{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2009 Janabai d/o Madhukarrao Kolte APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. R.N.Bharaswadkar, Advocate for applicant Mr. B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State Mr. V.S.Kadam h/f Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present revision application, u/s 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant, original complainant, has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 09/2008 whereby the respondent No.2 is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their assistance perused the impugned judgment. 3. While considering the revision for admission it is necessary to consider three points. This is a case where alleged offence is u/s 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 15.11.2007 at about 1.00 p.m. the respondent No.2 {2} ravished the applicant in a cattle shed. The age of the prosecutorix, according to complaint is below 14 years, however as per the defence, the same is above 16. The findings and observations of the trial court requires to be considered. In para 12 and 13 I find reference of the medical evidence. In para 12, I find reference that "on clinical examination no injury was found on her private part. No tenderness was found. Her hymen was already torn. Vagina admits only one finger. It means there was no sings of forcible intercourse and there was possibility that prosecutorix was habituated to the intercourse." It is observed that the medical report is also not supporting the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly raped by the accused. In case she was forced and intercourse was committed, certainly there ought to have been at least tenderness or injury on her vagina part. No such injury was found. The evidence of PW 2 that hymen was intact when she examined the body of the victim is therefore also found incorrect. 4. As per the story of the prosecution and as found discussed and recorded in the impugned judgment that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, however after the incident grand mother of the prosecutorix came there and she noticed that the prosecutorix was wearing nicker and respondent No.2 was putting his dhoti and he ran away. There was no disclosure of the incident to the real uncle of the prosecutorix, who resides in the neighbourhood. The incident was reported to the mother of the prosecutorix in the evening and thereafter she examined the {3} prosecutorix and according to her hymen was intact, which is falsified by the medical evidence. At this stage whether to believe the PW.2 or not is immaterial. The alleged incident had taken place in a cattle shed, no medical evidence is supporting the allegations against respondent No.2 then the only question requires consideration is whether in the circumstances, there is any possibility of injuries on the person of the prosecutorix, as alleged as it was an incident of forced sexual intercourse. However, no external injury is noticed on the person of the prosecutorix. Thus the medical evidence is not supporting the prosecution case. Apart from it, the report of CA at Exhibit-25 was before the trial court, as after narration of the incident, the mother of the prosecution had removed her under garments, which were sent for chemical test. However, no semen was traced on the same. So also the vagina swab and cut pubic hair were also sent for the chemical test on which also no semen was found. Thus, the evidence of prosecution is not supported by medical or circumstantial evidence and not even by the CA report. In the premise, this is not a case where the revision against the judgment of acquittal to be admitted. In the result, the revision application, which is sans merits stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/crirev329-09