SEETAL RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.232 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.4.1996, Nohar Sai (PW1) and Pirobai (PW6), parents of a minor girl, i.e., the prosecutrix (PW9), had gone to the house of their relative (Samdhi). The prosecutrix (PW9) was alone at her house. Her parents returned home at about 2:00 a.m. At that time, they did not find the prosecutrix at home. On being searched, Larang Sai (not examined by the prosecution) told them that the Applicant took the prosecutrix towards Raigarh by a bus. First Information Report (Ex.P1) was lodged by Nohar Sai (PW1). The prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the Applicant vide Ex.P13. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix was alone at her house, the Applicant, threatening her of life, took her out of her house by dragging. He took her to Patthalgaon and committed rape with her there in a room. Thereafter, he took her to Raigarh. Thereafter, he took her to his house at his village. He kept her in his house and kept the door closed from outside. He also kept on committing rape with her at his house. He also kept on threatening her of life on her disclosing the matter to anyone. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. A. Minj (PW2). Her report is Ex.P5 in which she found the prosecutrix to be habitual to sexual intercourse. The Appellant was examined by Dr. P. Suthar (PW3). His report is Ex.P6 in which he found the Appellant to be capable of committing sexual intercourse. Ossification test of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. M.D. Joshi (PW4). His report is Ex.P7 in which he opined that the prosecutrix was aged about 17- 19 years. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) To bring home the offence against the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in his defence.