STATE OF M.P. Vs. BHARATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the Respondent of the charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 04.09.1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh delivered in Sessions Case No. 2/1992.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the prosecutrix, aged about 15 years, is the daughter of the Respondent and lived with him. The Appellant also admitted in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on 05.10.1991 at about 12.00 noon the prosecutrix was sleeping at home in her cot. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant is potent and capable of sexual intercourse.

(3.) THE Respondent was arrested on 06.10.1991 at 4.00 P.M. On medical examination Dr. Chhabra found that the Respondent was potent and capable of sexual intercourse. THE petticoat of the prosecutrix, having semen like stains was seized on 06.10.1991 at 1.00 P.M. and the underwear of the Respondent was also seized on the same day at 1.30 P.M. THE vaginal slide, petticoat of the prosecutrix and the underwear of the Respondent were sent to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory for chemical analysis. Vide report Ex.P. 15, it was opined that the petticoat of the prosecutrix and her vaginal slides contained blood, human spermatozoa and seminal stains whereas no such stains were found on the underwear of the Respondent, On completion of investigation, the Respondent was prosecuted and charged under Section 376 of the I.P.C. THE Respondent abjured the guilt. THE prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondent stated that despite being forbidden by him, the prosecutrix continued her illicit relationship with Vijaylal. Even though on 05.10.1991 the Respondent had caught her with Vijaylal in a compromising situation, the prosecutrix wanted to persist her relationship with Vijaylal. No evidence was led in defence.