STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BALRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant-State has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.7.2000, passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna, in Sessions Trial No.02/2000, by which, respondent Balram has been acquitted under Sections 363 in alternative 366 & 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).

(2.) As per prosecution story, on 16.5.1999, at 10:00 AM, respondent-Balram, who was resident of Village Kunwarpur and was having intimacy with the daughter of Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1), abducted her daughter prosecutrix (PW/5) from the legal guardianship of her parents and without her consent committed rape upon her. At the time of occurrence, she was minor, below 18 years of age. The facts as narrated are that at the time of occurrence, prosecutrix (PW/5) was residing along with her father Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1) at Village Kunwarpur. Respondent accused was also resident of Village Kunwarpur. In the year 1999, prosecutrix (PW/5) was studying in 10th standard at Higher Secondary School Mohandra. On 16.5.1999, prosecutrix (PW/5) left her house on the pretext that she is going to the house of one Mr. Garg. When she did not return in the evening, the wife of Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1) narrated the whole incident and stated that her daughter did not return. As she left the house at 10:00 AM in the morning. They waited till 6:00 PM in the evening and thereafter, lodged a missing report at Police Chowki Mohandra vide Ex.P/1. After some time Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1) came to know that her daughter was abducted by the respondent. Somewhere in September 1999, it came to know to the Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1) that her daughter has returned to Village Kunwarpur and is staying with accusedrespondent Balram Lodhi at his house. He lodged a written report vide Ex.P/2 at Police Station Simariya, District Panna. Thereafter, house of the respondent was searched on 3.9.1999 by the police force headed by B.M. Swami (PW/6). During search prosecutrix (PW/5) was recovered from the house of accused-respondent and recovery Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/5. After recovery, she was handed over to the custody of her father Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1). She made an allegation against the respondent that she was with the company of the respondent for a period of 3 1/2 months at Delhi and Mumbai and was residing with him as his wife. It is also alleged that on the pretext of marriage, she gave consent for physical relations and thereafter, they developed physical relations. The allegation of prosecutrix (PW/5) was that on the pretext of marriage, he committed rape upon her. On that basis, FIRs were registered under Sections 363 & 376 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court and charge under Sections 363 in alternative 366 & 376(1) of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused-respondent. The respondent abjured the guilt and took a defence that it was a case of consent. Statements of Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1), Dhanpat Prasad Gautam (PW/2), Dr. Smt. Renu Dubey(PW/3), Dr. B.G. Dubey (PW/4), Prosecutrix (PW/5), B.M. Swami (PW/6) and G.P. Mishra (PW/7), were recorded.

(3.) Learned trial Court after considering the statements of Hanumandeen Pandey (PW/1), Dr. Smt. Renu Dubey (PW/3) and prosecutrix (PW/5), came to the conclusion that there were material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecutrix (PW/5) and it was a case of consent, acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid offence.