IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sexual activities with young girl of immature age have a traumatic effect on them which persists throughout their life and often destruct whole personality of victim.
(2) DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate wrongly convicted and to identify guilty – It has potential to significantly improve both criminal justice system and police investigative practices.

JUDGMENT

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(j)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as under:—

[A] On 02/12/2013, mother of the victim girl had lodged report at police station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur alleging that victim is her daughter. Father of the victim is not alive and informant who is the mother had performed second marriage. The accused Harishchandra Khanorkar whom she used to treat as her brother. She was working as a domestic servant in the house of accused. Her daughter who is the victim was staying with accused in his family consist of his daughter and son. Informant further alleged that after she performed second marriage, victim continued to stay along with the accused. Accused admitted victim in the school and victim is now studying in the 11th standard. Before a month victim approached to her at her house on 28/11/2013 and complained about abdominal pain. She called the accused and took victim in the hospital. It was revealed that the victim is pregnant of 7 months. Therefore, she enquired with the victim and victim disclosed to her that when she was in 9th standard the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. He used to touch her body. Accused has repeated the act of sexual intercourse with her 3 to 4 times and she had conceived. Subsequently, victim delivered a child. The child was given to Bal Kalyan Samiti and informant has lodged report at Hudkeshwar police station on 02/12/2013. On the basis of said report, police have registered the offence against the accused vide Crime No.370/2013.

4. After registration of the crime, Investigating Officer has visited the alleged spot of incident and drawn the spot panchnama. He also collected the blood samples of victim and her child in D.N.A. kit and the blood samples of the accused in the D.N.A. kit and forwarded to D.N.A. examination. He also collected the medical report of the victim and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The learned trial Court has framed the charge vide Exhibit 6. The learned trial Court has recorded the evidence and found that the prosecution has proved the charges and convicted the accused and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore. Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard Shri Dhore, learned Counsel for the appellant.

6. He submitted that the accused is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Prosecution has not proved the age of the victim girl. The victim girl has narrated before the Medical Officer that she was having love relationship with one person namely Rajan. The pregnancy might be the result of the said relationship. Considering the same, only on the basis of DNA evidence accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(j)(i)(n) of the IPC. Whereas learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of victim girl corroborated by the Medical evidence as well as DNA report sufficiently shows that it was the accused who committed sexual intercourse with the victim which resulted into her pregnancy. The accused has taken the disadvantage of the circumstances that the victim girl is not having father, and mother had performed the second marriage. Hence he is not entitled for any leniency.

7. Children are the greatest gift of humanity and the sexual assault on children is the most heinous crime. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses.

(i) PW-1 – Victim (Exhibit 59) (due to the mandate of section 228-A of IPC her name is not mentioned.)

(ii) PW-2 – Mother of the victim (Exhibit 64) – informant.

(iii) PW-3 – Dr. Mangala Marotrao Sonak (Exhibit 67) – Medical Officer who has examined the victim.

(