IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecutrix's testimony to be reliable and corroborated by medical evidence or surrounding circumstances in cases of rape, emphasizing the need for the evidence to inspire confidence and be unblemished.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2002, passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.2/2002, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Briefly facts of the case is that the 12 year old minor (PW-8) lived with her parents and siblings in village Silyari, district Raipur. In the same neighborhood, the appellant Raju alias Rajkumar also lived with his family and a medicine shop is situated in front of his house. On the date of incident i.e. 12/10/2001 in the evening, when the prosecutrix went to the shop of the appellant to buy refills, then the appellant by wheedling the prosecutrix and he took her to the house and had sexual intercourse with her. On the next day i.e. 13/10/2001, the appellant again took inside his house and had sexual intercourse with her. The victim/prosecutrix did not tell the incident to anyone out of fear. When she was feeling ill on 19/10/2001, then she narrated the incident to her mother Pramila Soni (PW-1). Thereafter, on 20/10/2001, the prosecutrix along with her father lodged a report at Chowki-Silayari, police station-Dharsiwa, on which FIR vide Ex.P-7 was registered and after taking the consent of the prosecutrix, her medical examination was done. The inner garments of both the parties were seized and examined by a doctor. Nazri naksha(spot map) Ex.P-5 was prepared. During the investigation of the prosecution, a slide of the vagina of prosecutrix was sent for chemical testing, but no chemical test report has been exhibited on record.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. No witness has been examined in defense by the appellant. After hearing both the parties, the trial court passed the decision of conviction and sentence in question after considering the statement of the prosecutrix and other evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred in the year 2001. Before the amendment of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code in 2013, the legal position was that if the victim/prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, then sexual intercourse with her consent also came under the category of crime. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was under 16 years of age at the time of the incident. There is lack of clear and reliable evidence by the prosecution regarding the age of victim/prosecutrix. The incident was reported with a delay of about 8 days for which, no satisfactory explanation has been given. The prosecutrix, despite living in the neighborhood, has not told the incident to anyone, whereas she has said that she would go to the house of the appellant for two consecutive days. In the FIR, the prosecution has stated that the incident occurred in the room of the house, but in the statement before the court, she stated that the incident occurred at the top of the stairs leading from outside the shop. Thus, there is a complete contradiction regarding the place of occurrence. The father of the accused had a dispute with the father of the victim/prosecutrix regarding the transactions. The evidence of the sole prosecutrix is doubtful and is not verified by the medical report. Thus, there are many flaws in the evidence of the prosecutrix due to which the trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant by relying on the statement of the sole prosecutrix. The conviction and sentence in question are not justified and valid in the light of law. Therefore, by accepting the appeal, the decision of conviction and sentence in question may be set aside. In support of her argument, she cited th