but, of course, subject&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;certain guidelines laid down &nbsp;by &nbsp;the &nbsp;judicial pronouncements.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The Privy Council in Sheo Swarup and others v. &nbsp;King &nbsp;Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) in dealing &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the power &nbsp;of the High Court to review the evidence and &nbsp;reverse the acquittal held thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;full &nbsp;power to &nbsp;review &nbsp;at &nbsp;large&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; evidence upon which the order full power to &nbsp;review &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; at &nbsp;large &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; evidence upon which &nbsp;the &nbsp;order &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; acquittal was founded, and to reach the &nbsp;conclusion &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; that &nbsp;upon &nbsp;that evidence the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;order &nbsp;of &nbsp;acquittal &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; should be reversed. &nbsp;No limitation should be placed &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; upon &nbsp;that &nbsp;power, &nbsp;unless it&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;be &nbsp;found &nbsp;expressly &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; stated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in the Code. &nbsp;But in exercising &nbsp;the &nbsp;power &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; conferred &nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Code and before &nbsp;reaching&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; its &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; conclusions &nbsp;upon fact, the High Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; should&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; will always give proper weight and consideration to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;the &nbsp;credibility &nbsp;of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;witnesses; &nbsp;(2)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; presumption &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 941 &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp; innocence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;in &nbsp;favour &nbsp;of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;accused, &nbsp; a &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; he &nbsp;has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the &nbsp;right &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing &nbsp;a &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; seeing the witnesses.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Wilayat &nbsp;Khan &amp; Others v. State of U.P., &nbsp;AIR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1953 S.C.122&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; this Court while examining the scope of &nbsp;Sections 417 &nbsp;and &nbsp;423 of the Code pointed out that even&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; in &nbsp;appeals against acquittal, the powers of the High Court are as&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;wide as in appeals from convictions.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; See also Surajpal Singh and others&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;v. &nbsp; The &nbsp;State, [1952] SCR 193; Tulsi&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Ram &nbsp;v.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The State,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;AIR &nbsp;1954 &nbsp;S.C.I; &nbsp;Aher&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Raja &nbsp;Khima &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;of Saurashtra, &nbsp;AIR &nbsp;1956 S.C. 217 = [1955]2 &nbsp;SCR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1285; &nbsp;Radha Kishan&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;v. State of U.P., AIR 1963S.C.822 = [1963] &nbsp;Supp. &nbsp;1 SCR &nbsp;408 holding that an appeal from acquittal need &nbsp;not &nbsp;be treated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; different from an appeal from conviction; &nbsp;Jadunath Singh &nbsp;and others, etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1971] &nbsp;3 SCC &nbsp;577; &nbsp;Dharam Das v. State of U.P., [1973]&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;2 &nbsp;SCC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;216; Barati&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State &nbsp;of &nbsp;U.P., [1974] 4 &nbsp;SCC &nbsp;258&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;and &nbsp;Sethu Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala, [1975] 3 SCC 150. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;We&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; think&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;it not necessary to swell this&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;judgment &nbsp;by recapitulating all the decisions on this point, but &nbsp;suffice to say that this Court has consistently taken the view&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that in &nbsp;cases &nbsp;of &nbsp;appeals&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;against acquittal &nbsp;as &nbsp;a &nbsp;matter &nbsp;of jurisdiction, &nbsp;the whole case is at large for review by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;both as to the facts and the law and &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the true legal position is that however circumspect and cautious approach &nbsp;of &nbsp;the High Court may be in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;dealing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; with &nbsp;those appeals&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; by exercising its plenary and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;unlimited &nbsp;statutory powers,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;Court is undoubtedly to reach its&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; own &nbsp;proper conclusions of guilt or otherwise of the indicted persons as the &nbsp;established &nbsp;facts&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; warrant and &nbsp;to &nbsp;award&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; appropriate sentence which will be commensurate with the gravity of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the offence in case of conviction. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Reverting to the instant case, if the conclusion of the High &nbsp;Court &nbsp;that the offence made out&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp;only &nbsp;punishable under Section 354 IPC, is scrutinised with reference to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the evidence adduced by the prosecution and tested in the &nbsp;light of &nbsp;the above principles of law laid down by this Court, &nbsp;in our view, the conclusion under challenge is not a reasonable and &nbsp;justifiable &nbsp;one &nbsp;since the totality &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;evidence demonstrably &nbsp;establishes a graver offence. &nbsp; Moreover,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the sentence &nbsp;of &nbsp;fine &nbsp;alone imposed by &nbsp;the &nbsp;High&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;even assuming that the offence is punishable under Section 354 is &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 942 grossly inadequate and is not commensurate with the &nbsp;serious nature&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;the offence. &nbsp;Of course, this &nbsp;question &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the inadequacy &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;sentence &nbsp;under Section 354 &nbsp;does &nbsp;not&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;come within&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the purview of our consideration because we &nbsp;proceed on the footing that the offence is not a mere outraging&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the modesty&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of woman but much more than that. &nbsp;Further, we&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are constrained to hold that the High Court even after abserving that &nbsp;&quot;the &nbsp;respondent&#39;s &nbsp;activities &nbsp;were &nbsp;menace &nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the neighbours&quot; has shown a misplaced sympathy to the respondent which &nbsp;is patently reflected from the penultimate &nbsp;paragraph of &nbsp;its&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; judgment and which has led to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;miscarriage &nbsp;of justice. &nbsp; The impugned finding that the offence is &nbsp;one &nbsp;of outraging &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;modesty&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;woman &nbsp;for&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; which&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;sentence &nbsp;of imprisonment is not compulsory is erroneous and untenable. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp; next&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; crucial &nbsp;question &nbsp;that &nbsp;arises &nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; our consideration &nbsp;is &nbsp;whether the proved &nbsp;facts &nbsp;establish&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the offence of rape or only attempt to commit rape.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Before&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High Court, the learned Government Advocate appears to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;have urged that the offence was punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC though the charge was for a specific offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;medical officer, PW 4 who then only 28 years&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;old, on &nbsp;examining the victim after 5 days of the &nbsp;incident&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;i.e. 7.9.82 has given her opinion as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;From&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the above findings, it seems an&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; attempt &nbsp;to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; rape has been made.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;cross-examination, &nbsp;the &nbsp;following &nbsp;answer &nbsp;is brought out from the medical officer, PW 4: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;I &nbsp;concluded about attempt to rape, on account &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; abrasion &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;redness on labia majora&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and &nbsp;minora &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respectively.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It is true that this medical officer who could not have gained&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;much experience by that time has given&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;her &nbsp;opinion that &nbsp;the abrasion found would have been less than &nbsp;2 &nbsp;days&#39; duration &nbsp;which&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; opinion &nbsp;of &nbsp;course &nbsp;is &nbsp;not &nbsp;precise&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but approximate &nbsp; and &nbsp;probable. &nbsp; Though &nbsp;the &nbsp;prosecutor&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; who conducted &nbsp;the case before the trial court has not &nbsp;put&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any question &nbsp;clarifying her opinion in the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; re-examination, &nbsp;it has been clearly brought out in the cross-examination itself that &nbsp;the &nbsp;medical &nbsp;officer was basing her &nbsp;opinion &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the abrasion &nbsp;found on labia majora and minora. &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; means&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that the medical &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 943 officer&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was of the opinion that the abrasion measuring&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; one and a half inches in length found on the medial side of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the labia &nbsp;majora and the redness around the labia minora &nbsp;could have been caused even on 2.9.82. &nbsp;By this opinion, PW 4&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; has given a margin of 5 days in fixing the probable duration &nbsp;of the injury. &nbsp;The defence counsel has not further pursued and put &nbsp;any question clarifying the subsequent answer given &nbsp;by the medical officer regarding the duration of the injury. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Though &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the grounds of appeal, it &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;specifically stated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that &nbsp;all ingredients for constituting&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;an &nbsp; offence within&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the ambit of Section 375, punishable &nbsp;under &nbsp;Section 376 IPC are made out, alternatively a hesitant plea is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;made that the offence at any rate would not be less than &nbsp;Section 376 &nbsp;read &nbsp;with 511 IPC. &nbsp;We also prima facie &nbsp;were &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the opinion&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; that the &nbsp;offence may be punishable &nbsp;under &nbsp;Section 376 &nbsp;read &nbsp;with 511 IPC but after deeply going&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;through&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the &nbsp;offence is &nbsp;nothing short of rape punishable under Section 376&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;IPC. Merely because the inexperienced medical officer has &nbsp;opined that &nbsp;it &nbsp;was &nbsp;an attempt to commit rape, &nbsp;probably &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the ground&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that there was no sign of complete &nbsp;penetration, &nbsp;we are &nbsp;not inclined to accept PW 4&#39;s legal opinion as &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the nature of the offence committed by the respondent. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;A medical witness called in as an expert to assist&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given &nbsp;on the basis of the symptoms found on examination.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The &nbsp;expert witness&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is expected to put before the Court &nbsp;all &nbsp;materials inclusive &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;data which induced him to &nbsp;come &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the conclusion &nbsp;and enlighten the Court on the technical &nbsp;aspect of &nbsp;the case by explaining the terms of science so that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the Court &nbsp;although, not an expert may form its own judgment &nbsp;on those &nbsp;materials &nbsp;after giving due regard &nbsp;to &nbsp;the &nbsp;expert&#39;s opinion because once the expert&#39;s opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Nariman, &nbsp;J. &nbsp;in &nbsp;R v. Ahmed ali 11 &nbsp;WR &nbsp;Cr. &nbsp;25 &nbsp;while expressing &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; view on medical evidence &nbsp;has&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;observed &nbsp;as follows: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;The &nbsp;evidence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of a medical man or &nbsp;other &nbsp;skilled &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; witnesses, &nbsp;however, eminent, as to what he &nbsp;thinks &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; may &nbsp;or may not have taken place &nbsp;under &nbsp;particular &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; combination of circumstances, however, confidently, &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; he &nbsp;may &nbsp;speak, &nbsp;is ordinarily&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; a &nbsp;matter &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;mere &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; opinion.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 944 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Fazal Ali, J. in Pratap &nbsp;Misra v. State of Orissa,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; AIR 1977 SC 1307 = [1977] 3 SCC 41 has stated thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;.......it &nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp; well &nbsp; settled &nbsp; that &nbsp; &nbsp;medical &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; jurisprudence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp;not an exact science and &nbsp;it &nbsp;is &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; indeed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; difficult &nbsp;for&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any &nbsp;Doctor &nbsp;to &nbsp;say&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;with &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; precision &nbsp;and exactitude as to when &nbsp;a &nbsp;particular &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; injury&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was caused......as to the exact &nbsp;time&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;when &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the appellants may have had sexual intercourse with &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the prosecutrix.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;We&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; feel &nbsp;that it would be quite appropriate, &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;this context, &nbsp;to &nbsp;reproduce&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the opinion expressed&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;by &nbsp;Modi &nbsp;in Medical Jurispurdence and Toxicology (Twenty First &nbsp;Edition) at page 369 which reads thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Thus&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;to constitute the offence of rape it is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; necessary that there should be complete penetration &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;penis &nbsp;with emission of semen &nbsp;and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; rupture &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; hymen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Partial penetration of the penis within the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Labia&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;majora&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;or &nbsp;the vulva &nbsp;or &nbsp;pudenda &nbsp;with &nbsp;or &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; without &nbsp;emission &nbsp;of semen or even an&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; attempt &nbsp;at &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; penetration &nbsp;is quite sufficent for the purpose &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the law. &nbsp;It is therefore quite possible to &nbsp;commit &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; legally &nbsp;the offence of rape without producing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; injury&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;the &nbsp;genitals or &nbsp;leaving&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;any &nbsp;seminal &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; stains. &nbsp;In such a case the medical officer &nbsp;should &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; mention &nbsp;the &nbsp;negative&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; facts in &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;report,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; but &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; should&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not give his opinion that no rape had&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;been &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; committed. &nbsp; Rape &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;crime &nbsp;and &nbsp;not&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; a &nbsp; medical &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;be&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; made by the medical &nbsp;officer &nbsp;treating&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; victim. &nbsp;The only statement that can be made by the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; medical officer is that there is evidence of recent &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sexual activity. &nbsp;Whether the rape has occurred &nbsp;or &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; (emphasis supplied) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Parikh&#39;s &nbsp; Textbook of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Medical &nbsp;Jurisprudence&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and Toxicology, the following passage is found: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Sexual &nbsp;intercourse: In law, this term is held &nbsp;to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; mean &nbsp;the &nbsp;slightest degree of penetration &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; vulva&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;by &nbsp;the penis with or &nbsp;without&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;emission &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; semen.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It is therefore quite possible &nbsp;to &nbsp;commit &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; legally &nbsp;the offence of rape without producing&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; any &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; injury&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;the &nbsp;genitals or &nbsp;leaving&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;any &nbsp;seminal &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; stains.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 945 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol.4) &nbsp;at&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;page 1356, it is stated: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;.....even &nbsp;slight penetration is &nbsp;sufficient&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and emission is unnecessary.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Halsbury&#39;s &nbsp;Statutes of England &nbsp;and &nbsp;Wales &nbsp;(Forth Edition) Volume 12, it stated that even the slightest degree of &nbsp;penetration&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is sufficient to prove&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; intercourse within the meaning of Section 44 of the Sexual Offences&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Act 1956.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Vide R v. Hughes, [1841] 9 C &amp; P 752 ; R &nbsp;v. &nbsp;Lines, [1844] 1 Car &amp; Kir 393 and R v. Nicholls, [1847] 9 LTOS 179. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;See also Harris&#39;s Criminal Law (Twenty Second &nbsp;Edition) at page 465. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; American &nbsp;Jurisprudence, it is stated&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that &nbsp;slight penetration &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sufficient to complete the crime &nbsp;of &nbsp;rape. Code 263 of Penal Code of California reads thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Rape;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;essentials-Penetration &nbsp;sufficient.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; essential guilt of rape consists in the &nbsp;outrage to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the person and feelings of the victim of the &nbsp;rape. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Any &nbsp; sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penetration, &nbsp;however&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;slight,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;is &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; sufficient to complete the crime.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The &nbsp;First&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Explanation to Section 375 of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;India &nbsp;Penal Code which defines `Rape&#39; reads thus: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; :Explanation-Penatration &nbsp; &nbsp;is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sufficient&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;to &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; offence of rape.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In interpreting the above explanation whether &nbsp;complete penetration &nbsp;is necessary to constitute an offence of &nbsp;rape, various High Courts have taken a consistant view &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;even the &nbsp;slightest&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penetration &nbsp;is sufficient to &nbsp;make &nbsp;out &nbsp;an offence of rape and the depth of penetration is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; immaterial. Reference &nbsp;may&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;be &nbsp;made to Natha v. Emperor, &nbsp;26 &nbsp;Cr.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;L.J. [1925]&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;page 1185; Abdul Majid v. Emperor, AIR&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;1927 &nbsp;Lahore 735 &nbsp;(2); Mussammat Jantan v. &nbsp;The Crown, (1934) Punjab&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Law Reporter &nbsp;(Vol.36) &nbsp;page &nbsp;35; Ghanashyam &nbsp;Mishra &nbsp;v. &nbsp;State, (1957) Cr.L.J. 469 = AIR 1957 Orissa 78; D. Bernard v. State (1947) CR.L.J. 1098. In re Anthony, AIR 1960 Mad. 308 it has been &nbsp;held &nbsp;that &nbsp;while there must &nbsp;be&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;penetration &nbsp;in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the technical &nbsp; sense, &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; slightest &nbsp;penetration&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;would&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;be sufficient &nbsp;and a complete act of sexual intercourse is&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not at &nbsp;all necessary. &nbsp;In Gour&#39;s &quot;The Penal Law of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; India&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 6th Edn. 1955 (Vol. II) Page 1678, it is observed, &quot;Even &nbsp;vulval penetration has &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 946 been held to be sufficient for a conviction of rape.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Reference also may be made to Prithi Chand v. State &nbsp;of Himachal Pradesh, [1989] 1 SCC 432 though the facts &nbsp;therein are not similar to this case. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the case on hand, there is acceptable and &nbsp;reliable evidence &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;there was slight penetration &nbsp;though &nbsp;not &nbsp;a complete &nbsp;penetration.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The following evidence found in&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the deposition of &nbsp;PW 13 irrefragably proves the offence of rape committed by the respondent: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Nawal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; uncle&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;untied his pyjama and took &nbsp;out&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; his &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; male organ and put it inside my vagina and clutched &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; me...........Nawal Chacha put his male organ inside &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; my &nbsp;vagina &nbsp;and since it was fat it &nbsp;kept &nbsp;slipping &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; out. After that my vagina was paining.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;.....When &nbsp;Nawal Uncle held apart, then there&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; was &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; some white liquid coming out from his male organ... &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; .......... &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Nawal&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Chacha&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; pressed &nbsp;my mouth so &nbsp;I &nbsp;could&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; not &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; scream.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;cross-examination, &nbsp;the &nbsp;following &nbsp;answer &nbsp;is given: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;I suffered pain by what Nawal Chacha did.........&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;When &nbsp;the evidence of PW 13 is taken with the &nbsp;evidence of medical officer who found an abrasion on the medial&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;side of Labia Majora and redness present around the Labia &nbsp;Minora with &nbsp;white &nbsp;discharge even after 5 days, it can &nbsp;be &nbsp;safely concluded &nbsp;that&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; there was partial &nbsp;penetration&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; within&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the labia &nbsp;majora &nbsp;or the vulva or pudenda which &nbsp;in &nbsp;the &nbsp;legal sense &nbsp;is &nbsp; sufficient to constitute the &nbsp;offence &nbsp;of &nbsp;rape. Moreover, &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;respondent &nbsp; himself &nbsp;has &nbsp;confessed &nbsp; twice admitting the commission of rape without rupturing the hymen which confession is not disbelieved by the High Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The respondent &nbsp;is a medical officer who has got &nbsp;the &nbsp;practical knowledge &nbsp;of &nbsp;the anatomy of a human being and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;tender sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;organ of a young girl and who must have&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; been &nbsp;quite aware &nbsp;of &nbsp;the implication of his &nbsp;confession &nbsp;having &nbsp;fully understood &nbsp;the meaning of the word `rape&#39;. &nbsp; Therefore, &nbsp;as admitted by the respondent himself, he without forcibly&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and completely &nbsp;penetrating his penis into the vagina of &nbsp;PW &nbsp;13 had slightly penetrated within the labia majora or vulva &nbsp;or pudenda&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; without rapturing the hymen &nbsp;and thereby &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;lust after emission of semens. &nbsp;In this context, it is &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 947 not &nbsp;necessary to enter into any nice discussion as &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; how far the male organ has entered in the vulva or pudenda of PW 13 &nbsp;since &nbsp;it &nbsp;is &nbsp;made clear &nbsp;that &nbsp;there &nbsp;was&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; penetration attracting &nbsp;the provisions of Section 375 IPC. The &nbsp;evidence of &nbsp;PW&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;13 &nbsp;is amply corroborated not only &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;the &nbsp;medical evidence &nbsp; and the corroborating evidence of PW 12 but&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;also by the plenary confession of the respondent himself. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;From &nbsp;the above discussion, we unreservedly &nbsp;hold&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that the prosecution has satisfactorily established its case that the &nbsp;respondent has committed rape on PW 13 by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;proving&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; all the necessary ingredients required to make out an offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;In&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the result, we set aside the judgment of &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;High Court &nbsp;convicting the respondent under Section 354 &nbsp;IPC&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and sentencing &nbsp;him to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 &nbsp;instead &nbsp;convict the respondent under Section 376 IPC. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;What would be the quantum of punishment that would meet the &nbsp;ends of justice in the facts and circumstances &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the case, is the next question for our consideration. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; is very shocking to note from the judgment &nbsp;of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the High &nbsp;Court that the Government Advocate did not address &nbsp;on the &nbsp;question &nbsp;of &nbsp;sentence. &nbsp; The &nbsp;High &nbsp;Court&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; thought &nbsp;of imposing fine only on the ground that the respondent &quot;is now gainfully &nbsp;employed and there is nothing to show that he &nbsp;is indulging &nbsp;in his nefarious activities&quot;. &nbsp;We regret &nbsp;to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; say that &nbsp;we are not able to understand the above reasons &nbsp;which are not in conformity with the concept of sentencing &nbsp;policy in a grave case of this nature. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;We&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; are told at the bar that the victim who is &nbsp;now &nbsp;19 years &nbsp;old, &nbsp;after having lost her virginity &nbsp;still &nbsp;remains unmarried &nbsp;undergoing &nbsp;the &nbsp;untold agony &nbsp;of &nbsp;the &nbsp;traumatic experience &nbsp; and &nbsp;the &nbsp;deathless &nbsp;shame&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; suffered &nbsp;by&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;her. Evidently, the victim is under the impression that there &nbsp;is no &nbsp;monsoon &nbsp;season in her life and that her future &nbsp;chances for &nbsp;getting &nbsp;married &nbsp;and settling down &nbsp;in &nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; respectable family are completely married. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Though the State has kept silence after the disposal of the &nbsp;appeal by the High Court, the helpless &nbsp;panic &nbsp;stricken father of the victim (PW 13) with a broken heart has entered the &nbsp;portals of this Court and is tapping the &nbsp;door, &nbsp;crying for justice. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;It&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;will&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;be &nbsp;appropriate&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to &nbsp;refer &nbsp; the &nbsp; following observation of Ranganath &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 948 Mishra,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; J &nbsp;(as&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; he then was) &nbsp;in &nbsp;his&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;separate &nbsp;concurring judgment &nbsp;sitting in the Seven-Judges Bench in A.R. &nbsp;Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another, [1988] 2 SCC 602 at page 673: &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;No man should suffer because of the mistake of the &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Court.................Ex debito justitiae, we&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;must &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; do &nbsp;justice &nbsp;to him. If a man has been&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; wronged &nbsp;so &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; long &nbsp;as &nbsp;it &nbsp;lies within the&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;human &nbsp;machinery &nbsp;of &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; administration&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;justice &nbsp;that &nbsp;wrong &nbsp;must&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;be &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; remedied.&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Accordingly, &nbsp;we, having regard to the seriousness&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; and gravity of this repugnant crime of rape perpetrated on PW 13 who &nbsp;was then 8 years old on the date of the &nbsp;commission &nbsp;of the &nbsp;offence in 1982, while convicting the respondent &nbsp;under Section&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;376&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;IPC &nbsp;sentence &nbsp;him &nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;undergo &nbsp; rigorous imprisonment &nbsp;for a period of seven years and to pay a&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;fine of Rs. 25,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 &nbsp;years.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The fine amount of Rs.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;25,000&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;if &nbsp;realised shall be paid to the victim girl who is now a major. &nbsp;If the fine amount of Rs. 3,000 imposed by the High Court which &nbsp;we have &nbsp;set aside, has already been paid that amount shall &nbsp;be adjusted with the fine amount now imposed by us. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;JUSTICE DEMANDS, THE COURT AWARDS&quot; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Before parting with the judgment, with deep concern, we may &nbsp;point &nbsp;out that though all sexual&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;assaults &nbsp;on &nbsp;female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is &nbsp;an&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;alarming and shocking increase&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;of &nbsp;sexual &nbsp;offences committed &nbsp;on&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;children. &nbsp;This is due to the &nbsp;reasons&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer &nbsp;resistence and become easy prey for lusty brutes&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; who display&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious &nbsp;art &nbsp;of luring&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;female&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;children and young girls. &nbsp; Therefore,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;such offenders who are menace to the civilised society should &nbsp;be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;We&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; feel &nbsp;that &nbsp;Judges who bear the &nbsp;Sword&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of &nbsp;Justice should&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;not &nbsp;hesitate &nbsp;to use that &nbsp;sword &nbsp;with&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the &nbsp;utmost severity, &nbsp;to the full and to the end if the gravity of&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the offences so demand. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The appeal is allowed accordingly. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Appeal allowed. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

📄 Full Judgment

PDF content is currently unavailable for this record.

← Back to All Cases