KRIPAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal of the accused Kripal who, on his conviction under section 376 IPC, bas been sentenced to six months RI.

(2.) Incident is of the after-noon of 24.3.82. The prosecutrix Mst. Baiganbai was an unmarried girl. On the date of the incident at the relevant time, the appellant-accused was alleged to have entered the prosecutrix house while she was all alone and committed sexual intercourse with her. P.W. 9 Bastaram was stated to have seen both the appellants-accused and the victim actually in the act of sexual intercourse and bad brought the appellant out of the house in a naked condition. Report was lodged. Investigation followed and as per the investigation, the prosecutrix was stated to be below 16 years of age. The appellant-accused, on being prosecuted, claimed to be falsely implicated.

(3.) The trial Court, after elaborately considering the evidence on the prosecution side, held that the appellant-accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix Baiganbai with her consent, under prior mutual arrangement. However, the trial Court, relying on the entry in the register of births, maintained by the police station concerned and kept in the Collectorate, held the prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age. Consent being thus ruled out, the appellant-accused was convicted under section 376 IPC. In the matter of sentence, lenient view was taken because of the consent and he was sentenced only to six months RI. Hence, now, the present appeal.