STATE Vs. RAJ PAL @ RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.M.A. No. 4808/2014

(2.) In the present case, the amendments made to Section 375 IPC vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, effective from 3rd February, 2013 would not be applicable, for the reason that as per the charge sheet, the prosecutrix had gone missing on 2nd February, 2012 and was recovered along with the respondent-Raj Pal on 23rd February, 2012.

(3.) On the question of consent, the trial court in the impugned judgment has recorded a finding in favour of the respondent. We are inclined to accept the said finding. The parents of the prosecutrix Kiran (PW-3) and Ram Pal (PW-4) have endorsed that the respondent was their distinct relative, indicating that the prosecutrix and the respondent knew each other. Ram Pal (PW-4) accepted and admitted the photographs Exhibit PW-4/DA1 to DA5, which show that the respondent and the prosecutrix were friendly and extremely close to each other.