STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHEIKH SADIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar in Sessions Trial No.14/1997 acquitting the respondent and his wife Akilabi from the charge under Section 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") respectively by granting benefit of doubt. However, the leave to appeal was granted qua the respondent No.1 only. Therefore, we are dealing with the present appeal against the respondent No.1 only.

(2.) The prosecution was set in motion on the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-2), daughter of Zarina Bi (PW-3) and Abdul Latif (PW-4). The statement is that when she was 11 years of age and student of Class-6th, she had been staying with Akilabi - wife of the respondent. Akilabi has promised the father of the girl that she will keep the prosecutrix as her daughter to enable her to study. On 28.03.1996, the prosecutrix told Sadik that she has a headache and she will not be able to attend to household chores. Sadik gave a medicine and after taking the medicine, when she was about to lie down on the bed, the accused came and lay her down on the bed and thereafter, undressed her and also undressed himself. The prosecutrix was under the influence of medicine and therefore, she could not resist. When she gained consciousness, she found that she was bleeding and the bed was wet. When she confronted Sadik, he told her that he had performed sexual intercourse, therefore, this has happened. Sadik threatened the prosecutrix and told her not to say anything to anybody. Later, whenever she used to have headache, the accused would give medicine and then would violate her. He would also threaten her that she will not say it to anybody. One lady by the name of Mumtaj has seen Sadik violating her. When the victim became pregnant of about eight months then the wife of respondent told her that she would facilitate her Nikah (marriage) with Sadik. They offered Rs. 10,000/- so that she can go to her father's house and abort the fetus. The accused tried to facilitate abortion but was not successful. Since her condition deteriorated on account of medicines, she reached her parental house. She lodged a report when she became fit to move. After completion of investigations, the accused were made to stand trial.

(3.) In evidence, Smt. Naadra Liyakat, In-charge Principal of the school in which the prosecutrix was a student, appeared as PW-1. She has admitted her signatures on Ex.P-1, which was written by her in response to a query made by the Station House Officer, Moghat Road regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix. In Ex.P-1, she has certified that as per school record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 05.06.1980. The prosecutrix has passed Class-10th examination from her school.