23 0§ 2906 {Shm F 5 Khare counsel for fhe appeMn [Elam Arun San $avf Advaca‘ht for Sfe [This cmmma! appea! Is heard The appeHanf was canwci Judgment dafed 19 3 1990 dam/er by 15* Add! Sesslons Judge Dxsf’r fa ; aH Toay hdé‘r Sgfan 376 IPC .vie i seséiohs Triéi Na 49/19E r ari was éerifénged’ *0 R I ‘ar' ? year's The appelhnf was cqurH‘ed of *he chare under Sesfmn 363 and 366 IPC V The iear‘ned trial Judge held ‘ of The prosecufmx was m §ov _ vmh fhe appellam‘ and Had elaped wwh fhe appenam mfendmg T marw hm; ’1? was alse hek! *hm f e pmsecufmx had cénsenfed 1' cohabw with Tha sppelhnf since ha was dezply m love wrrh fh - eppe!lanf However since the !e med frml Judge heid mm fh ' prasecu‘mx was agwl aged belaw 1_ years af age fhe appakn? wa ¥ ’canwcfed under 5echan 376 IPC a‘ d was senfenced as aforesaié The‘aniy ’poirif ‘thqfl' requir" considerahon m fhls appea! { whe'fher fhe pmsacufmx was End r 16 years of ae 0n #he da‘i'e af OCCUf‘f‘ence , : Radmhglca! exammahcn a Archana ”the prosecumx wa Vcenducfed by Dr- ’6N Twarl f my d, ¥ e L ué éi 3 é n 9 ,ug a g e c ‘ 0 e ' V e s 5" g s D i mmffw Hcwever ‘H'us witness wha was not 2xamined Te msecatibn w es d h pn as exammed as a defence mhs and sfa‘te fa‘f uo essgfica‘han fesf he es‘hmcrred The ($2 cf fhe prosecm‘mx Ta be years If :5 we” sewed Thaf m the esfn‘nafton of ae Thrcugh f H ms? af osstfmafwn theWegaHy per :sstk margin cf err-or is 2 f T mifer :1' canna? ‘ ru!ed cm i'ha‘ fhe prosecufmx was ed 18 ears a’r' moon t dafe of occurrence This alsa corrion mm f evidence of Dr’ (Maya Tlwam PW 11 whc fame fhaf fh pmsecufmx was a ?u!ly devekaped i omen wrrh a" 28 Teei‘h havm grewn Bessdes 'r'wis The 1'eshmeny ,f UrmdaP W 8/ aged years “ end me mcfher of The prosec mx dearly shows TuT T prosecumx was above 18 years of age on The daTe o occurrenc smee she sTaTed ThuT she was me med To one Sadar‘am we s was aged 20 years and The pmsec Trix was born a year aTer er marrrage In This View 9f The mater IT cannoT be rue ouT Ta The prosecuTrrx was 18 years or are on Te aTe o occurrenc IT Is andse perTmenT To noTe ThaT a1 hcugh The presecuTwn has Tile a cepy of KeTwarx regTsTer Ex P—’ O for proof of daTe o birT o The prosecuTrIx yeT 1T shows Te name of the chi born Tm V Sademm as Amfo and noT as Arch na Newhere m F 3 years an eifher aide In This V m évmqm ‘ by h p _ 9 16 g her ‘ ” b *9 o he rr be ~ ag y re he ‘mds oboréf f he e g ' r, 40 I f h he f e; hd he f h ld hT h d f e V ‘ d ld f h f I L ‘x \ Raap Sagar ar m her sfm‘ement uner' cmn vP if was sfeted fha‘t #he prosecutmx was Hd In ew f th abmie “facts and Circumstances fhe ossnlhf Tai“ Te prosecu was aged 18 years er more on fhe me of occurrence cannof b ru§ed u? The feshmony af The pm acmmx ieaves no room for an doubt The? she was deepiy m !ove w: h fhe apeHanf and had freel an olunfardy cansenfed +6 t ,I‘ nppeHmf wifh her r r Hevmg fhus cens1dered the e Idence led by The prosecu‘'to m rrs enhrefy I am af fhe cans dered tha‘r convxchon cf fe awaikmt under Sechon 376 IPC an rhe semence aware by ‘rh learned g‘ deserves fa be asi In Te resulf fhe appeal owed ohvicfio'n f h V ppeNam' uner Seeflon 375 I and The senTenee aware u e 1: ; l y d lhp Raosaheb Deshmukh K i Se 161 CC cae Amfa w o e by h h mx e 3 y p y e senual :Mercourse by i L ln h i dd e h ’ w C 6 fe‘: d P dd: Thereunder by The learned Trial J’ are seT aside The appellanT ‘ ls acqulTTed and shall be seT aT ltbeTT forThwrTh If noT reqmred m any eTher ase we; :-\ . T l l l i x‘ d v h he ' ‘ ‘ ud j: de Sl- ":D