SHATRUDHAN PARDHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 23/4/2001, passed by the Special Judge of Special Court Raipur (C.G.) under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Sessions Trial No.297/2000, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_14_LAWS(CHH)4_2024_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that both the parties are residents of same village-Devgaon. In the intervening night of 23rd and 24th of June, 2000, the appellant went to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-5) who was below 16 years of age and took the prosecutrix to Bangolibhata and from there in a taxi to Raipur and then by bus to Patan. From there, he took her in his aunt-Fenkan Bai's house at village Karanja, Bhilai and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. Due to non-presence of her minor daughter at home, her father (PW-3) lodged a report at police station and also for the reason that the appellant was also not in the village. Therefore, a named FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the appellant at police station Kharora bearing Crime No.110/2000 on 24/06/2000. On 26/06/2000, father (PW-3) and uncle brought the prosecutrix from village Karanja and produced before the police station, and medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. The underwear and slides were sent for FSL to chemical examination. FSL report received negative. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix, no definite opinion was given regarding sexual intercourse. The doctor advised to do X-ray to check the age of the prosecutrix but ossification test was not conducted. The school admission register of school of prosecutrix (Ex.P-2) and transfer certificate (Ex.P-3) were seized, according to which, date of birth of prosecutrix was recorded as 20/05/1983. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statements of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied circumstances appearing against him in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.