It appears that the factum of rape was number revealed by the prosecutrix to anybody including her parents till a medical examination several months later showed that she had been impregnated on account of the rape.
Attempts were thereafter made by them as also by members of the Panchayat including P.W. 2 Abdul Qadir, to see if some settlement companyld be arrived at including a proposal that the prosecutrix and the appellant be married.
The prosecutrix in order to fix the time of incident, deposed that the rape had been companymitted on 15th March, 1990 i.e. on the day she was to attend an examination in her school.
It also appears that at this stage the prosecutrix divulged the entire story to her parents.
On the companypletion of the investigation, the matter was companymitted for trail.
The trial companyrt relying on the statement of the Head Master of the School that numberexamination test was to be held on the 15th March, 1990 held that the prosecutrix had put up a false story and almost exclusively on this basis acquitted the appellant.
This is an unfortunate matter and in addition to the various issues on fact and law which have been raised by the learned companynsel for the parties, a very human issue also arises.
P.W. 2 Abdul Qadir also suggested, that as the appellant was denying his paternity of the child, he should undergo a DNA test which would settle the matter once and for all either ways.
The State thereupon filed an appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 4th March, 2007.
When all these proposals bore numberresult, an FIR was lodged after a delay of about eleven months.
The appellant before us, M. Ayoob, was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC for having companymitted rape on P.W. 1 aged about 15 years on the 15th March, 1990.
During the trial, several prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix, her parents, P.W. 2 Abdul Qadir, and several others appeared and gave their depositions.
