RAMPAL KOL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur, District Anuppur, in S.T.No.145/2012 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- , under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 366(A) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations, as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.2.2012, Ram Awatar Kol (PW-9) father of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Chachai District Anuppur with regard to the missing of her minor daughter. During enquiry of the missing person, the prosecutrix was recovered on 5.9.2012 from the house of the appellant situated at village Chakothi Police Station Chachai, District Anuppur. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and it was revealed that nearbout seven months ago, the appellant used to call the prosecutrix at his agricultural fields situated at village Chakothi, where he committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent due to which she became pregnant. Nearabout 17 days before the date she recovered, the appellant took her to his house on the false pretext of marrying with her, kept her as wife and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, First Information Report, Ex.P/12 was registered at Police Station Chachai District Anuppur vide Crime No.138/12. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 344 of the IPC were framed. During investigation it was found that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent repeatedly and at that time her age was below 16 years and she was kidnapped from the custody of her legal guardians. The appellant abjured the guilt. His defence was that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The learned trial Court after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective. The prosecutrix herself has stated that she voluntarily went with the appellant and resided with him as husband and wife. She also expressed her willingness to live with the appellant. So far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned, she was 18 years old and the prosecution has failed to prove her actual age. The finding is based on surmises and conjectures without any relevant, cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, the appellant be acquitted.