JUDGMENT: 1. The revision application is taken up for final hearing. This application takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.64/2004 and judgment and order dated 29th July 2003 passed by the learned 6th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions case No.168/2003. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the grounds taken in the revision and on that basis submitted that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and it came to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, the present revision application deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the each and every findings recorded by the Courts below and on the basis of the evidence available submitted that the offence committed by the applicant is of serious nature and the applicant though convict under Section 376 of I.P.C. is convicted only for seven years and fine amount. According to learned A.P.P., in fact, both the Courts have taken very very lenient view and convicted the applicant for minimum sentence. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in this revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and A.P.P. at great length. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below carefully and the original record available for perusal and I am of the considered view that both the Courts have taken the correct view in the matter and convicted the present applicant, therefore, the revision deserves to be rejected. 5. The Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. The Court has observed that it is not disputed position that the deceased Surekha was mentally retarded on account of disease of epilepsy. The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of PW 1 Muktabai, mother of the decease and PW 3 Lahu Sonawane along with evidence of PW 10 C.H.Gaud, PW 11 I.O., PSI Chavan, PW8 Dr.Teli and PW 9 Dr.Chavan. . Doctor who performed post-mortem on the body of deceased Surekha on 1.7.2003 found that Surekha was carrying pregnancy of 8 to 8 and half months. Her organs of generation were swollen and, therefore, doctor was of the opinion that Surekha died due to toxaemia of pregnancy. . Doctor who performed post-mortem on the body of deceased Surekha on 1.7.2003 found that Surekha was carrying pregnancy of 8 to 8 and half months. Her organs of generation were swollen and, therefore, doctor was of the opinion that Surekha died due to toxaemia of pregnancy. The doctor collected sample of vaginal swab, blood of deceased and blood of foetus for chemical analysis. Accordingly, post-mortem notes Exhibit-27 was prepared and samples taken were handed over to police for being sent to Chemical Analyser. On analysis, it was found by this expert witness that accused Ajay was the biological father of the child found in the womb of deceased Surekha. It is observed by the learned Judge that PW 1 mother of the deceased has stated that taking undue advantage of mental disorder of her daughter accused had forcibly intercourse with her as a result of that intercourse deceased had developed pregnancy and had succumbed to death on account of toxaemia. The doctor Teli who carried out post-mortem on the body of deceased had taken the blood samples of deceased and foetus were taken for chemical analysis. Undisputedly, deceased at the time of post-mortem was carrying pregnancy. The blood sample of foetus was also taken, According to PW 9 Dr.Chavan on 14.10.2003 blood sample of accused was taken by him for analysis in the presence of J.M.F.C. Chalisgaon vide request letter of police Exhibit-29. The blood samples were handed over to police constable and same were forwarded to laboratory. These samples as collected were received by PW 10 C.H.Gaud along with identification form Exhibit 36. Recitals of said identification form would demonstrate that it bears photographs of accused Ajay. The learned Judge has observed that this shows that the accused was not forced by police to give consent for drawing of blood samples by Dr. Chavan. There was no compulsion for accused to consent for drawing blood sample during course of investigation for purpose of analysis. 6. It is in the report of PW 10 C.H.Gaud that post-mortem blood sample of the child of deceased Surekha and that of Ajay Pandurang Sonwane yielded to D.N.A. profiles. The D.N.A. test performed sufficiently provided to conclude that source of Exhibit-D (blood samples of Ajay Pandurang Sonwane) is the biological father of the source of Exhibit-C (child of Ms.Surekha Ananda Sonwane). The D.N.A. test performed sufficiently provided to conclude that source of Exhibit-D (blood samples of Ajay Pandurang Sonwane) is the biological father of the source of Exhibit-C (child of Ms.Surekha Ananda Sonwane). This opinion of the expert is based on his ocular account so also the enclosures Exh.38 and 39 filed alongwith his opinion at Exhibit-37. It is in the evidence of this witness that human body contains million of cells. All cells are having nucleus except red blood cells. Inside nucleus, there are thread light structure chromosomes. These chromosomes are made up of D.N.A.Human beings are having 46 chromosomes. Out of these, 23 are inherited from biological mother through ovum. Other 23 inherited from biological father through sperm/child born is combination of both these. This scientific narration of the witness is fully corroborated by his opinion and enclosures Exh.38 and 39. It is thus very clear that accused Ajay is biological father of deceased child of deceased Surekha. 7. The learned Judge has recorded the findings in respect of theory of consent put forth by the accused. The learned Judge has observed that the deceased Surekha admittedly was mentally retarded. In that case there was no question about her consenting intercourse by accused. It is in the evidence of PW 3 Lahu Sonwane that on the day of incident i.e., on the day of Dasera, he had seen quarrel between Muktabai and accused as Surekha was found in the house of accused Chhotibai. So circumstantial evidence coming from PW 1 Muktabai stands fully corroborated by medical evidence as adduced by prosecution. The learned Judge has also recorded the finding that though there was delay in recording FIR it has been properly explained by other evidence on record. The learned Judge in para 19 of the judgment has observed that, when P 1 Muktabai has made a categorical statement about rape on her deceased daughter against her will and consent, there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. The medical evidence strongly corroborates with the ocular account of PW 1 Muktabai and it is clear to the point of having raped deceased Surekha. The learned Judge in para 20 has observed that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Ajay Pandurang Sonwane who forcibly raped Surekha against her will and consent. The medical evidence strongly corroborates with the ocular account of PW 1 Muktabai and it is clear to the point of having raped deceased Surekha. The learned Judge in para 20 has observed that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Ajay Pandurang Sonwane who forcibly raped Surekha against her will and consent. Therefore, learned Judge held that the prosecution has proved that on or before 30th June 2003 at village Bhamre Tq.Chalisgaon, accused no.2 Ajay Pandurang Sonwane had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and without her consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C. 8. Taking into consideration entire prosecution evidence and after hearing the applicant, the learned VI Ad hoc Asstt. Sessions Judge, Jalgaon convicted the accused Arjun Panduang Sonwane for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months. 9. The present applicant being aggrieved filed criminal appeal No.64/2004 before the Court of Sessions, Session Division, Jalgaon at Jalgaon. In said criminal appeal, the appellate Court formulated the points for its determination and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that on or before 30th June 2003 at village Bhamre Tq. Chalisgaon accused Ajay Sonawane has committed forcible intercourse with victim. The learned appellate court has recorded findings and reasons in support of his judgment and order from para 13 to 18 and further recorded findings in para 27 that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely correct, legal and proper. The learned appellate Court in para 28 has considered the quantum of the sentence and appeal was partly allowed. The sentence imposed on the applicant-accused is modified only on the point of fine. Instead of fine of Rs.25000/- accused/appellant to pay fine of Rs.10000/-. The conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C. came to be confirmed. 10. On careful perusal of the reasons recorded by the Courts below and appreciation of the evidence, I find that both the Courts have correctly recorded the findings and have come to the definite conclusion that the applicant has committed offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction under Section 376 of I.P.C. came to be confirmed. 10. On careful perusal of the reasons recorded by the Courts below and appreciation of the evidence, I find that both the Courts have correctly recorded the findings and have come to the definite conclusion that the applicant has committed offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. On independent reading of the evidence from the original record, the evidence unequivocally indicates that applicant has committed offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. The medical evidence, C.A. report, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly indicates that the applicant had committed the offence. The victim was mentally retarded girl. The D.N.A. clearly suggests the involvement of the present applicant. Taking into consideration entire evidence on record, the offence committed by the applicant is very heinous in nature. In fact, both the Courts have taken very very lenient view and convicted the applicant only for seven years and fine amount of Rs.10000/-. By any stretch of imagination viewed from any angle, the reasons given by the Courts below needs no interference. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is confirmed. This revision needs no interference, the revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. If there is any interim order, same stands vacated.