(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.1.2002 and order of sentence dated 8.1.2002 passed by Shri Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 261 of 2000/38 of 2001, by which judgment he found the appellant, Samir Rajbanshi guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.1. for 5 years.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where the victim girl had love affairs with the accused and accused had sex with the victim with her consent and that is why she kept silent for seven months and when the pregnancy was apparent the matter was reported, hence a lenient view may be taken against the appellant although the victim was a minor girl. Learned counsel has relied in a judgment reported in (2008) 12 SCC Page 33 in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar wherein a similar condition the court had taken a lenient view while sentencing the accused.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a First Information Report filed by the prosecutrix, Manuwara Khatoon stating therein that on 26.4.2000 at about 11 A.M. that the appellant, Samir Rajbanshi about 10 -12' months back used to negotiate her for marriage, but she always avoided as she was a minor girl. She also stated that 9 -10 months back in the evening when she had gone to village tank for easing then accused Samir Rajbanshi at the point of dagger committed rape upon her and said that he will marry her if she did not disclose the matter to her parents. She also stated that subsequently he also committed sexual relation with her,' but when she was having a pregnancy then she requested the accused to marry her, but he refused to do so. Then she informed the matter to the village panches, namely, Madhu Sk. Giyas Sk. etc. The panches also asked him to marry her, but he refused to do so then, she made a complaint and put her L.T.I. on the same.