SITARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sitaram stands convicted under Sections 363 & 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 5 years respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manendragarh in Sessions Trial No. 16/1988 on 2nd July 1990. While convicting the appellant under Sections 363 & 366 IPC he was acquitted of the charges framed under Section 368 IPC and other 3 co-accused persons were acquitted of all the charges framed against them i.e. under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 368 of IPC.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as under: On 20.5.1984, prosecutrix Sandhya @ Chameli (PW6) was residing in the house of her aunt in village Khongapani. In the night, she left the house of her aunt stating that she is going to answer the call of nature. Thereafter, she did not return. In fact, she went to the house of the appellant and stayed there for a night. In the morning, she was taken to Moharpara, Manendragarh. In Manendragarh accused 1 to 3 along with the prosecutrix boarded a bus and went to Dharamjaigarh, where they stayed in the house of accused No. 4. After staying there for some days, they came back to Manendragarh and against the prosecutrix was kept in the house of the appellant. On 30.5.1984, Ganpat Ram, father of prosecutrix, lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P2). On 1.6.1984, the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the appellant and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution came with a case that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 25.6.1971, therefore she was a minor and the accused persons were liable for punishment under the aforementioned sections of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. However, looking the overt act attributed, the appellant alone was held liable for conviction. He was convicted as aforementioned and other co-accused persons were acquitted.

(3.) Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the prosecution could not prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of incident and her conduct would show that she willing accompanied the appellant, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 363 & 366 IPC is bad in law.