AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2551 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicants Vs. Sachin Anil Patil ... Respondents Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged order dated 24/12/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur, District Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.5 of 2008 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). The case of the prosecution, in short, was that the respondent committed rape on the prosecutrix - Urmila, aged about 11 years. Learned Judge AJN 2 has observed that the medical evidence though available, is not produced by the prosecution to corroborate the story narrated by the complainant and the result of the chemical analyst does not support the prosecution case. 2. Our attention is drawn to order dated 8/9/2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No.1204 of 2009 filed by the State of Maharashtra. Grievance made before learned Single Judge was that the trial court has disallowed the petitioner's application to file documents such as a Gynecologist Report, Civil Surgeon Reports and other Certificates in the present case. Learned Single Judge observed that the said documents are very relevant in a case under Section 376 of the IPC. Learned Single Judge allowed the State to produce the said documents within a period of one week from the date of the said order. It appears that though a challenge was raised in the High Court and an order was passed in favour of the State allowing it to produce the documents before the trial AJN 3 court, the said documents were not produced in the trial court. If the medical evidence is not produced and an order of acquittal is passed by the trial court on that ground, the order cannot be reversed because medical evidence is of utmost importance in a rape case. Besides, learned Trial Judge has observed that the result of the chemical analyst does not support the prosecution case. We, therefore, cannot fault learned Trial Judge because he has acquitted the accused. In our opinion, the view taken by learned Sessions Judge is not only a reasonably possible view but the only view which could have been taken in this case. Hence, leave refused. Application is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] AJN 4