Conviction under Section 376 IPC unsustainable where medical evidence of intact hymen contradicts allegations of repeated intercourse.

The victim (P.W.3), a 14-year-old student, went missing from her school in Rourkela on March 23, 1992

It was discovered that the appellant had taken her to Chhapra, Andhra Pradesh, where he allegedly married her and committed forcible sexual intercourse

The appellant was tried and convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela, on February 10, 1994, under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, and sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment

The trial court relied heavily on the prosecutrix's testimony and an ossification test placing her age between 15 and 17 years

1. Whether the conviction under Section 376 IPC is sustainable given the medical evidence contradicting the allegation of forcible intercourse?

2. Whether the conviction under Section 366 IPC remains valid regarding the kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship?

The Court applied Section 366 of the IPC, which pertains to kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or illicit intercourse, noting that in the case of a minor, the lack of resistance or "acquiescence" is immaterial

It further applied Section 376 of the IPC regarding rape, governed by the principle that while a prosecutrix's testimony is vital, it must be weighed against medical evidence that may render the prosecution's version improbable or raise reasonable doubt

The Court performed a reappraisal of the evidence, finding a significant discrepancy between the victim's testimony and the medical findings

While the victim alleged repeated sexual intercourse over a month, the medical expert (P.W.11) testified that her hymen was intact, there were no bodily injuries, and no spermatozoa were detected

The Court reasoned that these findings were inconsistent with the charge of rape, making the conviction under Section 376 IPC unsustainable

However, regarding Section 366 IPC, the Court found the evidence conclusive: the victim was a minor taken from the lawful guardianship of her parents by the accused

The ossification report and testimonies from the parents and school authorities confirmed she was under 18 at the time of the occurrence

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 366 IPC but modified the sentence... the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone