RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case in brief are that on 03.01.1999 at about 6 PM the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 12 years had gone to Baikunthpur market with her sister Basanta and brother-in-law Raju @ Rajiv (PW-2) where her neighbour Rakhi (PW-4) met her and sprinkled some substance on her head which made her mental state disturbed. Case of the prosecution further discloses that thereafter PW-1 refused to accompany her brother-in-law and rather agreed to go in the company of Rakhi (PW-4). Subsequently, her brother-in-law (PW-2) went away along with Basanta. Thereafter, the prosecutrix accompanied Rakhi (PW-4) and the accused/appellant herein to the bus stand where accused gave her Rs.10 and asked her not to make the disclosure to anyone. Saying so, the accused and the prosecutrix boarded a jeep and went to a place known as Chhote Bazar from where he took her to the house of his brother-in-law namely Pati (PW-7) at Bhaiyathan. They stayed together in the house of PW-7 and during their stay the accused physically exploited her on two occasions against her will and without her consent. On coming to know about this development through Raju @ Rajiv (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix namely Chiraunji Prasad (PW-3) made a search operation and ultimately recovered her from the house of PW-7. On being recovered, she narrated the entire incident of being taken away, kept in the house of PW-7 and her subjection to forcible sexual intercourse with her on two occasions by the accused. This led the prosecutrix to lodge report Ex.P-1 on 12.01.1999 i.e. with a lapse of about a week therefrom on the basis of which offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were registered against the accused/appellant. After medical examination of the prosecutrix and completion of investigation-related formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under the same sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below by its judgment dated 16.10.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.162/1999 convicted the accused/appellant under all the aforesaid three sections and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.200 on two counts i.e. under Sections 363 and 366 and to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.200 under Section 376 IPC, plus default stipulations. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the factum of prosecutrix being minor at the relevant time but yet the Court below has fallen in a serious legal error and held the accused guilty under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC which is blatantly illegal. He further submits that the accused stayed in the house of the prosecutrix where some intimacy got developed between the two and even their marriage was settled but remained in limbo for some reason or the other, which goes to demonstrate that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused and surrendered herself at his disposal with consent. He further submits that the incident had taken place on 03.01.1999 whereas the report came to be lodged on 12.01.1999 involving a substantial period of more than a week, but no satisfactory explanation has come forth from the prosecution regarding such inordinate delay.