Consent is critical in determining guilt in sexual offence cases, especially when evidence presents substantial doubt.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 7-5-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 253/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused / appellant Prahalad has been convicted under S.450 and S.376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month and 3 months, respectively. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Prosecutrix (PW - 1) is niece of Bhuwan (PW - 2) and Smt. Jethibai PW - 3). Bhuwan (PW - 2) and Smt. Jethibai (PW - 3) were residing in the house of Bhagchand on rent. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) was residing along with them from 2-7-2003. On 17-7-2003, Bhuwan (PW - 2) had gone to Nagpur Engineering, Anjora for earning livelihood and Jethibai (PW - 3) had gone to agricultural field for labour work. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) was alone at the house. At about 2 p.m., the appellant came to her house, threatened her of life, caught her hand, caused her to fall down on the cot and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When Bhuwan (PW - 2) and Jethibai (PW - 3) returned home, prosecutrix (PW - 1) narrated the incident to them. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P - 1) in Police Outpost Anjora. Prosecutrix (PW - l)$was sent to District Hospital, Durg for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Shobfia Rajput (PW - 6) examined her and gave her report (Ex. P10). She also prepared two slides of the vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW.l). The appellant was also sent to District Hospital, Durg for medical examination. Dr. P. Balkishore (PW - 4) examined him and gave his report (Ex. P - 7), in which, he found the appellant capable of committing sexual intercourse.
In further investigation, petticoat of prosecutrix (PW - 1) was seized vide Ex. P - 2. School admission register was seized vide Ex. P - 4. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) was sent for x - ray examination for determination of age. Dr. A. K. Sahu (PW - 5) took out x - ray of prosecutrix (PW - 1) and gave his report (Ex. P - 9), in which, he found the age of prosecutrix (PW - 1) as 18 years. Spot - map (Ex. P - ll) was prepared. Underwear of the appellant was seized from the appellant vide Ex. P - 13. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex. P - 16. Report (Ex. P - 18) was received therefrom. After completion of the investigation, charge - sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case
to the Court of Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsellor the appellant argued that the FIR (Ex. P - 1) was lodged belatedly. The age of prosecutrix (PW - 1) was above 16 years on the date of incident. The trial Court grossly erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under S.450 and S.376, 'IPC. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, possibility of prosecutrix (PW - 1) having been consenting party cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and he deserves acquittal.

4. On the other hand, Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any