JUDGMENT
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) Tej Ram aged about 18 years was tried for having committed three offences; (1) for kidnapping Km. Vidyawati (under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code) on April 8, 1987 at 11.00 a.m.;(2) for wrongfully confining her in his house No. E-214, J.J. Colony, Inder Puri.New Delhi from 11.00 a.m. to the evening of April 8, 1976. This charge was under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code; and (3) for having committed rape (under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code) on that minor girl aged 12 years on April 8, 1976 at about 11.00 a.m.
(2) Vide the impugned judgment dated August 9, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi acquitted Tej Ram of all the charges. It was held that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its allegation on any one of the counts. Instead the prosecution had established that the First Information Report about the missing of the prosecutrix was got recorded by her father Public Witness . 2, Shri Surjan Lal at 3.30 p.m. on April 10, 1976 i.e. about after 52 hours of the alleged incident. It was found that although the close relatives of the prosecutrix have admitted in their testimony that the prosecutrix was recovered at about 8.00 pm. on April 8, 1976 from the house of the accused, yet the First Information Report was lodged after more than two days. The learned trial court held and rightly so that there was absolutely no justification for this inordinate delay.
(3) The acquittal is also based on the evidence of Public Witness . 6 Dr. S. Chaudhary, who had examined the prosecutrix on April 10, 1976 at about 2.20 p.m. The doctor opined that the girl had been raped about 4 hours prior to the examination. This testimony, therefore, pin-pointed the time of the rape to about 10.30 a.m. on April 10, 1976. The minor had been recovered two days earlier. The learned Judge after noticing infirmity in the prosecution case remarked that “this knocks the bottom of the prosecution case because no question has been put to this doctor to suggest that her opinion was wrong.”
(4) The trial court has further noted that on the prosecution’s own showing old enmity between the brother of the prosecutrix and the brother of the accused i.e. Tej Ram had been established.
(5) It was on account of the above findings that the accused was acquitted. However, we find a further infirmity in the prosecution case. Accused Tej Ram on his arrest on April 10, 1976 was got examined by the investigating officer from the Police Surgeon at about 2.15 p.m. The application seeking the medical examination is Exhibit PE. The report of the doctor which has been proved as Exhibit Pf is on the reverse of the application. The doctor has opined :- “NO injury marks present on the genital or around the thighs. No stain marks present on the underwear. No semen stains or Blood stains present on external genital or on the underwear.”
(6) The above report shows the innocence of the accused. It is well settled that when a girl of about 12 years, who is virgin and is subjected to rape by fully developed man there are bound to be injuries on the male organ of that man. The police surgeon did not find any mark of injury present on the genital or any semen/blood stains on the body or the clothes of the accused. We are of the view that the findings of the trial court are unassailable. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.