RAM KRISHAN ALIAS MANDOLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of six months by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide his judgment dated 20th February 1978. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this appeal.

(2.) IT is observed by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the quantum of sentence that the offence is just little more than a technical offence because of the character of the prosecutrix according to the medical evidence, she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and her vagina was fully developed and that it was a case of consent. Since the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age, therefore, he convicted the Appellant for technical offence.

(3.) I have parured(sic) the record. He is the first offender. His age at the time of recording his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded as 22 years. The offence took place in October, 1976. His statement was recorded on 8th February, 1978(sic). This means that the age of the Appellant at the time of the commission of offence was less than 20 years.