MANOHARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manoharlal accused petitioner has been convicted under section 353 IPC. and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of which to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) One Marju daughter of P.W. 1 Laxmandas P W. 2 had left her house on March 20, 1975 at about 7 p.m. to make certain purchases for the house. She did not return and it appears that when she was coming back to her house, the accused appellant who was a hawker and use to sell gram met her. He had a cycle and asked Manju that he will take her to a round of the city to which Manju agreed. The accused took her on his cycle to a deserted house where it is alleged that she was ravished by the accused. The accused left her in the house in the morning and returned in the evening along with three other boys and all three of them said to have been ravished her. The accused appellant gave Rs. 3/- to Manju and fold her that in case he does not return in the evening, she should utilise it. The accused did not return in the evening and also in the next morning and she returned to her father Laxmandas P.W 2 on March 25, 1975 and narrated the incident to her father Laxmandas who went to the police station Sardarpura Jodhpur and lodged the report Ex. P. 6. In the report he mentioned the age of Manju as 14 years. A case was registered and Manju was sent for medical examination. Dr Prakash Dayal P.W. 5 Medical Jurist in M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur examined Manju on March 26, 1975 for rape and age. He also took X-rays of joints of wrist, elbow and knee to reach to the correct estimate of her age. In the opinion of the doctor, on the day of examination, Manju was aged about 14 years. She was used to sexual intercourse The accused was arrested and a charge u/s 366 Penal Code was read over to him who plead not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried On behalf of the prosecution as many as five witnesses were examined. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. to explain the circumstances against him. He stands on a bare plea of denial, and examined three witness in defence.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that there was no satisfactory evidence that on the day of occurrence, age of Manju was below 16 years, held that the intercourse by the accused was with her consent and as such it did not amount to rape u/s 366 IPC., but the learned Judge also held that the girl was aged less than 18 years and as such a case under section 366 Penal Code is made out. Accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.