GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction under section 366 of the Penal Code, for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 113/31, decided on 5-1-1983.

(2.) On a report (Ex. P-i) having been lodged by the prosecutrix Nenchhuwa (P.W. 1), the appellant was prosecuted and tried for offence punishable under sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix Mst. Nenchhuwa (P.W. i) wife of Bhansai (P.W. 10) was at her parental house in village Keshonagar. The appellant and Bhansai (P.W. 10) went to house of prosecutrix and on il-2-1981 at about 3 P.M. the prosecutrix along with her husband Bhansai -and the appellant Gopalram started from Keshonagar to her husbands house. It was alleged that they went to Punjab Hotel in Vishrampur and thereafter they proceeded towards the quarry of Jainagar. On the way, they set under a tree. At about 5 P.M. the appellant asked Bhansai (P.W. 10) to go and bring liquor. Bhansai proceeded to bring liquor. It is said that thereafter the appellant took the prosecutrix to a nearby nala where he committed rape on Mst. Nanchhuwa (P.W. 1) and after that he took her to a hotel in Vishrampur at about ii P.M. where they took their dinner. After the dinner, the appellant took the prosecutrix back to village Keshonagar to the house of Han (P.W. 8) where they stayed that night. Next day, the prosecutrix went to her parental house in Keshonagar itself where she found her mother. The next evening her husband also came when she informed him all about the incident. The report (Ex. P-i) was lodged in the Police Station Jainagar after six days that is on 18-2-i96i, on the basis of which an offence under sections 376 and 366 was registered against the appellant and he was prosecuted for the same.

(3.) At the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. On evaluation of evidence the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was above the age of 16 years but below 18 years and that if any intercourse and, therefore, no offence under section 376 was made out. The learned trial Judge, however, took the view that though the prosecutrix was a consenting party, she was below 18 years of age and, therefore, the appellant had committed an offence under section 366 of the Penal Code and as such convicted and sentenced him accordingly, against this appeal has been preferred.