MOHAMMAD ASLAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mohd. Aslam has preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25-6-94 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 88/93 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376, 363 and 366 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I and fine of Rs. 500/-in default 2 months R.I, 2 months R.I and fine of Rs. 200/-in default 1 month R.I and 3 years R.I and fine of Rs. 200/-in default 1 month R.I respectively.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is that prosecutrix (PW-9) resides with his father Nandlal (PW-1) and mother, Kamalwati (PW-4). On 6-2-93, Nandlal and Kamalwati were out of village, Singori in respect of their business of oil, prosecutrix and her sister Anusia (PW7) were at home. On 6-2-93, prosecutrix and her sister Suia @ Anusia went to wash the clothes on the well of Davendra Singh Seth which was situated on Rajola road. Anusia was fetching water from the well and prosecutrix was washing the clothes. The appellant accused Aslam reached on spot and took the prosecutrix on bicycle towards Badegoan thereafter he took the prosecutrix on bicycle to Shivpuri and then by truck to Sarni. They reached Sarni at about 11'O'clock in the night and they stayed in the Aslam's house. On 7-2-93, Aslam took a house on rent at Sarni and shifted along with the prosecutrix in the rented house. Everyday the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix asked the appellant to leave her to parents house, but he did not take her to parents house. The appellant took the prosecutrix to Betul to perform court marriage, but it was not materialised. Anusia came to the house and told his brother-in-law, Prakash (PW-8) that Aslam has taken prosecutrix on bicycle. Prakash informed the parents of prosecutrix in this respect, they searched prosecutrix and lodged report Exhibit P-15C in police chowki Singori.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. His defence is that on 6-2-93, he was on his photo-frame shop.