GANESH KATARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 6.10.2010 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in S.T.No.17/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 376(1) and section 506 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for ten years along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and R.I. for one year, with default stipulations and with direction that all the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.11.2009 when the prosecutrix, PW1 was alone in her house, the appellant entered into the house of the prosecutrix, tied her hands and mouth, forcibly took her towards a Nala situated at the back side of the house and committed rape with her. After the act, he untied the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she would disclose the incident to her parents he would kill her. The parents of the prosecutrix were out of station. When they came back, she narrated the entire incident to them, then lodged the report at Police Station Tawa Nagar, Hoshangabad, on the basis of which First Information Report, Ex.P/1, was lodged and crime no.25/2009 was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 450, 363, 506 and 376 of the I.P.C. and the matter was investigated. The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination. Dr.R.Paharia (PW-3) examined her at J.S.R. Itarsi and gave her report Ex.P-6. Spot map was prepared. Marksheet of the prosecutrix was seized. Appellant was arrested on 16.11.2009 and his medical examination was conducted. Necessary seizures were made and sent to FSL for chemical examination. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The court of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under sections 363, 376(2)(f) and 506-B of the I.P.C. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. His defence was that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with the family of the prosecutrix.

(3.) The learned court below after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that at the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was below 12 years of age and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and will. Hence, convicted the appellant under sections 363, 376(1) and section 506-B of the I.P.C. and sentenced him, as mentioned above.