VAS DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a jail appeal filed by Vas Dev against his conviction under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide his order dated 12th April, 1984. The learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide his order dated 16th April, 1984.

(2.) RADHA Rani PW 7 was residing with his uncle Hans Raj PW 4 in village Saharni since her father had died some nine years ago. Hans Raj had a three-ear old son who was suffering from polio who could not be cured in spite of long medical treatment. Two months prior to the occurrence Hans Raj brought the appellant to his house for pooja path. Thus the appellant started residing in the baithak of Hans Raj and continued performing pooja path for a sufficient period. On 11th August, 1983, at about 8 p.m. the appellant gave certain articles to Radha Rani prosecutrix to be placed under a Jand tree at about 12 midnight. When Radha Rani prosecutrix went out to place the articles there she was kidnapped by the appellant at the point of pistol and he also committed rape upon her and kept her in kotha for the night. The prosecutrix was removed to a narma field by the appellant and there she was kept for three days. During this period the appellant committed rape upon her a number of times. On 15th August, 1983, the police party recovered the prosecutrix and arrested the appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Lady Dr. R. Grover PW 6 in Civil Hospital Sirsa. On 15th August, 1983 at 11.30 a.m. Following is the report of her medical examination :

(3.) RADHA Rani PW 7 has given the ocular account of the occurrence. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code holding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that she was more than sixteen years of age. However, he came to a finding that she was less than eighteen years of age. Therefore, he convicted the appellant under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.