SARIMONI MAHATO Vs. AMULYA MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14/08/2001 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.Tr. case No. 20 of 1997 whereby he has acquitted the respondent No. 1 of the charge under Section 376, I.P.C. by holding him not guilty for the same.

(2.) The charge under Section 376, IPC on which the respondent No. 1 was tried related to and revolved around P.W.1, the alleged so-called victim. According to her, respondent No. 1 who was her co-villager used to come to her house off and on whenever she was alone in the last 11/2 years. It was her case that the respondent No. 1 used to assure her that he would marry her and based on this assurance he established illicit sexual relationship with P.W.1 repeatedly for long periods due to which she became pregnant. It has also come in her deposition that while respondent No. 1 used to have sexual intercourse with her, and when she had become pregnant, she came to learn that he had married another lady and on enquiry he assured P.W.1 that he will marry her also. On this, an adjudicatory process was set in motion in the village Panchayat in which respondent No. 1 denied to keep P.W.1 as his wife or to marry her and it was on this refusal on the part of respondent No. 1 that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) lodged F.I.R. against respondent No. 1 under Section 376, IPC alleging that he had raped her.

(3.) Undoubtedly P.W.1 at all relevant times was a major. It is not the case of the prosecution that while both were having illicit sexual intercourse with each other, P.W.1 was a minor at any point of time. The entire prosecution case was built round the allegation of 'rape' on the basis of the consent element.