JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-6-1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 285/1998 convicting the appellant under section 376, Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to suffer 3 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of 7 days, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that the wife of the accused, namely, Sunita and the prosecutrix were well known to each other and they used to go to each other's house frequently. On the date of incident i.e. 1-8-1998 the wife of the accused Sunita called the prosecutrix at her home to have interaction with each other. Thereafter, she went to evacuate after leaving her child nearby the prosecutrix. All of a sudden, the accused to whom the prosecutrix used to say Jijaji (brother-in-law) arrived there and caught hold of the prosecutrix and also committed rape over her. At that juncture, the father of the prosecutrix Ram Bharose arrived and after managing to get outer door opened, he took out the prosecutrix from the room. 3. Thereafter, FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix in the concerning police station and on registering the case, she was sent for medical examination in which her age was found to be 16 years. The accused was also arrested and was sent for medical examination in which injury was found on his neck, left arm as well as two abrasions on the shoulders. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix also, two abrasions on her right breast were found. 4. A charge-sheet was submitted under sections 376 and 506 later part Indian Penal Code in the committal Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellant was tried. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges punishable under sections 376 and 506 later part of Indian Penal Code. Needless to say, the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and also proved the documents Ex. P/1 to P/8 on record. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges punishable under sections 376 and 506 later part of Indian Penal Code. Needless to say, the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and also proved the documents Ex. P/1 to P/8 on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication which he also stated in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. However, in support of his defence, accused examined his own wife Sunita as DW-1. 6. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that charge under section 506 later part Indian Penal Code has not been proved and eventually acquitted the appellant from the said charge. However, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, charge under section 376, Indian Penal Code was found to be proved as a result of which the appellant has been convicted and has been directed to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant has been forcibly roped in the case for the simple reason that two days earlier to the alleged incident there was a quarrel between him and Ram Bharose who is the father of the prosecutrix and in order to allay the revenge, a false case has been cooked by him. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire any confidence and, therefore, looking to her evidence since the offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code is not proved, he be acquitted. 9. On the other hand Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. It is well settled in law that when the accused is prosecuted for some sexual offence, the evidence of prosecutrix alone is required to be considered and no corroboration is needed, but, at the same time her testimony should inspire full confidence so as to infer that accused has committed that particular offence. 11. It is well settled in law that when the accused is prosecuted for some sexual offence, the evidence of prosecutrix alone is required to be considered and no corroboration is needed, but, at the same time her testimony should inspire full confidence so as to infer that accused has committed that particular offence. By keeping this well settled law in my mind, I shall scan the testimony of prosecutrix. 12. According to the prosecutrix, on the fateful day at about 12.00 in the afternoon when she was at her home along with her parents, one boy of her Village Mattu came twice and thrice and told that Sunita (wife of the appellant) has called her. She replied that at present she is taking her bath. Again said boy Mattu came and told that Sunita is calling her. On this, her mother gave permission to the prosecutrix to go as a result of which the prosecutrix went to the house of Sunita and asked why she has called her? In reply said Sunita answered that she was sitting lonely and, therefore, she has called her. Both of them were interacting and after some time said Sunita told that she is going to evacuate and went away from her house. After some time, appellant came and caught hold of her hand. The prosecutrix resisted and asked to release her hand but he did not accept her request. On the contrary when she started shouting appellant pressed her neck. Thereafter appellant bolted the room from inside and took off her clothes. He also gave threat that in case prosecutrix would scream she will be killed. Thereafter appellant also took out his clothes and pressed her breasts and thereafter committed rape over her. In her testimony she has specifically stated about the penetration as envisaged under section 375, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, her father arrived and on seeing him appellant rushed to beat him. The village persons also assembled there. Thereafter, prosecutrix went to lodge the report in the police station and put her thumb impression on the FIR. The FIR was also read over to her in the Court and she accepted the contents mentioned in it. Further she has stated that from police station she was sent for medical examination. The village persons also assembled there. Thereafter, prosecutrix went to lodge the report in the police station and put her thumb impression on the FIR. The FIR was also read over to her in the Court and she accepted the contents mentioned in it. Further she has stated that from police station she was sent for medical examination. It has also been put forth by the prosecutrix that she was wearing ear rings, mangalsutra (a necklace being worn by married girls and ladies,) as well as payjeb (anklet with bells) in her legs but during the scuffle and on account of rape committed by the appellant forcibly, one ear ring and one payal from her leg fell at the place where the appellant was committing rape. In cross examination she has admitted that she is a married girl. It has also been deposed by her in para 10 of her cross examination that on hearing her screaming his younger brother who was just passing away from the house of appellant called his father. It has come in her testimony that the house of the prosecutrix is nearby the house of the appellant. After examining her testimony from all the angles, nothing has been carved out from her cross-examination except certain minor omissions and contradictions which have no bearing to falsify the evidence of the prosecutrix in order to hold that she is a lier or is saying untrue version. 13. The statement of prosecutrix is that when she was screaming appellant pressed her neck and while committing the vile act of rape, he pressed her breasts also. This evidence of the prosecutrix is also corroborated from the medical evidence. The prosecutrix was examined by two doctors one lady doctor Sandhya (not examined) and also Dr. C. M. Tiwari (PW-7). On examining the prosecutrix it was found that on her right breast there were two scratches although on her private part no injury was found. The prosecutrix was examined on 1-8-1998 and the date of incident is also 1-8-1998. True, the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be torn and healed, but, one should not forget that prosecutrix is a married girl. The lady doctor Sandhya and Dr. Tiwari (PW-7) referred the prosecutrix for her age verification. Eventually, Dr. Ashok Sharma, Junior Forensic Specialist (PW-4) examined the prosecutrix in order to ascertain her age. Dr. True, the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be torn and healed, but, one should not forget that prosecutrix is a married girl. The lady doctor Sandhya and Dr. Tiwari (PW-7) referred the prosecutrix for her age verification. Eventually, Dr. Ashok Sharma, Junior Forensic Specialist (PW-4) examined the prosecutrix in order to ascertain her age. Dr. Sharma opined that age of prosecutrix was 15 years with a variation of six months on either side. Thus, looking to the injuries of abrasions on her right breast, the testimony of prosecutrix that while committing rape over her by the appellant forcibly, she received injuries on her breast, is corroborated by medical evidence also. 14. At this juncture only it would be condign to go through the testimony of Dr. C. S. Jain (PW-6) who examined the appellant on 3-8-1998 i.e. two days after the incident. On examining him it was found that he was having two abrasions 0.4 x 1 cm each on the right anterior aspect of neck and two abrasions on shoulders 5x0.5 cm as well as there was one more abrasion 5 cm. longitudinally placed on the chest. He was also having abrasion on his forearms. According to the doctor, except the injuries on his neck, all other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries on the neck were opined that it may have been caused by nails. The injuries were caused within 36 to 72 hours. 15. By keeping the testimony of prosecutrix in juxtaposition with that of her medical examination report (Ex. P/7) and that of the medical examination report of the appellant (Ex. P/6) and by reading these two reports conjointly along with the testimony of the prosecutrix, it can safely be inferred that she was not a consenting party. The prosecutrix has already deposed that against her wishes and will she was ravished by the appellant and the appellant forcibly committed rape over her. There are injuries on the breast of prosecutrix and nail injuries on the anterior part of the neck of the appellant which indicates that prosecutrix was resisting the act of rape of the appellant. Hence, I am of the view that learned Trial Court rightly held that rape was committed by the appellant over the prosecutrix against her consent. 16. There are injuries on the breast of prosecutrix and nail injuries on the anterior part of the neck of the appellant which indicates that prosecutrix was resisting the act of rape of the appellant. Hence, I am of the view that learned Trial Court rightly held that rape was committed by the appellant over the prosecutrix against her consent. 16. Apart from what I have held hereinabove, the evidence of the prosecutrix that against her will and wishes she was ravished by the appellant appears to be correct because one payjeb of her leg and one ear ring fell and was separated from her body and were lying at the place where she was ravished by the appellant and which has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/3). If she would have been a consenting party, one payjeb and one ear ring would not have fallen. Thus, it indicates that prosecutrix was forcibly raped by the appellant. 17. True, the learned Trial Court has found that the age of prosecutrix must be between 18 to 19 years, but, merely she was having that age, it cannot be said that appellant has not committed any offence. I have held hereinabove that no consent was given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with the appellant and, therefore, even if it can be said that her age was between 18 to 19 years, it cannot be said that appellant has not committed the offence punishable under section 376, Indian Penal Code. 18. I fail to understand why the learned Trial Court has taken a lenient view in passing the sentence of three years only which is much less than the minimum sentence of seven years to convict an accused who has been found guilty of committing rape. The only reason which has been assigned is that he did not think to pass minimum sentence. According to me, this could hardly be a ground to pass a sentence less than that of minimum sentence under section 376, Indian Penal Code. But another unfortunate part of the case is that State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the sentence. This appeal is of the year 1999 and after lapse of near about 13 years, I do not think it proper to exercise suo motu powers to issue notice for enhancement of the sentence. 19. But another unfortunate part of the case is that State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the sentence. This appeal is of the year 1999 and after lapse of near about 13 years, I do not think it proper to exercise suo motu powers to issue notice for enhancement of the sentence. 19. Before parting with the decision, I would like to state why along with lady doctor Sandhya, Dr. C. M. Tiwari (PW-7) of Sultaniya Hospital, Bhopal examined the prosecutrix including her internal examination and her private parts etc. To me, normally a male doctor should not be permitted to do so, particularly when the lady doctor was present and she examined the prosecutrix. 20. Similarly, at the same time, I would like to state here that Dr. Sandhya and Dr. Tiwari referred the prosecutrix for age verification to the Radiologist through Ex. P/7 dated 1-8-1998 and, therefore, Dr. Ashok Sharma, Junior Forensic Specialist of Medico Legal Cell, Bhopal (PW-4) was only required to examine the prosecutrix radiologically by performing ossification test in order to ascertain her age. This Court fails to understand that why this doctor took off the clothes of the prosecutrix and examined the size of her pubic hair, vagina, labia majora, breasts including the areola part and nipple. Indeed, he was required to take X-ray of her elbow joints etc. and to examine her teeth which he rightly did but he was not at all supposed to examine the other parts of the prosecutrix including her private part, breasts etc. after taking off her clothes. On bare perusal of the medical report of lady doctor Sandhya and Dr. C. M. Tiwari (PW-7), it is gathered that only for age verification the prosecutrix was referred to him and nothing more. According to me, for the verification of age, vagina, pubic hair, its length and the origin of pubic hair etc. as well as the examination of breasts were not required to be done by the said doctor. True, before examining her, the consent of prosecutrix was taken but the consent of her father or mother was never taken which is normally taken, since it does not appear from the document Ex. P/4. 21. as well as the examination of breasts were not required to be done by the said doctor. True, before examining her, the consent of prosecutrix was taken but the consent of her father or mother was never taken which is normally taken, since it does not appear from the document Ex. P/4. 21. The said doctor (PW-4) found that on the left and right upper jaw of the prosecutrix 14 teeth were found (7 on each side) and in the lower jaw all the teeth were present and the 8th tooth of each side was in primary stage. The joints of her elbows were found to be fused. The upper ends of her humerous bone were found to be fused but the lower ends were about to fix. The lower ends of femur bone and the upper ends of tibia bone were already come nearby to each other and there was a partial fusion. The lower ends of tibia bone were completely fused. According to this witness, in these state of affairs, the age between 16 to 18 years stated by Dr. Mody in his book Medical Jurisprudence is incorrect and according to this witness, in these state of affairs, the age of prosecutrix would be 15 years with a variation of 6 months on either side. But no reason has been assigned in his cross-examination by this doctor for disowning Dr. Mody on his book medical jurisprudence. The learned Trial Court rightly came to hold that the age of prosecutrix must have been between 18 to 19 years. 22. Since Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-4) was not required to examine the private parts and breasts of the prosecutrix but despite it he examined her, the Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. as well as Principal Secretary (Health) are hereby directed to call explanation from the said doctor Anil Sharma who on 2-8-1998 was posted as Junior Forensic Specialist in Medico Legal Cell, Bhopal and if necessary, may take necessary action against him in accordance with law. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with the statement of Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-4) and the report given by him (Ex. P/4) be sent to Chief Secretary State of M.P. and Principal Secretary (Health) to do the needful. Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to do the needful in this regard. 24. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.