S.P.GARG,J. - (1.)THE appellant-Megh Nath Kumar impugns his conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.37/2008 arising out of FIR No.90/2007 Police Station S.P.Badli by which he was held guilty under Section 342/376 (2) (f) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 342 IPC and RI for ten years with fine Rs. 5,000.00 under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC.
(2.)DAILY Diary (DD) No.82B was recorded at PS S.P.Badli on 25.01.2007 at about 08.35 P.M. on getting information that at Rajeev Nagar, Gali No.4 near Kabir Mandir a boy had attempted to sexually assault (galat kaam) a girl aged 5 or 6 years. The investigation was assigned to ASI Jai Prakash who with Const.Subhash reached the spot. SI Mohd. Navi took over the investigation and recorded statement of Roop Kanti Devi, victims mother who disclosed that on 22.01.2007 at about 07.00 P.M. her daughter ,,X (assumed name) aged 6 years was taken away by Megh Nath Kumar to his room on the pretext to give her toffee. When she went to the room after some time, the door of the room was close. She opened the door and found ,,X present in the room. Her daughters pajami was removed up to her knees. When she objected, Megh Nath started quarrelling with her. She narrated the whole incident to her husband. She did not report the incident to the police as they were threatened by the accused. She prayed to take legal action against the accused as he had teased ,,X by touching her private parts.
Si Mohd. Navi prepared rukka and lodged First Information Report. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. The accused was arrested. Prosecutrixs pajami was seized. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The exhibits were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. He was duly charged and brought to trial for committing offence under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Kameshwar Mehto) was examined in defence.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The inordinate delay of three days in lodging the First Information Report with the police remained unexplained. PW-2, a child witness was tutored to make the statement. The investigation carried out by the police is shoddy. The witnesses who lived in the premises were not associated. PW-1, prosecutrix mother and PW-2, have given inconsistent version and have made vital improvements in their deposition in the Court. Throughout, case of the prosecutrix mother was that an attempt was made to sexually assault the victim and no allegations of rape were made. The counsel further urged that the Trial Court conveniently ignored the defence pleaded by the accused. He categorically stated that prosecutrixs father did not return Rs.7,000.00 borrowed from him. No injuries were found on the body of the ,,X when she was medically examined. There was no occasion for the mother to permit the child to accompany the accused when he was under the influence of liquor. Learned APP has supported the judgment and urged that the testimony of the child witness has been corroborated on material aspects. MLC records that on examination, hymen of the child was found ruptured.