BUDHIYO CHHAGANBHAI VAGHRI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Secs. 376, 366A and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1989. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not pass any order regarding sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, though he convicted the accused for the said offence. The sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently. The appellantaccused has challenged the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 2/04/1989 at about 10-30 p.m. the accused took and enticed P. W. 5 Bhavna Exh. 24, who is the minor daughter of P. W. 6 Gangaram Lilaram Exh. 26 and P. W. 7 Kasturiben Gangaram Exh. 29, out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of her said parents and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also the prosecution case that the accused enticed prosecutrix Bhavna, aged 13 years at the time of the incident, to go from Rajkot to Godhra, Surat, Kheda and to do any act with intent that the minor girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person and that the accused committed rape on prosecutrix Bhavna, who was under 16 years of age, without her consent, at Kheda, on or about 3/04/1989 and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Secs. 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. .... .... .... .... .... ....

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix Bhavna, examined P. W. 1 Dr. Vijay Arjanbhai Nagrecha at Exh. 10 and also P. W. 3, Dr. Kamlesh Prabhudas Domadiya at Exh. 22, who was working as a Radiologist at the relevant time in the Civil Hospital, Rajkot, Several radiological tests were taken in respect of the prosecutrix Bhavna. The report of the radiologist is at Exh. 12. The X-ray plate is at Exh. 13 and the medical report is at Exh.