SONA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2002 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Durg in S.T. No.281/01 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and sentencing him to undergo RI for 03 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months; R.I. for 07 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months, and R.I. for 10 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months respectively.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 2.6.2001 while the prosecutrix was returning to her house from Newai Dam after taking bath, the accused/appellant forcibly took the prosecutrix with him to Maroda Railway Station. Durg from where he firstly took her to Banjari, Dharsiva where they stayed for 10 to 12 days and thereafter he took the prosecutrix to Sakti, Korba and stayed there. During this period of about 28 days, the accused/appellant had sexual period of about 28 days, the accused/appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, when the prosecutrix was found missing, a report (Ex.P-10) was lodged by PW-1 Ghasiram, father of the prosecutrix. After return of the accused/appellant & the prosecutrix, on the basis of statement made by the prosecutrix, FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Madhu Shrivastava (PW-4) on 01.07.2001 vide Ex.P-4. X-ray of the prosecutrix was taken on 2.7.2001 by Dr. S.A. Mangde (PW-6) who opined her age to be approximately 15 years with a margin of 1 to 3 years on either side. After filing of charge sheet, charges were framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.