ANTRAM KANWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction dtd. 12/4/1999 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 143/1996 whereby and whereunder, he has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(2.) In brief, the prosecution story is that the victim was residing with her father at village " Amatoili and on the date of incident i.e. on 24/4/1996 at about 12 pm when her brother Sundar Sai came to home, then the victim was not available. He made search of the victim, then Gorakhnath told him that he has seen the victim along with the appellant below Mahua tree. He went there, but the victim was not found. He lodged report before the police station. On the date of incident the victim was aged about 16 years. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had allured the victim and has taken the victim to village Gahira where he kept the victim for 9 days, then he came back to Amatoili and kept her in his house. During this period the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. The victim was medically examined and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him. He abjured the charges and faced the trial.

(3.) To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely PW/1 Shivratandas, PW/2 Dr. A. Minj, PW/3 Dr. V,D, Paswan, PW/4 Laxmansingh Thakur, PW/5 Bulu, PW/6 Partas Toppo, constable PW/7 B.L. Kehri, PW/8 Sundarsai, , brother of the victim PW/9 Gorakhnath, PW/10 Victim, PW/11 Agarsai, PW/12 Ganjharam and PW/13 Kasil Minj, Assistant Subinspector. The appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C and he examined DW/1 Satyanarayan Das who has stated that because of rivalry between father of the victim and father of the appellant, the appellant has been falsely implicated.