SHEESHPAL @ PALE AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated Nov. 24, 2000, Sheeshpal alias Pale and Virender alias Kalu were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376/342/34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated Nov. 26, 2000, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 342 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecutrix has made several material improvements in her examination-in-chief and has been confronted with her statements recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. Brother of the prosecutrix Yogesh has neither been examined by the investigating agency under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C. nor as a witness before the Court. Furthermore, the prosecutrix has neither handed over her clothes to the investigating officer nor the investigating agency has asked for the same and this aspect has been admitted by the Investigating Officer PW-12 SI Lokenter Singh in his cross-examination.

(3.) It is further contended that PW-4 mother of the prosecutrix has admitted in her cross-examination that she was running a Dhaba. She also admitted that she used to sell liquor from that Dhaba, which further establishes the defence of the appellants. The testimony of PW-10, Dr. Rachna Yadav reveals that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 14 years but less than 16 years. The learned Trial Court erroneously held that after taking a margin of 2 years, her age comes to be less than 18 years. Lastly, it was contented that there was a considerable and unexplained delay of 14 days in recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. on Dec. 3, 1997 while the FIR was registered on Nov. 18, 1997.