1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3655 OF 2011 Shhubhangi Saxena Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.E.A.Sasi for petitioner. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. By this petition the petitioner who is a prosecutrix is challenging the order of dated 16th November 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai below Exhibit-12 in Sessions Case No. 601 of 2010. The petitioner has also prayed for retrial in Sessions Case No.601 of 2010. 2. The charge was framed against the accused under sections 384, 385 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and Investigating Officer came to be examined. The petitioner was also cross examined. The learned counsel for petitioner by inviting my attention to the report of chemical analyser at page 218-C of the petition paper book submitted that the report of Chemical Analyser is manipulated. The report shows that neither the blood nor the semen is detected on articles 1 to 10. The articles 8, 9 and 10 in respect of which grievance is made are condoms. The applicant submits that in addition to these articles, she has also preserved some more condoms which need to be sent to Chemical Analyser for forensic test. These condoms were not produced by the prosecutrix when initially article nos.8, 9 and 10 were produced before the 2 investigating agency. 3. In any case, the forensic evidence is already on record. There is no explanation given by the petitioner as to why the other condoms were not produced by her for forensic test. Merely because the forensic report is not favourable, the prosecutrix cannot insist for further investigation under section 173(8) and that too at the fag end of the trial. The petition is without substance and therefore stands dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)