C-22 •tl^^ sn^r'^i Vi-u'h s^y ?t)*iicb yl^r 'Svl -t||.i<|irl'il, aill^'iG. l°lcll*f'i< 3^r 'cRra? tlllWI »>*<|cb "W], 200 fe^ST' sn^rwiiwafl^ Vs boman Lal about 22 y iharda, P.i atate of ^ Raju, S/o fawijram Satnami. <ged ^ers, Occupation-Former, R/o Vil^e Magesr-load, District Dhomtari (C6) jhhatl-isgarh through 5.H.O., Police |arbsd, bistrict bhamtarj Present; Mr. C.R. Sohu, Advocats for the appi Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, &y. 6ovt. Advocati A L (31st Per Dhirendra Mishra. J: Tnis criminat appeal is dir^ cnd order of sentence dated whereby iearned Additionai SeSi appelloint under Sections 363, 3 short TPC') and sentenced him fine of Rs.200/-: R.T. for 5 year^ 7 years and to pay a fine of ^ payment of fine to undergo addi' Case of the prosecution, 9.00 p.m. the prosecutrix, agec| home. On 22.7.2004 the father <til*lI<1<I1l IITOTf 4 iSVI <pil^l< ^; 3lf5gT[ 311^1 PPEAL No.566/05 icrtt. for the respondent-State. U D 6 c P cted against the judgment of conviction 5.2005 passed in S.T. No.290/04 ions Judge, Dhamtari has convicted the s6 & 376 of the Indlan Penal Code (for unaergo R.I. for 3 years and to poy a and to poy a fine of Rs.200/- & R.I. for i.200/- respectiveiy and in default of ional R.I. for 1 month on each count. in brief, is fnat on 21.7.2004 at about about 13 years, did not returri to her if prosecutrix namejy Shivshankar made XKHC-22 "X^ffi. s TS "i|l'i|l<*l'tl, ®Ti1tf'ie.facliyy sn^i^i R-ii.cb sn^v ?h-4W ^fia WHWI SKWq» ^ 200 |c|'b<8T' sn^i'renwfftei T^ invesiti enquiriesand Isarnt thdtthe He has taken her after entici her. Report was iodged on from the custody of the app^ sent for medicai examination Tripathi (PVV-7) examined h( reoort of Ex.P-7. During 'mvk of Ex.P-9 was taken into poss^ After completing '» the appellant in the court of in turn committed the case the same was received on Judge for trial. Durinq tria!, and thereafter statement o1 313 of fne CrP.C. in which h4 in Ihe. prosecution case and aiso examined Rukhmani Bai Learned triai court respective pari-ies, convictec| in Para-1 of this judgment. ^l<4fo<4ll +1WClf'^fi1c3t'<f^l^R iT3rf:OT3TI^T jirosecutrix is in the house of the cppeiiant. i)ig her and fnereafter committed rape with ^2.7.2004, the prosecutrix was recovered illlant on 25.7.2004 and thereafter she was [to District Hospital, Dhamtari where Dr. A. ir and aave her medico legal examination i/^stigation admissiori register of the school SCSSIOn. s|tigation, 1+ie charqe sheet was filed against P'udicial Magistrate 1 Class, Dhamtari, who Jo the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur and isfer by the iearned Additional Sessions •^ie prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all the accused was recorded under Section denied the evidence cppearing against him ^teaded innocence and fa!se impiication. He iVV-1] in his defence. |after hearing learned counsel for the and sentenced the appellant as mentioned Trtan Jn^ ^Cid, '; -:t<SB a;XI-3|IC-22 r an^r^ R-ii.i* sn^v sft^ich yI?tT ^^ 'tlWI''}^, ri-dlyiii, facti'yy SIR^T xra^? HWWI 9lHIV> "Wl, 200 fq^I' STT^I ^gigr'gfld 3. Learned counsel for the c cppeliant is based on fnee evi^ prosecutrix has made materiai ii(ij diary statement. Her version als^ evidence as Dr. A. Tripathi (P^ person and she was also not ab prosecutrix was subjected to accompanied the appeiiant to va( such she was the consenting par| committ'ed by tiie appellant as statement and the Station h'ou4 admitted that the prosecutrix s^ On the other hand, leam^d impugned judgment. I have heard iearned couihse impugned judgment as aiso the e( Learnea trial court on prosecutrix, who has stated the^t statement of the Headmaster r|i the admission register (Ex.P-9[ prosecutrix is mentioned as 8.74 ^I^I^TiiH ^1^1 ^ FsLd1 ^•^!< ^siPaHsii^r ppellant submits that conviction of the ence of the prosecutrix, however, the ^prevements before the court from her does not find^support- from the medicai ^/-7) has not found any injury on her e to categoricaliy opine as to when the intercourse last time. Tne prosecutrix rious places on her own free wi!l and as ty. There is no evidence regarding rape above fact is missing from her diary e Officer yw-18) Shri M.L. Pandey has •atement was recorded as told by her. counse! for the Sta+e suppori'ed the for the parties. I have perused the ('idence availabte on record. the basis of the evidence of the her date of birth is 8.7.1991, and the amely Shri Chironji Lal, who has proved ) in which also date of bir'th of the .991 as also the sta+ement of the father [1[f^^f?^Er ;XI-HC-22 an^rqn fs-ii.'o sv^v sti^Ni ^fsa •S^ VWM^. dTll'y'lti, (««11'M1< *II*«?ITailich "flFI. 2CO siit^r ^gwofet coutise tHe r&om of the prosecutrix Shivshanka^ the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 13 years on the^ been chaNenged by leamed Prosecutrix in her evii incident when she was returni Umesh at about 9.00 p.m., home, iocked her inside the her after gagging her and taki^ home for the who!e night. moming her father ShivshanM to the house of the appe!lant afid however, the appejlant forcibl took her to Rai'pur where she !aw. She was re!eased from po!ice. Above version of th^ evidence of her father Shivsht (PW-4), Lakhanlai ^W-5), Krip|a Even otherwise considerfi years on the date of incident, there is evidence avaiiabie o( °tii<i[fi<fli wivS ^ fsW (Rit<^i< i? sifigii sn^r Sahu (PW-2), who has also stated that brosecutrix, assessed the aqe of the date of incident and this aspect has not forthe ^pellant. jence has stated that on the date of i(ig from the house. of her brother-in-taw appellant caught her, took her to his ond thereafter committed rape with ig out her ciothes. He confined her in his Ihe has furt'her stated that on the next w. uncle Shobha and other vilbgers came tried to release her from the captivity, took her inside his house and thereafter was kept in the house of his brother-in- captivity with the intervention of the prosecutrix is corroborated from the bnkar (PW-2). Hridayram (PW-3), Monnulai iram (PW-6) and Chhabiiai (PW-11). ing that the age of the prosecutrix was 13 iny consent given by her is meaningless, as record that she was residing with her ['^^fw.l the XI-HC-22 •^g ^||i<|d*l, d'dl'y'l'i. (°«1l'M'i< ^) sn^r^T R-iitti SII^T sn^icti ^fia Roshan/'- HI*<WI grqitf) "^ 200 fq^T' 3TI^I'TOITW ^lfel an parents, who are lawful guardii of her parents abducted her, committed rape with her and confjhed there. Version of th^ the statement of Dr. A. Tripdi was torn and reddishness was p( 5o far as fne ar'gument appeiiant that the prosecutrix the court. from her diary ^ examination 1+ie defence has diary statement and therefor^ explain the discrepancy, if an\ before the court. After considering the ev| the impugned judgment, I am court has not committed an'l impugned judgment and the merit, the same deserves to be| ^iqf^tl'f tTTTRff "^ t^?t TfSf-t-^R ^sif^giTsn^r i, and 1+ie appellant without the consent t^ok her to his home, confined her •Hiere, ^hereafter again took her to Raipur and i^ prosecutrix is a!so corroborated from rt (PW-7) who has found that her hymen t'esent. advanced by iearned counse! for the has made materiai improvements before ^t'atement is concerned, in the cross- jot confronted the prosecutrix with the , the prosecutrix had no opportunity to , in her diary statement and statement lidence availabie on record and perusal of ^f fne considered opinion that the trial iliegality or infirmity in pdssing •riie preferred by the appeliant has no dismissed una' it is hereby dismissed. 'v, Jndge [^f^tfe^