KAILASH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16/01/2007 passed in Sessions Trial no. 115/05 by learned Additional Sessions judge, Narsinghgarh, whereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 363 of the IPC, sentenced to R. I for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for three months and under section 366 of the IPC, sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for six months, and under Section 376 (1) of the IPC, sentenced to R. I for seven years and fine of rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R. I for one and half year.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, mother of prosecutrix named Sorambai PW-1 lodged the report in the police station regarding missing of prosecutrix. During the course of enquiry on missing report, prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the appellant after more than one month The police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix who had deposed that she was induced by the appellant to go with him and appellant committed rape with her. According to Gumsudgi report dated 08. 05. 2005, father of the prosecutrix PW-2 Purilal had gone to another village at the house of his relative and mother had gone to work as labourer at the house of Laxmi Narayan. Prosecutrix aged 16 years alone was in the house. On return from the work, mother of the prosecutrix did not find her in the house and on search in village, she was not traced, thereafter on the next day she lodged the missing report vide Ex. P/1 recorded in daily diary. After recovery of the prosecutrix, police registered the FIR EX. P/8 and seized transfer certificate Ex. P/2 wherein her date of birth is mentioned i. e. 22. 3. 1991. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and her report is Ex. P/6 examined by PW-4 dr. Seema Pathak. Doctor prepared slide of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and also referred the prosecutrix for ossification test to determine her age. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the above-mentioned offences.

(3.) APPELLANT abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication because of ill will. The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.