MAHENDRA @ GOLU Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2015, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Present appellant stands convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month, RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months, RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months and RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months, vide impugned judgment dated 23-5-2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 48/2014.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, allegation against the appellant is that he is said to have abducted the prosecutrix, who is aged about 17 years and eight months on, 14-2-2014 and had taken her to village Chilki, Tahsil Saja (Bemetara) and from there it is said that the appellant had taken the prosecutrix to Raipur where he kept her for a period of two months' time. Subsequently, a complaint was made by the parents of the prosecutrix in this regard and she was thereafter recovered from the rented house of the appellant at Raipur.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that present appellant and prosecutrix were known to each other and on the date of incident i.e., 14-2-2014 when the prosecutrix received a phone call from the appellant, she came out of the house and saw a Taxi car standing out of her house and she immediately boarded the said Taxi and went along with the appellant to Raipur on her own willing where the appellant is said to have married her on the next day i.e., 15-2-2014 and since they were staying together at Raipur and ultimately the prosecutrix was recovered by the Police on 4-4-2015. He further submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and her age has not been proved to be below 18 years. He further submits that PW/9 Mordhwaj Thakur is not a scribe of admission - rejection register. The statements of the PW/1 prosecutrix and PW/9 Mordhwaj Thakur do not support the case of prosecution. He further submits the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.