RAMU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dtd. 6/5/2013 the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 450, 363, 366 and 376 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, 7 years, 10 years and 10 years respectively for the four offences. In addition for each offence fine in sum of Rs.2,000.00 has been imposed, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 3 months. All sentences have to run concurrently.

(2.) The only argument advanced at the hearing of the appeal is that the age of the prosecutrix has not been established with precision and thus the appellant should be entitled to the benefit of doubt concerning the age of the prosecutrix for the reason the testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents establishes that it was a case of sex with consent.

(3.) Process of criminal law was set into motion when the father of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint pursuant whereto FIR was registered on 12/6/2012 in which he informed that the appellant had run away with his daughter on 27/5/2012.