CHHOTU Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order dt. 10.11.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 32/1988 convicting the accused -appellants under Secs. 363, 366 & 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment and fine mentioned herein. I have heard Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution story as unfolded by the materials on record is that victim Mst. Mumtaz, who at the relevant time was a minor, was brought by the accused -appellant No. 1 from Hyderabad to his village Peeproli, whereafter he forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. Further allegation is that the accused -appellant No. 1 thereafter sold the victim girl to the accused -appellant No. 2 who also committed repeated sexual intercourse and eventually she could somehow escape from his clutches, whereafter an FIR was lodged in the concerned police station and a case was registered against the appellants. On the completion of the investigation, chargesheet was laid against the accused -appellants under Secs. 363, 366 & 376 IPC. Charges were framed against the accused -appellants by the learned trial Court for the offences to which the accused -appellant pleaded "not guilty". The prosecution thereafter got examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix PW -1, Dr. P.P. Singhal PW -2, who conducted the radiology examination on her and the Investigating Officer. The accused appellants in course of the examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges. By the impugned judgment and order, they were convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has argued that the age of the victim is less than 16 years and the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of kidnapping, abduction and rape against the accused -appellants and thus no interference is called for in the interest of justice.