Jahid vs State on 17 May, 2016

2. Vide order on sentence, for the offence punishable under Section 363
IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and pay
fine in sum of `1000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month.
For the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC he has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for two years and pay fine in sum of `500/-, in
default, to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. For the offence

Crl.A.No.15/2014 Page 1 of 3
punishable under Section 367 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for seven years and pay fine in sum of `1000/-, in default, to
undergo imprisonment for one month.
3. Having perused the evidence and in particular the testimony of the
tormented victim, her mother Noorjahan PW-4 and Noorjahan’s sister
Farjana PW-5, I am satisfied that the verdict returned by the learned Trial
Judge is correct for the reason there is no reason for the prosecutrix, then
aged 5 years, to cook up a false story that when she went to the market in
the company of her younger brother the appellant enticed her with lure of
`5/- and took her to his house and after removing her clothes fondled her
and fiddled her private parts with his finger. Medical evidence rules out
any rape or even attempt to rape for the reason if a male tries to put his
penis in the vagina of an infant girl of 5 years and fails in the attempt to
pierce the vagina there would be tenderness around the vulva. The
learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded that charge under Section 376 IPC
is not made out.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*