SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UMESH NARAYAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20 August, 1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 33/98. By the impugned judgment accused/appellant Sanjay Kumar has been convicted under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:-

(2.) In support of its case, the prosecution has examined prosecutrix (PW-1), Kamla (PW-2), Sandhya (PW-3), Revenue Inspector Ram Kumar Tiwari (PW-4), Assistant Sub-Inspector K.B. Singh (PW-5), Doctor Sunil Singh (PW-6), Doctor Smt. Sushama Sinha (PW-7), Head Master Marha Ram Sahu (PW-8), Nandulal (PW-9, father of the prosecutrix) and Mul Singh (PW-10). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

(3.) Shri Vishnu Koshta, 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 looking to the medical evidence and evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1), it is established that prosecutrix (PW-1) was a consenting party to sexual intercourse. Evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) does not inspire confidence. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He placed reliance on Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P., 2006 AIR(SC) 2157 and Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 314