LexRAJENDRA DATTA ZAREKAR versus STATE OF GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJENDRADAITA ZAREKAR v. STATE OF GOA DECEMBER 4, 2007 B [G.P. MATHUR AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C ss. 375, 376(2)(f) and 342-Rape of minor girl-Held: To constitute offence of rape, partial penetration or even attempt at penetration is sufficient Prosecutrix was six years old and it was quite likely that full penetration did not take place as accused was grown up person-Injuries clearly indicate that rape, as defined in s.375, did D take place-Plea of false implication also not sustainable-Rape leaves permanent scar and has serious psychological imaact on victim and also her family members and, therefore, no one would normally concoct story of rape just to falsely implicate person-Conviction and sentence of JO years R.l upheld-Crime against women. E Sentence/Sentencing: Rape of minor girl-Victim aged about six years-Imposition of sencence of JO years R.1.-Reduction of-Held: No adequate and special reasons for reducing quantum of sentence-Penal Code, 1860- F ss. 375 and 376(2)(j)-Crime against women. Prosecution case was that the prosecutrix aged about 6 years was playing in the courtyard of her house when the accused living nearby took her inside his room and committed rape on her. PW-1, the mother ofprosecutrix, heard cries of her daughter from inside G the room ofaccused. The room was bolted from inside. She knocked at the door and accused opened it only after some time. The prosecutrix told her mother about the crime committed by accused on her. She called her husband and other relations. When husband reached home, they lodged FIR. After completing investigation, H 840 ) RAJENDRADATIAZAREKAR v. STATE 841 accused was charged under ss. 342 and 376 IPC. A The Sessions Judge held that the case of prosecution was not established against the accused and accordingly acquitted him. On appeal, High Court convicted the accused under s. 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was B further convicted u/s.342 and sentenced one month's R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that be was falsely implicated; that the hymen ofprosecutrix was intact and therefore the charge ofrape under s. 376IPC as defined in s.375 IPC bas not C been made out and that the sencence of 10 years R.I. awarded by High Court was very severe. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In spite of fairly lenghty cross-examination, nothing D came outin the statements of PW-land prosecutrix to throw even a slightest doubt on the prosecution version of the incident. There was no enmity of any kind between PW-1 and the accused which might impel her to falsely implicate the accused. Though a suggestion regarding taking of some money by PW-1 from the accused was made E and a further suggestion was made that she wanted to have some kind of relationship with the accused but the same was not at all made probable much established by any evidence. The rape leaves a permanent scar and bas a serious psychological impact on the victim -1 and also her family members and, therefore, no one would normally F concoct a story of rape just to falsely implicate a person. There was not even an iota of evidence to show that PW-1 or her husband had any reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused. [Para 13] [848-C-F] 2. To constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there G should be complete penetration with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. The victim was a very young girl of six years of age and it is quite likely that full penetration did not take place as the accused H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A is a grown up person of over 20 years of age. The injuries clearly indicate that rape, as defined in s.375 IPC, did take place. [Para 14) [849-C-D; 850-C) Santosh Kumar v. State of MP. JT (2006) 8 SC 171, relied on. B 3. S. 376(2)(t)IPC specifically provides that where the victim is less than 12 years of age, the sentence awarded shall not be less than 10 years but it may be for life and the accused shall also be liable to fine. The proviso, no doubt, says that the court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, C impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term ofless than ten years. Here the victim PW-8 was aged a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.