INSHAR ALI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-09-1998 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in S.T. No.373 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (g) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 376 (2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prosecutrix (PW-2) is resident of village Bakalo and was working as labourer for her livelihood. On 13-10-1990, after doing labour work, prosecutrix (PW-2) was on her way to village and she took lift on cycle of Bisun (PW-3). While they were proceeding towards her village, in the evening at about 5-00 O' clock, the appellant with acquitted co-accused persons intercepted them in the middle of the road and by using force, prosecutrix (PW-2) was taken by the appellant with the help of acquitted co-accused persons on a bicycle to village Shrigarh, where she was confined and during night time, the appellant committed forceful sexual intercourse with her twice without her willingness and consent. The appellant gave Rs.80/- to the prosecutrix (PW-2) and released her from confinement in the morning. After reaching her village, she narrated about the incident to her parents. FIR (Ex. P-3) was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-2) in Police Station Ambikapur.

(3.) During the investigation, medico legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Smt. S.P. Jaiswal (PW-1) vide Ex. P-1. Clothes worn by the prosecutrix at that time were seized and sent for chemical examination to FSL. The appellant was also medically examined vide Ex. P-24. Age of the prosecutrix as informed was 16 years. Radiological test of prosecutrix (PW-2) was conducted by Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-6) and according to report of Radiologist, age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completing other investigative procedures, the appellant and acquitted accused persons were charged.