DURGA PRASAD ALIAS BABLA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Special Judge Korea (Baikunthpur) in Special Case No. 06/2008 convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 3000 u/s 363, rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000 u/s 366 and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 7000 u/s 376 IPC, plus default stipulations.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that on 6.11.2007 a missing report Ex. P-23-C was lodged by Ram Prasad (PW-12) -the father of the prosecutrix alleging that his daughter was missing from 4.11.2007. It is alleged that on 7.11.2007 the prosecutrix returned home and on 19.11.2007 a complaint Ex. P-16 was filed by the prosecutrix through her father before the competent Court under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After direction of the Court investigation was done and ultimately on 14.12.2007 FIR Ex. P-17 was registered by the police against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) IPC and Section 3 (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the case of the prosecution, on 14.12.2007 itself the prosecutrix was medically examined vide Ex. P-8 by Dr. Swati Bansharia (PW-5). In case diary statement it is alleged by the prosecutrix that for last 5 years therefrom she was performing dance in the group of one Ambika Singh with the consent of her parents and was getting Rs. 500 per performance. It is alleged that the appellant herein had also formed a dance party and asked her to accompany him. As asked by the accused/appellant and after receiving the advance money of Rs. 100 from him she went to Sidhi (M.P.) in his company by obtaining consent from her mother where she stayed in the house of one Raja. However, in the evening the accused/appellant took her to an isolated place on a motorcycle, offered her some drink and then committed forcible sexual Intercourse with her. After investigation, challan was filed on 26.4.2008.

(3.) ON the other hand counsel for the respondent /State supports the judgment impugned and submits that a minor girl aged about 13-14 years was forcibly taken by the accused/appellant to Sidhi where taking advantage of her helplessness, committed rape on her. He submits that age of the prosecutrix has been duly proved by the prosecution on the basis of Ex. P-18 and P- 24-C. He submits that minor discrepancies in Ex. P-24-C have to be ignored in view of the statement of Sabnam (PW-16). In addition to this, counsel for the respondent/State submits that as per the X-ray report the age of the , prosecutrix comes to between 15 and 17 years and thus the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) IPC is strictly in accordance with law.