BHUPENDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 26 -4 -2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Bhupendra Sahu has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

(2.) SHRI Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant argued that on the date of incident, age of Prosecutrix (PW -1) was above 16 years. The documents produced by the prosecution relating to the age of Prosecutrix (PW -1) were not duly proved by it. He further argued that the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse. He further argued that looking to the medical evidence that the hymen of Prosecutrix (PW -1) was intact, no sexual intercourse appears to had been committed with Prosecutrix (PW -1). He further argued that the evidence of Prosecutrix (PW -1) does not inspire confidence. His further argument is that Prosecutrix (PW -1) had accompanied the appellant to Kondagaon at her own will. The judgment and findings of the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He placed reliance on Alamelu and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, : (2011) 2 SCC 385.

(3.) HAVING heard rival contentions of the parties at length, I have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 66/2004.