IMRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Imran challenges the impugned judgment dated May 22, 2000 convicting him for offence punishable under Sec. 376 Penal Code and the order on sentence dated May 26, 2000 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC. By the aforesaid impugned judgment Mohd Ali, Rahisa, Sakina and Rani were acquitted of the charges against them but Yusuf was convicted along with Imran. Crl A. No. 329/2001 filed by co- convict Yusuf was dismissed as infructuous on Dec. 10, 2007 as he had already undergone the period of sentence. Thus, this Court is only concerned with the present appeal of Imran.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Imran contends that the testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be totally unreliable, thus conviction under Sec. 376 Penal Code cannot be based upon it. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix PW-11 was below 15 years of age. As per the evidence on record the prosecutrix PW-11 was above 16 years of age and in view of the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, the appellant is required to be acquitted.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that with respect to the age of the prosecutrix, the school leaving certificate mentions the date of birth as May 4, 1982 and as per the bone age report submitted by PW-13, Dr. Rajpal, the age of the prosecutrix was above 14 years and below 16 years. It was further submitted that in the absence of challenge by the appellant during his examination, the same can be taken as proof of age of prosecutrix as per of the decision of this Court reported as 2010 (2) JCC 1056 Guddu Vs. State.