SHIVNARAYAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 2 -7 -1997 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 350/1996. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Shivnarayan has been convicted under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) SHRI Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant argued that FIR (Ex. P -8) was lodged at belated stage. In absence of proper explanation therefor, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. He further argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions and is not supported by independent witnesses. The age of the prosecutrix is not proved by the prosecution that she was below 16 years on the date of incident. She was tutored by her uncle Gyani Sao (PW -2). The prosecutrix did not sustain any external injury on her person. There was enmity between the family members of the prosecutrix and the appellant. The prosecution did not examine any independent witness. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel placed reliance on Manohar Lal vs. State of H.P., : 2011 (1) Crimes 665 (HP) and Tiharu and another vs. State of C.G., : 2006 (3) CGLJ 173.

(3.) HAVING heard rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 350/1996 with utmost circumspection. The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW -6) and the medical evidence.