STTAE OF CHHATISGARH Vs. NAHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 10-8-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 157/993 acquitting the respondent of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC while convicting the respondent for the offence punishable u/S. 376 of the IPC and sentencing him only for the period already undergone.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 6-8-1993 Khelandas (P.W. 2) had gone to attend the hearing of a case in the Court of Khairagarh. When he returned to his home, his daughter was found missing. On search being made, she was not found in the village and the accused respondent, who was his neighbour, was also not there. On suspicion he searched for both the prosecutrix and accused and when they were not found, a missing report was lodged by him in the police Station Khairagarh on 7-8-1993 informing that during his search he came to know that the uncle of accused Mohan was residing in Bhilai and they might have gone there and on his further enquiry in Bhilai, he came to know that the prosecutrix was residing in the house of the accused. The police had gone to the house of Samaru where the prosecutrix was recovered and she was sent to medical examination. The accused was also medically examined. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Khelandas, offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC was registered against the respondent. After complete investigation, the challan was filed.

(3.) P.W. 2 Khelandas, has deposed that his daughter has studied in a school and at that time, he told the teacher that her date of birth was 14-7-1978. He has further stated that he noted her date of birth in copy book as 14-7- 1978 and on that basis this information was given. He has brought the copy book which was exhibited as Ex. P-6 where the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 14- 7-1978. P.W. 14 Kamta Prasad Tiwari, who was a School Assistant, has also deposed that at the time of admission of Kuntibai (P.W. 1) in the school, he had mentioned her date of birth as 14-7-1978 in the register on the basis of information given by her father. That apart, Dr. Smt. Jindani (P.W. 4) who examined the prosecutrix on 11-8-1993 has opined that the prosecutrix was aged above 15 years.