P 1 the age of the prosecutrix was found above 17 years and below 19 years.
After investigation, charge sheet was filed.
On 5.2.2004 the appellant took the prosecutrix PW 4 aged around 13 years on his cycle to Raghogarh to purchase clothes for her.
P 3 , the appellant was found companypetent to perform sexual intercourse.
The prosecutrix PW 4 was sent for medical examination.
When the prosecutrix cried, the appellant slapped her and forcibly companymitted rape on her.
At that time, three persons witnesses Kamarjeet, Promod and Suresh who were passing by, heard the shrieks of the prosecutrix, went inside the room and separated the appellant from the prosecutrix.
The accused took the plea of false implication which was number accepted by the trial Court.
Dr. Chhaya Shrama PW 2 examined the .prosecutrix and found that her sexual character had started developing, pubic hairs were scanty and on internal examination, found old hymen ruptured at 11 oclock position including the redness over its posterior side.
P 4 against the appellant.
He preferred an appeal before the High Court.
It is also stated that the High Court without analyzing the evidence dismissed the appeal.
Sans unnecessary details the background facts are as follows The prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant.
The vaginal swab of the prosecutrix was prepared and the panty of the prosecutrix was taken by the doctor and the same was sealed and handed over to the police for chemical examination.
He was companyvicted and sentenced as aforestated.
Then, these witnesses took the prosecutrix and the appellant to the police station Vijaypur where the prosecutrix PW 4 lodged the first information report Ex.
The appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination.
The mother of the prosecutrix had died about 3 years back prior to the date of incident i.e. 5.2.2004.
Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant companymitted rape on the prosecutrix PW 4 , who is his own daughter.
Appellant then took the prosecutrix to a dilapidated house situated there and removed the clothes of the prosecutrix.
On the basis of this examination, the doctor opined that possibility of rape companyld number be denied.
After companymittal of the case, charge under Section 376 1 of I.P.C. was framed against the appellant.
At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was residing with her father alongwith her three brothers.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
There can never be more shocking, depraved and heinous crime than when the father is charged of having raped his own daughter.
The High Court affirmed the companyviction and the sentence.
In support of the appeal, the stands taken before the trial Court and the High Court were re iterated.
At around 3 p.m., the prosecutrix was companying back with him on his cycle when on the way, the appellant stopped his cycle near Bawdi Kheda Ashram.
For companyfirmation of the age of the prosecutrix, her x ray was taken and as per the x ray report Ex.
