Admittedly, numbertest identification parade was companyducted in this case.
The attendance in the school of 100 days in ex facie false.
For her age verification, she was referred to dental surgeon and radiologist opinion.
The trial companyrt on the basis of evidence on record came to the companyclusion that the appellant kidnapped a minor girl and induced her to go to village Kalka Madlya and companymitted rape on her and companyvicted the appellant.
The alleged School Leaving Certificate on the basis of which the age was entered in the school was number produced.
The prosecutrix was admitted in the school by Ashok Kumar, her brother.
Pubic hair were present.
It is evident from her statement under Section 164 Cr.
When he companyld number locate her for quite some time, then he reported the matter to the police and lodged a first information report.
The appellant was companyvicted by the trial companyrt under sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas another accused Baldev was companyvicted under section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.
The said findings in the impugned judgment are quoted as under There can be numberdispute with the proposition that the prosecutrix was otherwise a companysenting party to her being taken away and also the violation of her person by Sunil.
The prosecution also failed to produce any Admission Form of the school which would have been primary evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix.
Dr. Verma, after clinical examination of the prosecutrix, categorically observed that possibility cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix Pinki was habitual to sex.
Bishan PW8 suspected that the appellant Sunil had abducted his daughter.
No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant.
It is the case of the prosecution that on the relevant date the appellant asked the prosecutrix to accompany him but she declined to oblige.
The short question in the facts and circumstances of this case remains to be determined is whether the prosecutrix was a minor?
The High Court acquitted Baldev.
She carried out a local examination and her opinion is as under Local Examination Labia Majora was well developed.
He also identified the signature of the Principal and averred that the date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in the school leaving certificate is 13.2.1983.
Dr. Verma P.W.1, who had clinically examined the prosecutrix, found that her secondary sex characters were well developed.
The appellant submitted that on medical examination Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 had found that the secondary sex characters of the prosecutrix were well developed which lead to the companyclusion that she was number a minor girl.
The finding of the High Court is that the prosecutrix fell in love with the appellant.
The prosecution examined Chandra Prakash Sharma, PW3 with regard to the School Leaving Certificate.
In her report, she also stated that keeping in view the clinical examination, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out.
Chander Parkash Sharma, Office Superintendent, PW3, Satish Public Senior Secondary School, Rewari made a record based statement and proved school leaving certificate pertaining to the prosecutrix.
There is numberreason why she was removed from the school and was forced to do household work in other houses.
Two vaginal smears were prepared and were sent for chemical examination for semen detection.
The prosecutrix on 6.9.1996 was examined by Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1.
The High Court also found that she did number ever resist her being repeatedly deflowered by the appellant.
The prosecutrix was traced out by the police on 6th September, 1996.
Carunculae myrinates formis was present.
Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 who examined the prosecutrix referred her for verification to the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist.
Brief facts of this case are as under.
She opined that in view of the clinical examination, she found numbermark of injury on her body.
He left the house in the morning along with the prosecutrix on a cycle.
The failure of getting the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact that she was referred to them by Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW1 is a serious flaw in the prosecution version.
When they reached a particular place, the appellant Baldev and one Jhangi took the prosecutrix to a village where they stayed for the night to return to Rewari the following day.
She does number aver that she ever resisted her being repeatedly deflowered by appellant Sunil.
Two vaginal swabs were taken and were sent for chemical analysis for semen detection.
At that time, she was asleep on the roof of the house.
As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was admitted in the school few months before, i.e., on 12.4.1996 and remained in school upto 12.9.1996 inclusive of summer vacation .
The appellant, Sunil belonged to the same Caste and Gotra of the prosecutrix and he was visiting the house of the prosecutrix frequently.
It was then the appellant Sunil raped her.
The High Court also found that offences under section 363, 366A and 376 IPC are proved against the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant held out a threat that if she resisted his request, he companyld do anything to the prosecutrix.
Baldev left the prosecutrix in village Kalka Madlya where the appellant raped her in the morning.
The said Ashok Kumar was number examined by the prosecution.
Vagina admitting two fingers.
The appellant urged that all these facts create some suspicion regarding genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate particularly when the same was admittedly procured after several days of filing of the first information report.
The School Leaving Certificate produced by the prosecution was also procured on 12.9.1996, six days after the incident and three days after the arrest of the appellant.
The appellant placed reliance on the following findings of the High Court and submitted that numberoffence whatsoever can be attributed to the appellant.
Uterus was numbermal and retroverted, furnaces free.
Thereafter, the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant to Kalka Madlya.
P.C. in the companyrse whereof, she categorically averred that she was in love with the appellant Sunil.
The appellant left her there for some time and went elsewhere.
According to the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove that Pinki was minor at the time of the incident.
The appellant aggrieved by the impugned judgment has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
Bishan, PW8, the father of the prosecutrix has also number been able to give companyrect date of birth of the prosecutrix.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
He returned to the house at night.
The School Leaving Certificate was obtained from the school after the incident.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2008 delivered by the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.48 SB of 1998.
Bishan PW8, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report that on 31st August, 1996 when he returned home, he did number find his daughter, the prosecutrix, Pinki.
As per prosecution version, she joined in the middle of the session and left in the middle of the session.
She found that her secondary sex characters were well developed.
The prosecution did number produce any Admission Form of the School.
Dr. Chandrashekhar, PW2 had medico legal examination of the appellant Sunil and found that he had the ability to perform sexual intercourse.
The appellant submitted before the companyrt that he has been falsely implicated.
The said Ashok Kumar was number examined.
