SUBELAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd of December, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 6/94 by the Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_70_MPHC(CHHAT)1_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

(3.) Mr. Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the finding relating to age is perverse; the prosecution could not establish that the prosecutrix was a minor; the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant on her own and visited many places on bicycle and bus; she never made any complaint; therefore, she was a consenting party with the appellant.