STATE OF H P Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 30.3.2007, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No.56 of 2005, under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent, in reference to FIR No.55 of 2005 dated 26.6.2005, Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim- prosecutrix (name not given) was sexually assaulted on 19.6.2005 by the accused-respondent, when her parents had gone to attend a marriage and her younger brother had gone to call their maternal uncle Mir Prakash (PW.5). At that time, accused-respondent came to the house of victim-prosecutrix and after bolting the door from inside and had forcibly sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix despite her resistance. The information of the incident was given by Sh.Khem Raj (PW.4), father of the victim-prosecutrix, on 26.6.2005 vide application (Ex.PW.4/A) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW.9/A) was registered at 7.00 PM, thereafter, the victim-prosecutrix was medically examined on 27.6.2005 at 3.10 PM, at that time, her age was written as 16 years in MLC.

(3.) ON analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that PW.1 Dr.Abha Gautam examined the victim-prosecutrix (PW.3) on 27.6.2005 and has opined that there was nothing to suggest that she was not subjected to sexual intercourse, however, on chemical examination, semen and blood was not found in the vaginal swab. In cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that in absence of blood and semen, the possibility of recent sexual intercourse was ruled out. PW.1 has further stated that the victim- prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse on 19.6.2005 and she was brought for medical examination on 27.6.2005 and had changed her clothes and had taken bath thrice prior to medical examination. At the time of medical examination, on 27.6.2005, the age of the victim-prosecutrix (PW.3) was written as 16 years.