RUPIN SOMABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 02. 2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 5/2001, whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 363 and 376 IPC. For conviction u/s. 363 IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I. for a further period of six months. For conviction u/s. 376 IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I. for a further period of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts in brief of the prosecution case are as under;

(3.) Mr. Panchal, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, original accused, has submitted that there is no conclusive evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. He has submitted that the birth certificate produced during the course of investigation at Exhibit-35 shows the name of the prosecutrix, which is not believable and probable at all, in view of the fact that at the time of birth, there would not be a name for the child. He has further submitted that at the time of investigation, a xerox copy of the birth certificate, bearing the name of the prosecutrix, was produced. However, the original of the said xerox was not procured by the prosecution and no explanation has been given as to how and under what circumstances, the said xerox copy of the document at Exhibit-35 was produced before the police and under what circumstances, the original was missing. He has submitted that looking to the entire evidence on record, it is apparent that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age.