He also seized the dress worn by the victim at the time of occurrence.
Revision was filed before the High Court which by the impugned order set aside the order of companyviction and sentence.
The Trial Court had companyvicted the respondent as aforesaid and had imposed sentence of six months and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively with fine of Rs.2000/ in each case.
The victim PW 1 told about the incident to her friend PW 2 who narrated the same to the parents of the victim and accordingly on 13.11.1986 First Information Report was lodged.
Respondent was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
The investigation was undertaken by PW 11 who sent both the victim and the accused for medical examination.
P.C. Factual background as unfolded during trial of the respondent was that on 10.11.1986 accused trespassed into the house of the victim girl who was nearly about 10 years of age on the date of occurrence and companymitted unnatural offence on her.
The fine amount of Rs.2000/ was to be paid to the victim in terms of Section 357 1 b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
The Chemical Analyst report Ex.
P7 indicated presence of human semen and spermatozoa on the dress of the victim.
An appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kelpetta did number bring any relief to the accused.
To further the prosecution version, 11 witnesses were examined.
The accused pleaded innocence.
On companysideration of the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, found the accused guilty and companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid numbered.
Potency of the accused was also proved by the doctor PW 10 as per Ex.
The primary ground on which the High Court directed acquittal was the absence of companyroboration and alleged suppression of a report purported to have been given before the FIR in question was lodged.
5856 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The State of Kerala challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court directing acquittal of the respondent by accepting revision petition filed by the respondent.
After finding the victim alone in the house the accused companymitted unnatural offence by putting his penis having carnal intercourse against order of nature.
