VANSRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 9.12.2009, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad, in session trial no. 467/2008, State vs. Vanshraj, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was aged about 18 years and was, therefore, major on the date of occurrence. She travelled with the appellant upto Ludhiyana by train and remained in his company for about 14 days and during that period she did not raise any protest, alarm or any other type of resistance, therefore, from the facts and circumstances brought on record, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. She supported the story of consent in her statement under section 164 CrPC and stated that she went with the appellant on her own, therefore, she was a consenting party but she changed her attitude and made statement during the trial due to pressure of her family members. It was next submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and never abused the same. and is presently in jail from 9.12.2009 and in case the appellant is not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is no hope of an early hearing of the appeal due to heavy dockets.

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the school record, in view of the medical evidence, ought not to be relied upon because that document had become doubtful.