JUDGMENT : SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 17/03/2017 passed by the Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No.11/2016, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(l) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 08/12/2015, a report was lodged by the prosecutrix before the Police Station Khadgawa of District Korea, alleging therein, that on the date of incident, i.e., 06/12/2015 at about 11:00 AM, when she was collecting woods from ‘Chopan Jungle’, the respondent/accused- Ramchandra Sahu @ Kauwa reached there and caught hold of her and took her to ‘Ratanjot Jungle’ side and has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully and, one Mankuwar Markam, who was present there, while roaming her goats, has seen the respondent taking her towards the jungle. It is alleged further that she disclosed the alleged incident to her mother, when she reached while searching her and, thereafter informed the alleged fact to her father as well. 3. Based upon the aforesaid report, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered by the concerned Police Station on 08/12/2015 in connection with Crime No.210/2015 against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC read with Sections 3(1) (xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act and, during investigation, the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Rajshri Singh (PW-6) on 08/12/2015, who has submitted her report (Ex.P-6), opining that she is mentally ill and has seen the symptoms of forceful sexual intercourse, which was committed upon her within 48-72 hours and for STD, HIV and confirmation of her mental status, she was referred to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur and the said test was conducted by Dr. Rajshri Singh (PW-6) on 08/12/2015, who has submitted her report (Ex.P-6), opining that she is mentally ill and has seen the symptoms of forceful sexual intercourse, which was committed upon her within 48-72 hours and for STD, HIV and confirmation of her mental status, she was referred to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur and the said test was conducted by Dr. Satish Shrivastava (PW-9) of State Mental Hospital, Sendri, Bilaspur, who vide his report (Ex.P-11) found that she is suffering from mild mental retardation (clinically with psychosis) and, the undergarment of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-13 on 08/12/2015 alongwith her slides, while undergarment of the respondent/accused on 09/12/2015 vide Ex.P-14 and, were sent for chemical examination vide memo dated 18/12/2015 (Ex.P-5) and the FSL report (Ex.P-19) was, accordingly, placed on record, wherein, human sperm was found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as the respondent/accused, but was not found to be sufficient for its serological test. After completing the usual investigation, as such, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, Baikunthpur, where the charge has been framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act and, the charges, so framed, were denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the alleged act was done by the respondent with the prosecutrix and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the alleged act was done by the respondent with the prosecutrix and accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her parents (PW-2 and PW-3), vis-a-vis, the FSL report (Ex.P-19), where the human sperm was found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as the respondent, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while referring to the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2 and PW-3), submits that none of these witnesses have stated anywhere that the alleged act was done by the respondent with her. It is contended further that one Mankuwar Markam was present, when the alleged act was done with her, but, she was not examined, nor the DNA profile test was conducted as required under Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the commission of the alleged crime. In support, he placed reliance upon the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 . 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, with regard to the incident occurred on 06/12/2015, when the prosecutrix was collecting the woods from ‘Chopan Jungle’ where the respondent/accused-Ramchandra Sahu @ Kauwa came and caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. 10. 10. In order to establish the alleged fact, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and it appears from her testimony that on the said fateful day, she has not met with the respondent- Ramchandra Sahu and, deposed further that, as per the instructions of her parents, she has lodged the alleged report (Ex.P-3) and deposed further at paragraph 7, that the respondent has not committed sexual intercourse with her. Her father was examined as PW-2 and according to him, he was informed by his wife that his daughter has been dragged by the respondent and deposed further that nothing was informed to him by his daughter with regard to the alleged incident and is narrating, whatever, he received from his wife. According to the statement of his wife (PW-3), it reveals that she was informed by one Mankuwar Markam that her daughter has been dragged by the respondent-Ramchandra Sahu, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she (Mankuwar Markam), the key witness, was not examined. 11. It is to be seen further that although, it was stated by her (PW-3) that her daughter informed her that the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her and assaulted her also and she has seen injuries on her cheeks, but, from her cross-examination, particularly paragraph 9, it appears that there was a previous enmity with the respondent and that was the reason why, she has lodged a false report against him. 12. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecutrix and her parents, as observed herein-above, vis-a-vis, non-examination of said Mankuwar Markam, it is difficult to hold that on the said fateful day, i.e.,06/12/2015 at 11:00 AM, the alleged act was done by the respondent with the prosecutrix. 13. It appears further from a bare perusal of the record that on account of the alleged incident, the undergarment of the prosecutrix was recovered on 08/12/2015 vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-13), while the undergarment of the respondent, vide Ex.P-14 on 09/12/2015 and were sent for chemical examination vide memo dated 18.12.2015 (Ex.P-5) and the FSL Report (Ex.P-19) was placed on record, which shows that human semen was found on the alleged undergarments recovered from the prosecutrix as well as from the respondent. Although, the FSL Report (Ex.P-19) reveals the alleged fact as such, but, in order to ascertain as to whether the alleged semen of the respondent was found on the alleged article of the prosecutrix or was it matched, however, the same was not established by the prosecution as required under Section 53-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishan Kumar Malik (Supra), as relied upon by Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, wherein it was held at para-44, as under:- "44. Now, after the incorporation of Section 53-A in the Criminal Procedure Code w.e.f. 23.06.2006, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the respondent State, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in Cr. P.C., the prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a foolproof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences." 14. Applying the aforesaid principle to the case in hand and, in absence of the examination of the DNA test of the respondent as required under Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C. no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged FSL Report (EX.P-19) and, the trial court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 15. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.