SANJAY RAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth 'the Act') and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Act and sentenced under Section 4 of the Act with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the relevant date, age of the prosecutrix (PW5) was about 14 years. Allegedly, on 5.3.2015 at about 7:00 p.m, near Anganbadi School, the Appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. On being searched by father of the prosecutrix, namely, Vijay Ram (PW7), the prosecutrix was found along with the Appellant. Vijay Ram (PW7) took the prosecutrix with him. On reaching home, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her parents. Report of the incident was not lodged due to fear of public defamation. It was further alleged that on 15.3.2015 in the evening, Vijay Ram (PW7) again saw that the Appellant was taking the prosecutrix towards the school. Having seen Vijay Ram (PW7), the Appellant left the prosecutrix there and fled. Vijay Ram (PW7) went to the house of the Appellant. On this, the Appellant committed marpeet with Vijay Ram (PW7). This was told by Vijay Ram (PW7) to the villagers. Thereafter, First Information Report (Ex.P12) was lodged by Vijay Ram (PW7). The prosecutrix (PW5) was medically examined by Dr. Manju Minz (PW1). Her report is Ex.P1. Regarding age of the prosecutrix, Dakhil-Kharij register (Ex.P4) was seized from Headmistress Anukampa (PW2). According to Ex.P4, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 1.7.2001. The Appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Lav Pandey (PW3). His report is Ex.P6. 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. Charges were framed against him under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt. No witness has been examined in his defence.