NARAYAN AADIWASI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction and or- der of sentence dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Second Additional Ses- sions Judge, Khurai to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Khu- rai, District Sagar in S.T. No.261/11 whereby the appellant has been con- victed for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.100/- and RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was liv- ing as husband with the mother of the prosecutrix, Parmiya @ Parmo Bai in village Chamari, Police Station Bhangarh, Distict Sagar. On 8.1.2011 near about 11 am the appellant / accused took the prosecutrix with him to market and did not come back. With regard to missing of the appel- lant and the prosecutrix, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Bhangarh on 11.1.2011 which was registered as 1/2011. On search, on 7.2.2011 the prosecutrix and the appellant were found in village Shah- pura, District Lalitpur and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. She disclosed that the appellant took her with him and kept like wife and committed sexual intercourse so many times. During the investigation it was found that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years at the time of incident. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bina and the case was commit- ted to the Session Judge, Sagar who transferred the case to the Addi- tional Sessions Judge, Khurai district Sagar where during the trial, learned trial court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of the IPC against the appellant and the appellant ab- jured the guilt and his defence was that he was innocent and claimed to be tried.

(3.) After completion of trial, on appreciation of entire evidence and material on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years and the appellant committed sex- ual intercourse with her and he took the prosecutrix with him without consent of legal guardian of the prosecutrix with a view to subjected her to illicit sex. Therefore, the appellant committed the offence punish- able under Sections 366 and 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced as men- tioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.