RAMCHANDRA KHUNTE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-03-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 19/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Ramchandra Khunte has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) and 506B, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 366, IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 376(1), IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 506B, IPC, in default of payment of total fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months; with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. For the offence under Section 363, IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded to the appellant. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that on the date of incident, the 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. Looking to the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), it appears that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. The evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) does not inspire confidence. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1). Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

(3.) On the contrary, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court.