The main legal point established is the requirement for reliable and credible evidence in cases of sexual assault, including the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, medical examination, and the credibility of witnesses.

S. K. Palo, J.

Appellant Phool Chand stood trial under Section 376 of IPC and has been held guilty vide judgment dated 26.9.2002 in S.T. No. 153/2001 pronounced by the learned First A.S.J, Guna, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal has been filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C. assailing the conviction and sentence.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the prosecutrix is the minor daughter of the accused / appellant. Medical report prepared by Dr. A.S. Ojha which disclose, that there is no disease or deformity which can make the appellant incapable to perform sexual-intercourse, has been admitted by the appellant under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that Guddi Bai (PW-2), is the mother of the minor prosecutrix aged about 15 years has been examined as PW-1. Five days earlier to 24th February, 2001 the complainant Guddibai had gone to wash her face and hands. When she returned she saw that her husband (accused) is committing sexual-intercourse with her minor daughter. On seeing this she fainted. After she regained consciousness she asked her husband what he was doing. The appellant Phool Chand replied that he can do whatever he wants to do with his daughter. He used to lock the prosecutrix inside the house and the prosecutrix was also subjected to assault by the accused. She has also alleged in her report that the prosecutrix also stated to her that prior to this incident, her father committed sexual-intercourse with her. The accused used to keep the complainant and the prosecutrix inside the house and they were not allowed to go out. On 24/2/2001 with great difficulty, the complainant came out with her daughter and lodged the report at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna. She further alleged that the accused subjected them to harassment. They feel insecure and possibility of the accused again committing sexual-intercourse in future is very likely.

4. Having received the written complaint, the Police Station, Raghogarh District Guna lodged a report and after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 (1) of IPC. The learned ASJ, Guna explained the charge under Section 376 (1) of IPC to the accused/appellant. The appellant abjured guilt. In his examination the appellant has stated that the prosecutrix is aged about 19 years, she is not minor. He further stated that the prosecutrix is tutored by her mother 'Guddibai'. Guddibai is not a chaste woman. She has been having illicit relationship with other persons. She is in the habit of not staying in the house during night which, the husband accused did not like. On his opposing the same, the complainant became annoyed. The prosecutrix is also aware of her unchaste behavior. Because the accused appellant restricted the complainant to lead such a life, she lodged this false report against the accused-appellant. The appellant/accused has further stated that he has been falsely implicated and the complainant has taken such steps, so as to put the appellant in jail and the complainant would lead an unrestricted independent life.

5. After affording opportunities, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment on 26.9.2002; held the accused guilty under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

6. We have considered the submissions made before us by both, counsels for the appellant as well as the respondent/State.

7. On perusal of the record it is found that the prosecutrix is aged about 15 years. The prosecutrix was radiologically examined by Dr. Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-7) and after examining her X-ray plate Ex. P/9 he opined in his report Ex-P-8, that the age of the prosecutrix is above 16 years, but below 19 years. That being so, a doubt has been created on the prosecution case so as to the age of the prosecutrix.

8. The prosecutrix has stated that at the time of the incident, her mother had gone out and when she came back, she found her father (appellant) doing sexual