WASIM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 17.3.1998 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 137/1997, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 11.10.1996, the appellant/accused forcibly kidnapped the minor prosecutrix, took her to various places and he has committed sexual intercourse with her. A missing person report (Ex.P/8) was lodged on 12.10.1996 by the father of the prosecutrix. It is alleged in the aforesaid report that the prosecutrix was aged 13 -14 years and she was missing since 11.10.1996. It is also alleged that six months ago the prosecutrix went with the accused/appellant Wasim. The prosecutrix was recovered on 5.3.1997 and her statement was recorded and after that she was sent to the medical examination. After that the Police registered a case against the accused/appellant for offence under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the IPC. The accused/appellant was arrested on 18.3.1997 and he was also sent for medical examination. The Police prepared the spot map (Ex.P/5) and the seized articles received from the hospital were sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory. Ossification test of the prosecutrix was also conducted, in which, the Doctor was opined that she is above 14 years of age. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was presented before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarana, District-Ujjain, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.

(3.) The trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 363, 376 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and requested for trial of the matter. He took the plea that he had given a loan to the father of the prosecutrix, when he demanded for the payment of the loan amount then he has been falsely implicated in the present crime by the father of the prosecutrix. However, he has not produced any witness in his defence.