ANURAG PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Copy of the supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173 (8) dated 15.11.2017 has been submitted on behalf of the State. On behalf of the applicant it has been contended that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in a relationship for a period of 4 years and that there are conversations between them on the mobile phone as also admitted by the prosecutrix.

(2.) As per the status report that has been submitted by the State, it has been contended that the averments made in the FIR and the statement recorded under 164 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix are to the effect that the prosecutrix was at all times under fear and was forced to enter into a relationship with the applicant.

(3.) The matter is informed to be at the stage of arguments on charge before the learned trial Court. The IO of the case SI Ranjana is present in court and in reply to a specific court query, has submitted that the prosecutrix is about 22 years of age. The Investigating Officer further states that the prosecutrix was an adult at the time of the commission of alleged offence.