Palo, J. -- 1. This Criminal appeal under section 378 of CrPC has been filed by the State of M.P., through Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.4.1994 pronounced by the IV ASJ in S.T. No.231/1990 (State of M.P. Through P.S. Dabra, District, Gwalior v. Surendra Singh) by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused under sections 376 read with 511 of IPC.

2. It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that the father of the minor prosecutrix Bhagwan Singh was working as Lance Yanak in the Cenwosto Unit and was alloted Government Quarter No.1 in the ground floor, in which he was residing with his family members. In the Ist Floor of the same building was occupied by accused Surendra Singh who was a Head Constable in the same Unit.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The incident took place on 8.5.1990 at about 1 O'clock in the night, at that time Bhagwan Singh, the father of the prosecutrix was not present at his home. Urmila Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix and he minor prosecutrix aged about 8 years were present. The family members of the accused Surendra Singh were also not present at that time. Both Bhagwan Singh and accused Surendra Singh are in the same Unit in BSF Takenpur Academy. Both families are acquainted with each other. The prosecutrix was often playing with the children of accused Surendra Singh and used to visit his house, both families were helping each other.

4. On the intervening night of 8th-9th May, 1990, accused Surendra Singh returned to his quarter, he woke up the complainant Urmila Devi and told her that lock of his house is not opening, he wanted her help to open it. She did not got herself. The prosecutrix was a sleep. She awake her and asked her to go and help the accused in opening the lock. From the first floor, the accused told the complainant that the prosecutrix will go back after she serves food to him. On hearing this, the complainant Urmila Devi went inside her quarter and slept. Prosecutrix stayed at the house of the accused. The accused got prepared “Lassi “ (a drink made of curd) by the prosecutrix. He himself had Lassi and offered it to the prosecutrix. He lay on the cot and asked the prosecutrix to sit his side. He caressed his hand on the thighs of the prosecutrix and then removed her underwear got her naked and himself got naked and tried to insert his private part into the private part of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix shouted for help. The accused discharged his semen on the underwear of the prosecutrix. On hearing the shout of the prosecutrix, complainant rushed towards the room and on hearing her shout the accused went into the bathroom. Getting this opportunity, the prosecutrix opened the door and came down to her house. She narrated the incident to the complainant, Urmila Devi. On hearing the shouts the neighbors of the colony also came to the spot. The persons in-charge of patrolling party Yashpal and Vijay Nayak also came to the scene. Among others Chandrakant Pandey also came to the scene. Complainant narrated the incident to them and the prosecutrix was sent for medical treatment. When her husband arrived they lodged the written report, Ex.P-5. On the basis of report, FIR Ex. P-5 was lodged. Spot map was prepared. The accused was medically examined and it was declared that no symptom was found which indicates that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. At the BSF Hospital, the prosecutrix was also examined. The accused was arrested and charge sheet was filed under sections 376 read with 511 of IPC.

6. On being explained the charges, the accused abjured guilt. The accused pleaded innocence and in his examination under section 313 of CrPC stated that at the time of incident, his wife and family members were present. Plea was taken by him that the complainant Urmila Devi had a fight with the wife of the accused. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated. The accused exa