Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

stated that salwar, shirt and undergarments of minor prosecutrix took into possession and were sealed with seals in a parcel and thereafter given to I.O. along with pubic hairs.

She has stated that possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. She has stated that semen and blood were of detected in salwar. She has stated that she issued MLC Ext.PW4/B. She has stated that minor prosecutrix had rt disclosed her age 12 years. She has stated that she did not refer the minor prosecutrix for determination of dental and radiological age. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix was not produced before her and also denied suggestion that she did not examine minor prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that Ext.PW4/B is not correct.

16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that semen sample of appellant obtained and such samples of appellant did not match with semen present on salwar of minor prosecutrix worn by her at the time of incident and bed sheet and in absence of such evidence appellant cannot be convicted for offence of rape is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the chemical analyst report Ext.PW15/G placed on record. As per chemical analyst report Ext.PW15/G placed on record human blood and human semen was detected on salwar of .

minor prosecutrix and human semen was also detected upon semen sample of Sanjeev Kumar and human semen was also detected upon bed sheet which were took into possession vide seizure memo.

17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on of behalf of appellant that in alternative sexual intercourse was conducted with consent of minor prosecutrix and on this rt ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that minor prosecutrix was minor at the time of alleged incident. It is well settled that consent of minor is immaterial as per Clause VI of Section 375 IPC wherein rape is defined. In present case it is proved on record by way of positive oral as well as documentary evidence that prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of criminal offence of rape. Hence it is held that consent of minor is immaterial in rape cases.

PW4 has further stated that semen and blood was detected upon salwar of minor prosecutrix. PW4 Dr. Anajana Sharma has stated in positive manner when she appeared in witness box that recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out because semen and blood were detected upon salwar of minor prosecutrix. Oral testimony of PW4 is also corroborated by MLC Ext.PW4/B placed on record. It is also proved on record by way of testimony of PW14 Dr. Ravinder Sharma that appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse.