The appellate court confirmed that the sole testimony of a minor prosecutrix can suffice for conviction if credible, emphasizing that the absence of corroborative evidence does not negate the occurrence of statutory rape under existing laws.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. The respondent is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.66 of 2012 on the file of the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Kheda-Nadiad. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366 and 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Eventually, after trial, he was not found guilty for any of the said offences and he was acquitted of all the said charges by the impugned judgment.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. Facts of the prosecution case germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:-

4. The victim girl is a minor aged about 15 years, 11 months and 13 days on the date of offence, which took place on 14.2.2012, (she will be herein after referred to as “the prosecutrix”). She was studying 10^th class at the time of the offence. It is stated that she has been preparing for final examination of her 10^th class and when she was studying during the night time on 14.2.2012, that she went out of her house to answer the calls of nature at about 12 O’ clock in the mid night. At that time, when she was alone, at that place, and while she was answering the calls of nature, the accused came and caught hold of her and forcibly took her to the nearby field and committed rape on her. It is stated that he has stripped off her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her by force. Thereafter, he has taken her along with him, threatening her with dire consequences. Initially, he has taken her towards Rajkot and again he has brought her back to Ahmedabad. They were sitting at the bus stop of Geeta Mandir between 5 to 6 p.m. on 15.2.2012. At that time, police traced both of them and questioned them and brought them to Geeta Mandir Police Station. They, in turn, informed Mahemadavad Police Station that the accused and the prosecutrix were found at the bus stop and handed them over to Mahemadavad Police. Mahemadavad Police informed the family members of the prosecutrix, that they were traced at the bus stop. Grand- father of the prosecutrix immediately reached the police station. Thereafter, he has taken the prosecutrix along with him to their house. Initially, PW-1, father of the prosecutrix did not file any report with police as he does not want to complicate the issue, as it is relating to the future of his minor daughter. He wants to settle the matter and did not initiate any legal action. However, it is stated that the accused continued to make efforts to take away the prosecutrix with him and that he also threatened to take her away with him. Therefore, PW-1 lodged a report with police on 8.4.2012 regarding the incident that took place on 14.2.2012. Police registered the said report of PW-1, as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366, 376 and 506 (2) of IPC against the accused. The case was investigated. The accused was arrested on 11.4.2012. Thereafter, both the prosecutrix and the accused were referred for medical examination. Before the doctor, who examined the accused, he stated that he and the prosecutrix were in love with each other and that they used to have sexual intercourse with each other. The doctor, who examined the accused opined that the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse. Accordingly, he has issued certificate to that effect. Even before the doctor, who examined the prosecutrix, PW-6, she also stated that she and the accused are in love with each other and that they used to have sexua