RAMBABU PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by Forth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.16/2007 convicting the appellant under Section 376 of IPC with seven years RI and also under Section 366 of IPC with seven years RI.

(2.) As per prosecution story, on 17.9.2006 complainant Raman Kumar (PW-1) had lodged a report that his niece had gone to answer call of nature at about 7 pm when she did not return and then he was informed by Raju (PW-8) that one Rambabu has taken away the prosecutrix towards Jagatpura, therefore, FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered under the provisions of Sections 363, 366 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a defence that prosecutrix is major/adult and he was engaged in the work of manufacturing of bricks at the place of the complainant. Appellant had manufactured about 50,000/- bricks but such bricks were not given to the accused and used by the family members of the complainant, and therefore, to counter any claim of the accused, false report has been lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix (PW-5) has herself admitted in note below para 8 of her crossexamination that she had signed on Ex.D/2. She also admitted that her photo was clicked as is affixed on Ex.D/2. She also admitted that before entering into the marriage alliance, she had gone to Shivpuri Hospital where x-ray was taken. She had made a complaint in regard to her abduction to the doctor, however, she admitted that she did not raise any alarm at the time of such abduction or untoward incident though there were several other patients were available in the hospital. She also admitted that police was available in the hospital and she had not made any complaint to the police in regard to abduction or any other untoward incident. In para 10 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that to execute affidavit (Ex.D/2) she had visited Shivpuri Court and had affixed her signature on Ex.D/2. She admitted that there were police personnel in the Court premises but she had not informed anything to the police personnel. She also admitted that accused got a photograph clicked with her but improvised the statement saying that such photo was clicked under compulsion as she was under threat.