DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 20,000 in default of which he was further sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for one year for raping a child aged about nine years under Section 376, IPC. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The key argument urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant has two prongs. He drew the attention of the Court towards the MLC of the prosecutrix, which was proved on the record as Ex. PW2/A. Its relevant extract is reproduced as hereundef:

(3.) The second limb of his argument was that Ex. PW9/A prepared by Dr. Rajender Kumar, SSO, PW9 clearly goes to show that no semen sample of the appellant could be taken to match it with the semen, which was recovered on his underwear. CFSL report further goes to show that the semen stains found on his underwear belong to 'A' group but semen stains found on the underwear of the prosecutrix gave no reaction. Again, the sample of blood which was sent to CFSL got putrefied and consequently no opinion could be given by the CFSL. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that all these facts taken together do not prove that the appellant had committed the rape.