r .-HC-22 sn^r^i Pi-fieh S^t »)^ict) •^%'d T°3 •^MIclt, ST?1'M<K». 1««'11'Mll< 3n^?r ira^_ (^A ^.o- "WI, 200 'i^^r' WH«fTth1|ch ^n^9T'g^ff^R TrffcT SB: HON'BLB SHKI DHIKBMDKA MISHRA. J APPELLAMTS 1. Bal^ Kam son ot Laxman sataami, aged 23 tears 2. .Mel^attar, son ofDarshu Satoaini, aged 39 ; yea^s Bqtfi resiaents ot viilage losngaon, r.s. Baslfaa. Telisfl Basna-. District MaJliasaniuau Vs. RESPONDBHT 9-8-2007 Stafe of Cliliattisgarh, through P.S. Basna, HTatt. M.RTiQ'-a.ctrmTind ynn Alolc fassley, Advoc) Shri Neera] Mehta, Panep l&e appellauts &ave pre| ot convicUon aiia oiaer ol sen.1 1st AddiUonal Sessions Judg^ wQereby appellaat Balarani h.4 363,366 and 376(1) ol I.P.C.I nionuis aaa to pay a tme ot aaa to pay a tuie ot Ks. 1UUL) pay a fine of Rs. 1000/'-, to fine of Ks. 1000/- respectiv^j sentences are du-ectea to nrct been convictecl unaer yecUonl 1U years K,l. aact to pay a tm^ tilllcl'ill Iwini'^fB^t tpil^K ^;3if:gHsii^r -I //-~l _/~t ^ lu (C.G.) |ate for the appenants. 1 Lawver lor the State. fen-ed this appeala^amst the judginent "nce dated 3-8-2001 passed by leamed s, Mahasamund in S.T. No. 206/1999 is Deen couvictea unaer fciections l.'2Ul5, aaa sentencea to undergo K.l. lor SK <s. 1UUU/-, to unaergo K.l. lor / years /-, to undergo K.l. tor 1U years aaa to inctergo K.l. tor iu years aaa to pay a ly witli usual aetault cJauses. AU t&e concun'enfly. AppeUaat Mehattar Iias 368 ofl.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ofRs. 1000/-, ia default ofpayment of » [Tfr^ ^fo^ XI-HC-22 2 an^I^t R;-<i?b 311^1 ^*lN)l'^iiTT ~S^ '^IWRPT, 'S^TH®.IfMl'My 3^.~^^le ^.^^o.l^ "^ 200 NWWSItflrai f^sr' sn^r TCiiwtift?f p^yme|it tme, to turUier unclergo K.j yatieb Kam nas been convi sentenced to undergo R.I. 1000/-, iu detault ot montos. Case of ttie prosecutioti ot prosecutnx (Bx. P-10) was Uie prosecutnx. ine prosecu 8.30 froia viQsige Laluapur, vide Ex. P-16. Ou fhe report 18), oftence under Sections agaiast Uie appellaat was sent tbr uiedical A. After coinpletiag the iave) fhe appeuants and co-ac< prosecuUon examuied l/ ttie accusea aad atter Jiearujig leaniea Uial (Jouit convicl nienuoued above. Leamed couasel tor evictence regarauig Uie age o) on ossiacaUou examuiaUon age ot t&e prosecunon below| report ot Kx. ^-14 ui wluc4 I. for 3 months. The ot&er co-accused :ted uader Section 120B of I.P.C. and it>r 6 nionttis and to pay a fine ol Rs. ol nue, to furtner unclergo K.l. tbr 3 Balarfam examinlaUon <:nl*flci<ft'i tTFRff ^ fe^ <f^T<eR ^; ariigii 3ii^?r witnesses. is tbat on 20-12-1997, missing report lodged by P.W, 14 Aqun Das, fafher of iln-ix was recovered ou 4-5- 1998 at about Rudauli, Faizabad (U.P.) by the police t>fthe prosecutrix dated 6-5-1998 (Ex. P- 1363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. was registered Satnami (Ex.P-17). The prosecutrix and her M.L.C. 1'eport is Ex. P-18- ^t^aUon, efiarge slieet was tiled against [•used Saheb Ram. During trial, fhe | ipiesses. AIter recorduig tUe stateinent ol fhe couusel for fhe respective parties, tecl and sentenced tne appellants as 1|he appellaats submits fhat there is no tiie prosecutrix. T'he conviction is based ^•eport. The trial Court has assessed the 16 years on fhe basis of ossificatioa test the doctor opiaed that the age of fhe [-qt^^fe^ XI-HC-22 sn^r^i f'i-fi.+sn^i sniiti'dfsn 's^t -1<MM'4, anl'M'is. facii^y 3^?T ira^ .M:.^?.:..2ai/6\ "^I. 200 WHWI Shlich I^ST' sn^i'Rarar ^if?g prosecutnx is 14-13 years 2-3 years. Elltry ia the KotH prosecumx is sliown as '^ yaniaru, viuage KotwaT.'/Moi tae prosecutiix it is eviaenil prosecutnx was given to K. other person yrsio has not b< Kotwan Kegister aJtso beconi( no evidence ^aiast the appf in confiuement the Kidnapyji convicnon ot Uus appeUaat prosecutnx aumig tnal aoes CLwry. Un tne otlier liaaa, le^ impugnecl juaginent. yo tar as Uie tuiauigl couceraect, Uie same is bas^a ussmcauon test report ol been proved by Kotwar P.lf Krom. perusal ot me aocuin^nt trom Unguial Kdtwan Kegi^ter niade on 1-3-19833 on Uie tattier ol tlie prosecutnx. u| of iacident i.e. 20-12-1997,1 <>ii<<tf]tlli iw<nf'^felst (R«^l< ^a'iPdHsn^r ijowever mere is possiDUity ot vanaUon ot ?^n register \vliere Uie tlate ot birtli ot ttie p-8-1983 has beeii proved by P.W. 8 ?ever troni Uie statenient ot Uie taUier ol ttiat uitonaaUon about ttie bu-ui ot Uie .ptwar ot tlie concei-aea viuage by sonie ten exainiaed. Therefore, the entry ia the ^s doubtful. It is also argued fhat there is ^Uaiit Mehattar that he coiieealed or kept sd prosecutnx and ttiere is no basis for ^s t&e aueganon made agamst nim by tlie not fuid place ia the F.1. R. or in the case imed counsel tbr tlie State supported Uie 1 regarcluig Uie age ot Uie prosecutnx is on Kotwan entn7 ot Kx. f-S as also Uie pie prosecutnx ot Bx. l-'-l4 wnicn nave '. S Sainaru and Dr. Alka respectively. oi Ex. i-'-y wmc& nas been ctuly provect ^ter, it is clear fhat tfae said entiy was aasis ot ttte uitonnanon given ay Aqun, ttie basis ot Ttiis clociunent, on ttie ctate t&e age ot ttie prosecutnx was below is> [^ifirt XI-HC-22 an^r^T R'li* sv^v sBfro^f^T 'ssi •^WM^, afllyis, ftciKiy ^S^^J^. WHCfTshllch ^ 200 is^vs' sn^t TCIRTC ^ift?f U)t years. TJie above entry is report ot tlie prosecutnx been assessed 14-15 vears. this Court, the nndiag o^the, ttiau 1G years ot age at t&e Dased on t&e aocumentaiy ctoes not cau tor any niterterf So far as conviction ot1 prosecutnx Jias categoncaUT| accusea BaJaram aacl sne v Though froiu fhe evidence d m.aKe out a case ot consej prosecutrix wtiicU Uas atres consent, fl any, is ot no Wow conung to tlie) Mehattar. P.W. 12, fhe pro^ statea tliat slie was contuied Sahab Ram and Mehattar sne raisecl alarm aad Uieres tools fier to t&e aouse ot Dam ana trom Uiere stie wsl; Mancti troin wJiere tialaraml evidence of p.W. 12 fhe appeilaat Metiattar ui coi tiirttiei ttme ti«ii?i<ili*iww'? fe'st <F>lt<;l< i? aipgir 3n^r corroborated bv the ossitication test wJtiicii tte age ot t&e prosecutnx nas ITherefbre, in the coasidered opuuon of |tnal Court uiat Uie prosecutnx was less ot incident is just and proper aad is tviclence aacl ossitication test aiict same jnce. |t&e appeuant Balarain is conceraecl, Uie stated Uiat stie was torcibJy taKen by fas ravished af.ain.st her wishes by hira. tt ttus witness, tae delence tias Uied to it, however consideruig fhe age of the jdy been held to be less tiian 16 years, conspquence. question of conviction of appeUant | •cutnx ui para / ot ner deposiUon Jtias ia the house of Balarafli by Sulaunoti, a4d Uiey had threatened her with ner lite it ;^fter the appeliaat Sahab 'Ram aud Arjun Mqnattar aaa Uierc sne was coutmed ui a taKeu Dy ya&aE) Lal aad Arjuj near took her to Siikli Pahad. Thus froin the irosecutnx, active participation ot ttie ig the prosecutrix fiT^tJ^m_ftieJiqme_ot' [^ ^fisl^ XI-HC-22 air^i^r W an^i ?t)+iich 1til?a 'S^I •^M\vii\, V»^W'IQ, F^WWf. 3Tlt?T 'VRR ^^..^>..:.^u^\ 'Wl. 200 *<1*<WT 9>wefi Iq-^T- sii^r waraT ^ift? available Balaram aad Uiereatter ui tus ot ttte tnal (Joui-t regarduig MefiattaT is also estabusfiecl. in Uie result, ,convicnc unaer Hections l^u-B, a&3, appellant Mehattar iinder Se) is basea on t&e eviaence Leamect counsel tor tfi|( appeliaats have ah'eady und< Uieretore, ttiey inay be senteif t&eni. in me rcsult, uie appf appeuant Balaram tor onen<) 3/t>(lj ot l.KC. aaa convic(tion Section 368 of I.P.C. is laoctitiea aiict Uiey are sente4< fhem. They be released forunf liome is estabiislied. 1'lieretore, tmaing in|volveineut ofthe appeBaat Balaram and 3(u ot Uie appeUaat Balaram tor ottence p6 and 376(1) ofl.P.C. aud conviction ol ;tioa 368 of I.P.C. is established which on recorcl. appellaats subniits tfi.at ttte accusea ^rgoue niore ttian y years jail sentence, tcect to ttie penod aireaay Unclergoue by ^lqf^Pily ^wvit^^^! <f^f-(^l< '^aTPaHsn^l ;al is partly allowea. (Jonviction ot Uie under Sections 120B, 363, 366 aad of the appeUaiit Mehattar under i^iauitained, however their sentence is ( ;ed to Uie penoct atready undergone by ?lttl it not requu1ed in any otJtier case^__ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge [Tft^^f<^