Serna, J. -- 1. The respondent-accused Dayal Sahu was put to trial under section'376 IPC. He was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal preferred by the accused, set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court and acquitted the accused (the respondent herein) solely on the ground for non-examination of PW 9 Dr. V.M. Pursule, as according to the High Court, non-examination of PW 9 prejudiced the case of the accused for non-providing of an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the doctor. Being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

In the night of 1.4.1991 the respondent-accused Dayal Sahu, who was a relative of the complainant, came to village Mandvi with another man Jagdish as guest. The prosecutrix Santribai, wife of PW 2 Ramdas was sleeping inside the house. Other family members were sleeping outside the house with guests. At about 4:00 a.m., the accused entered into the room of the prosecutrix in the guise of her husband