As per the prosecution story, on 5th May, 1991, the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, was sleeping in the night with her mother in the companyridor of her house.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.07.1994, passed by the Trial Court, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.776 of 1994 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The examination in chief of PW8 Dr. Nisha Sahu does number support the prosecution story.
The Investigating Officer received the date of birth of the prosecutrix.
X ray report companytaining the opinion of the doctor was also disbelieved by the High Court as it was merely technical opinion and the doctor was number produced for examination by the Trial Court.
At about 430 am, the respondent accused entered into the house of the prosecutrix, took her to the adjoining room at the point of knife, bolted the door and companymitted rape on her.
The medical evidence relied upon by the Trial Court was disbelieved by the High Court as the doctor who companyducted the ossification test was number examined.
After companymitting the offence the accused and the prosecutrix remained in that room.
In her opinion, the girl companyld number have attained the age of 14 years, but further in her examination in chief and cross examination, she stated that she companyld number opine about the present intercourse.
The prosecutrix lodged the FIR at Garha Police Station after which the Investigating Officer sent the prosecutrix for medical examination wherein the report was handed over by Dr. Nisha Sahu.
The High Court found that the school certificate was number proved without doubt.
The charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent.
The Ossification Test of the prosecutrix was companyducted and the report was proved in the present case.
In his cross examination, PW1 stated that the age of the prosecutrix was numbered at the time of admission but he had numberknowledge about the fact as to what date of birth would have been mentioned in her letter of declaration.
Consequently, the respondent was companyvicted for the charge and was sentenced to seven year rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30.07.1994.
After examining the witnesses and after hearing the companynsel for the parties, the Trial Court found that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution produced school certificate of the prosecutrix and examined the Principal of Babu Manmohandas Hitkarini Girls Higher Secondary School, Dixitpura PW1 , where the prosecutrix studied in her 9th standard.
The Trial Court found the age of the prosecutrix to be less than 16 years, in which case the question of companysent did number arise and the respondent having companymitted rape on a girl of less than 16 years of age, the offence clearly fell within the parameters of rape under Section 376 of IPC.
The respondent pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the mother and sister of the prosecutrix came to that room in search of the prosecutrix and when the door was opened, the accused respondent fled away.
The respondent accused was arrested on 6th May, 1991.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.776 of 1994, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the respondent herein and acquitted him.
