DEVISING Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Sessions Trial No.10/2014 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366 of IPC & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years, fine of Rs. 200/-; RI for seven years, fine of Rs. 200/- and RI for twelve years, fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 3.1.2014 FIR (Ex.P/9) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-6) alleging therein that on 18.11.2013 while she was returning from market, the accused/appellant met her on the way, he expressed his desire to marry her and then took her in a taxi to Jagdalpur. She states that from Jagdalpur she was taken to Nagarnar where they stayed in the house of friend of the appellant. According to the prosecutrix, she was subjected to physical relation by the appellant in the said house. She has further states that she was made to stay in the said house for about 20 days under threat of life and thereafter, on 7.12013 she was taken to the house of aunt of the appellant where they stayed for about 15 days. She states that during all this period she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant against her wish and without her consent under the threat of her life. On 21.12013 the appellant took her to his house where they stayed till 1.2014 when she was dropped to her house. Based on this report, offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-2 Dr. Sarita Mahobia vide Ex.P/3 on 3.2014 who did not notice any external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix, her hymen was old torn, her vagina admitted two fingers easily and that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. The appellant was also medically examined vide Ex.P/1 by PW-1 Dr. BD Rai who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 201 The trial Court charged the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 201

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also 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.