SARJU SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg in Sessions Trial No.189 of 1998 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

(2.) According to the case of prosecution, at the time of incident, age of the prosecutrix (PW1) was about 14 years. On 25.2.1998 at about 5 p.m., when the prosecutrix was going towards a nala (drainage) of her village and when she reached near the house of the Appellant, at that time, the Appellant along with co-accused Kamlabai (acquitted) came out of his house and they caught the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix tried to scream. It is alleged that she was taken inside the house and thereafter she was threatened. Thereafter both the accused persons bolted the door of the house and went out. At about 8 p.m., the Appellant returned home and thereafter he committed five times forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during that night. Thereafter, on 27.2.1998, the matter was reported by the prosecutrix vide First Information Report (Ex.P18). She was medically examined by Dr. Mamta Pandey (PW3). Her report is Ex.P1. To determine age of the prosecutrix, her ossification test was conducted by Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW10). His report is Ex.P23 in which he opined that at the time of examination, age of the prosecutrix was about 14 years. Statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence.