RAMDAYAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11. 7. 2000 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Dist. Guna (M. P.) in ST No. 253/99 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation. He has further been convicted under Section 506 (II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is further directed that the substantial part of the sentence shall run concurrently but in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo separate sentence.

(2.) THE story of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant and the prosecutrix used to reside in the same locality. On the date of incident, when in the afternoon prosecutrix went to his house for taking milk, he locked the door of the house and committed sexual intercourse with her, After committing the act two to three times, he freed her in the evening and threatened her that if she discloses this incident he would kill her. Due to fear, the prosecutrix did not tell about the incident to anybody at her home. When after two months, her menses was stopped then the mother of the prosecutrix enquired from her then she informed about the incident, Then the prosecutrix along with her mother went to the police station, Ashok Nagar and lodged the first information report on 9. 8. 1999 which is Ex. P3, from where the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and for confirmation of age. She was advised for ossification test. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated in para one of this judgment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that this is a case of consent of the prosecutrix and it is not established that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age because except medical evidence, no other ocular or documentary evidence was adduced by the prosecution.