Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) One of the first signs of the beginning of puberty is chiefly on the base of penis or along labia, when there are few long slightly pigmented and curled or straight downy hair;
b) The hair is coarser, darker and more curled, and spread sparsely over the junction of pubis;
c) More or less like an adult, but only a smaller area is covered, no hair on the medial surface of thighs;

The development of the breasts in girls commences from 13 to 14 years of age; however, it is liable to be affected by loose habits and social environments. During adolescence, the hormone flux acts and the breasts develop through the following stages:

i) Breasts and papilla are elevated as a small mound, and there is enlargement of areolar diameter.
ii) More elevation and enlargement of breast and areola, but their contours are not separate.
iii) Areola and papilla project over the level of the breast.
iv) Adult stage - only the papilla projects and the areola merges with the general contour of the breast.

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Virendra @ Buddhu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 16 SCC 582.

32. The case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.

Shri Anip Sachthey, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the prosecutrix was a major on the date of incident and that it was a clear case of consent. The Trial Court as well as the High Court examined the issue involved herein very minutely. Dr. Rupa Lalwani (PW-3), who had examined the prosecutrix on 7.12.1988, has stated that in the examination she found that there were in all 28 teeth in both the jaws; her breast had developed a little; the armpit hairs were in its initial stage; but there were pubic hair present around her vagina. On the basis of this, she opined that at relevant time, prosecutrix was aged between 12 and 14 years. As the statement of Dr. Rupa Lalwani (PW-3) makes it clear that the prosecutrix Asha @ Gopi had very little developed breast and the growth of her armpit hair was at its initial/first stage, the Court believed that she was below 16 years of age. Undoubtedly, Asha @ Gopi, the prosecutrix had stated in her deposition that she was sent for a Radiological Test to Jabalpur and she could not explain as to why the report of the Radiological Test could not be produced before the Trial Court. In fact, the circumstances under which the report of the Radiological Test could not be produced before the Trial Court, would have been explained only by the Investigating Officer. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to show that the defence had put any such question to the I.O. during his examination before the Trial Court. In our opinion, the I.O. was the only competent person to throw light on the issue of the non-production of the report of the Radiological Test and in the facts and circumstances of this case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this issue. More so, the prosecution had no control over prosecuting agency. Same remains the position for not holding the Test Identification Parade in this case.