SURESH KUMAR SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction, whereby the trial Court has convicted him for committing offence under Section 376 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional SI for 6 months.

(2.) The prosecutrix (PW-5) lodged an FIR on 31.07.1997 alleging that about 4 months back, the appellant came to her house in the absence of her mother and committed forcible sexual intercourse on promise to marry. The appellant committed sexual intercourse twice on the first occasion and thereafter continued to commit sexual intercourse on promise to marry.

(3.) During the investigation, the prosecution recovered her mark sheet of 5th Class as Article-A, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 09.03.1983. During the medical examination, the prosecutrix was found to be habitual in performing sexual intercourse, however, she was not referred for radiological examination for ascertaining her age. Vide Ex-P-2, she was referred for medical examination for ascertaining the pregnancy. It is the case of the prosecution that when her menstrual cycle stopped and the prosecutrix was confronted by her mother on this aspect of the matter, she revealed that the appellant has committed forcible sexual intercourse on promise to marry. The radiological examination was suggested to ascertain the pregnancy and not for ascertaining the age.