LUKESH ALIAS LOKESH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 18-3-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 161/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Lukesh alias Lokesh has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 376(1) IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo R. I. for two months. For each of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo R. I. for two months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the sentences awarded to the appellant are directed to run separately.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(3.) Shri N. S. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the age of prosecutrix Kirtanbai was above 18 years on the date of incident. He further argued that the conclusion reached by the trial Court is perverse. The evidence of the prosecutrix is full of inconsistences and contradictions, which destroys the root and foundation of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix left her home willingly. The prosecutrix had several opportunities to run away, but she did not do so. It appears that the prosecutrix is consenting party. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Sections 376(1) and 366 IPC. On the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years and she left her parental house willingly, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 363 IPC also. The finding of the trial Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel placed reliance on Alamelu and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 1 SCC(Cri) 688.