Palo, J. -- 1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (FTC), Guna in Sessions Trial No.302/2005, State v. Munna and others, in which the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/non-applicants No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of IPC., the father of the prosecutrix on behalf of the complainant/prosecutrix, has filed this revision under sections 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. It is not disputed that the prosecutrix, a minor, is mentally retarded. The accused persons are known to her. Both PW3, Munnibai, is her mother, PW1 Nathu is her grand father. A report was lodged at Police Station Myana which has been marked as Ex.P-10. Dr. Chhaya Sharma, PW10, the lady medical officer examined the prosecutrix and prepared the report Ex.P-11. Dr. R.K. Jain, PW6 examined the X-ray plates on the reference by Doctor Chhaya Shama, PW10 and submitted the report Ex.P-7 in which he has found the radiological age of the prosecutrix in between 17-18 years. The accused non-applicants 1 and 2 were arrested by Harsh Kumar, A.S.I. (PW9) on 23.8.2005 by arrest memo Ex.P-12 and P-13. Both of them were sent for medical examination by requisition Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4.

3. Besides, these admitted facts, the prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Myana on 22.8.2005. It is alleged that at about 7 a.m. she had gone to attend the call of nature behind the School in the fields in her village Behentaghat. The accused persons/non-applicants Sunil and Munnalal caught her. They committed sexual intercourse turn by turn. Her mouth was shut by Sunil when the other accused committed the crime and when Sunil committed the crime, the other accused Munnalal shut her mouth. When she was left, she shouted. Chandu and Sanjay (PW8) climbed to the terrace of the school and saw the accused persons running from the spot. The prosecutrix' clothes were wet due to bleeding. She returned to her home crying and narrated the incident to her mother Munnibai, PW3 and her grand father Nathu, PW1. PW1 Nathu accompanied her to police station which is about a distance of 40 kms. and lodged the report, Ex.P-10.

4. On the basis of the report Ex.P-10, crime was registered under section 376(2)(g) of IPC and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.

5. The learned trial Court framed charges under section 376(2)(g) of IPC and explained to the accused persons, they abjured guilt.

6. The learned trial Court passed the judgment on 28.2.2006 and acquitted the accused persons for offences under section 376(2)(g) of IPC.

7. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the prosecutrix on the ground that the learned trial Court did not evaluate the evidence properly. Therefore, it has erred in passing the order of acquittal. The prosecutrix, a minor, has given details of the incident. Her statement has been corroborated by the medical evidence and the prosecutrix has specifically named the accused persons. Prosecutrix being minor and mentally retarded has been subjected to such a heineous crime. Therefore, it is been requested that the order of acquittal be set aside and the case be sent back to the trial Court for deciding the same in accordance with law.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties at length and perused the record.

9. The mother Munnibai (PW3) has clearly stated that her daughter prosecutrix has been mentally retarded right from her birth. Nathu, PW1, the grand father of the prosecutrix also agreed to the same. The Court, while recording the statement of the prosecutrix has also estimated the age of the prosecutrix as 13-14 years. At the same time, the Court observed that her mental state is not sound. She has been answering the question after repeatedly asking her. The manner in which she replies was also not clear and childlike. Lady medical officer Chhaya Sharma, PW10 while examining the prosecutrix