SUKHMAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.11.1992 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 44/91, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

(2.) THE appellant was tried with four others for offences punishable under sections 452, 363, 366, alternatively these offences read with section 34, as also for offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief, was that Kamli (PW 10), mother of the prosecutrix Ganeshi (PW 1), had left her husband Adrao and started living with Parmu (PW 2). At the time when she had come to live with Parmu about 10 or 11 years ago, Ganeshi was one year old.

(3.) LABORATORY from where report Ex. P 16 was received to the effect that both the slides contained semen and spermatozoa. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. On trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on finding that there was no taking or enticing by the accused as alleged, of the girl Ganeshi, acquitted all the accused of charges under sections 363, 366 and 452 but on finding that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of the incident was below 16 years and it was proved beyond doubt that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her several times during the period she was with him, convicted the appellant of the charge under section 376 and sentenced him as stated above.