SANJAY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 26/3/2003 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 231/2002, whereby, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_107_LAWS(CHH)10_2019_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW-6) resides with her parents in Charoda, Bhilai. On 29/6/2002, First Information Report (FIR Ex.-P/2) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-6) against accused/Appellant Sanjay @ Tarkeshwar Sahu that on 28/6/2002, she had gone to her brother-in-law's house which is situated in Zone-I BMY Charoda for taking cassette. While prosecutrix the was returning to her house at about 05:00 pm, the accused/Appellant came by motorcycle near the railway running room and requested her to sit on the motorcycle for dropping her at her house and the prosecutrix believing the same sat on his motorcycle. But, instead of taking her to her house, the appellant took her towards Raipur despite her repeated objection. In Raipur the Appellant took the prosecutrix to a garden and asked her for marriage and put vermilion (Sindoor) on her hair-parting. Thereafter, Appellant Sanjay came to his house at Bilaspur with the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In Bilaspur Appellant introduced the prosecutrix to his neighbour Sohan Sahu (PW-1) as his sister-in-law. On the next day morning i.e. 29/6/2002 prosecutrix asked the Appellant/accused to drop her at Bhilai Station and prosecutrix thereafter came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother Usha Rani (PW-5). Therefore, FIR (Ex.-P/2) was lodged on 29/6/2002 against the Appellant/accused under Ss. 363, 366, 376 and 506B of IPC in police station GRP, outpost Charoda, Durg.

(3.) After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/Appellant under Ss. 363, 366, 376 and 506B of IPC and while framing the charges, the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) framed the charge under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.