SATINDER SINGH ALIAS SUNDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment dated 10. 12. 1007, the petitioner had been convicted under section 366 of the IPC. Vide order of sentence dated 14. 12. 2007 he had been sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine RI for six months.

(2.) THE petitioner as an under trial had undergone incarceration for about three months; after his conviction he remained in judicial custody from 14. 12. 2007 up to 26. 2. 2008 on which date he was granted bail; i. e. he had suffered total incarceration of about five months and twelve days.

(3.) THE short point urged before this court is that the testimony of PW-1 does not establishes that the petitioner is a guilty of the offence under Section 366 of the IPC. Counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the fact that the date of the birth of the petitioner sham as of 6. 1. 1990 has evidenced that on the date of incident i. e. on 30. 6. 2005 she was aged about 15 years and 5 months. It is also not in dispute that for an offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC the age of consent is 18 years. Admittedly, in this case the prosecutrix was a minor i. e. less than age of 18 years.