JOHN MANEUL FELSHA DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned a. P. P. were heard on the last date.

(2.) Offence registered against the applicant is under section 366 and section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the prosecutrix is that the Applicant represented to her that he was owner of fairly a large property and that he will marry with the prosecutrix. The allegation of the prosecutrix is that from April, 2004 to August, 2004 time and again the Applicant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. As a result the prosecutrix conceived and on 7th December, 2004 a baby girl was born. The F. I. R. is filed by the prosecutrix on 11th December, 2004 i. e. five days after she gave birth to a child. There are statements of the other witnesses recorded, who have supported the version of the prosecutrix.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that apart from the fact that there is gross delay in filing the F. I. R. , there is a report submitted by the Assistant chemical Analyser of the Government forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai. The report is based on the DNA extracted from the blood samples of the prosecutrix, the child and the Applicant. The opinion recorded in the said report is that the Applicant is excluded to be the biological father of the child. He submitted that the report is sufficient to create a serious doubt about the version of the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004 ALLMR (Cri. ) page 1 (Sayed malloomiyah Sayed Vs. State of maharashtra).