WWW r;v ‘1 1}—2UO’7" bmt Hameeda b1dd1qm, A ‘Vocate for the appellant bhrl NeeraJ Mehta, Panel awyer, for the State. :2. hhis criminal appeal is d rected against the judgment of * conv1ct10n and order oi semen e dated 11 N0. 277/2003 whereby tearn ’ ‘Baloda Bazarhas convicted th appellant under Sections 363, 66 and 976{1) ofl P L, and se tenced mm to undergo Ki tor z veas With nne of Rs 300/ R 1 for o year With fine or Rs 500/ and R1. for ‘I years With fme f Rs. 1000,1— and 1n delault of payment of fme, to fmthe1‘ un ergo RI. for 6 months, 1 year and ‘2\years respectively. l 3. The case of the prosecuti n is that the prosecutrix aged about 15 years resides with 'T‘ne accused also resides in the n ourhood with his sister Pusai. The appellant enticed the p osecutrix on the promise of VCarS, L\Ca1de.ut Of Bardhla, rangarh Dlstt Ralgarn (A: L n[o Vidaga nubadema, '1 hana haran, Ulstt Ba1 garn (Urlssa) WP$L¢ State o Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT a 2004 passed S 1 lst Addltlonal sessmns Judge, er parents at Sarsiwan. e‘ b a e C—22 WW (wasw/ 1H 200 4- mmetwm aWtfanm lined as also the accused. School Certilieate of Ex. P-6 of the I u 1‘ 27-8-2002 and from there sh and ne also raped her 1n the asked hlm to merrv, ne clenle lodged 1n the Ponce btatlon ba prosecutnx was medlcally exan prosecutrix was also taken into harge sheet was filed. 4. During trial, 9' witnesses were examined by the ‘ prosecution, 3recorded in which he pleaded i However, learned trial Court for the parties has convicted mentioned above '5. Lealned counsel Ior the t below has conv1ctea the appd appellant took the prosecutnx thereafter he subjected her she was taken from the lawful their permission on the promis the appellant is an od‘ence witl 366 and 376(1) of I.P.C. It is ar ' proSeeutrix on the date bf‘inCI possession and thereafter the c £ imarriage and took her to village Barbhatha, RS. Sarangarh on = Was taken to village Kubediga meantime When the prosecutrix (1 and ultimatelv tne report was r51wan During investigation, the thereafter the : ;tatement of the accused was innocence and false implication. after hearing the learned counsel and sentenced the accused as 1ppellant submits that the court ’llant With the Iindmg that the on the promise of marriage and to rape Since the age of the dent was less than 18 vears and custody ol her guardians Without e of marriage, therefore the act of lin‘the meaning of Sections 363, gued that there is no reliable and I\ aémnw mm..u‘Cy .... .5”ra§S3/ogi m mmmafaa ‘ mm WW ammm trustworthy evidence avaiiable on record regarding the age of {he prosecutrix as the prosecutrix has not been referred to radioiogist and the fmding of the trial Court is based on the $611001 cer'tm’cate of EX. P—6 which mav not be Considered to be a conciusive prOof of the age. ’ b. On the other hand, 1ewned counsel for the State has nt. The oniy question to be ided in this appeal is whether the ‘I‘mding or the trial Court V ' iess then 18 rears on the‘date of incident is in accordance with“ Z?“ law or not ? From the statement of t‘ e prosecutrix (RWJ) it is Clear that she went with the accu ed without seeking permission from her parents. She was Stu ying in Class 6 (B) and after the 'appeliant took her from her e c the age of the prosecutrix was t ts’ house on the promise of marriage, he co‘mmitted rape w th her for a continuous period of 1 month in village Kubediga she resided with him for a period of 9 months and the ra_ e was committed on the promise of marriage. V of the prosecutrix. He has stated ' RW. ’2 Mahadev is father in para '2 of his deposition tha his daughter is 14 years old as his eldest son Bhojram is éd 19-20 years old and the prosecutrix is 4-5 years youn er to n1m He has admitted his ilm D p ' . n d g Wm m 200 wwmitfwm amfmam of 6 years. She was studying in adv. Ex. P-6 is school certiflcate i—ie does not remember the exact however, when he admitted the had taken her date of birth from yillage Kotwar and her date of irth was recorded on the basis of the slip given bv village Kotw prosecutrix, has also stated 1 of hge as she is a student of ’1 school by her father. There 1 witnesses regarding the above versions and the trial Court on . Qthe basis of the statement of iheses two Witnesses has held. the i age of the prosecutrix to be less than 16 years on the date of incident. The finding of the appreciation of evidence availa ln the light of the'abov3 discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the t‘ial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellant - ’aS'aDOVe. . ' The appeal being devcid of substance is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. PF daughter in s’chéol at the age Class 6 when she left her st‘ hich was seized from him. date of birth of'his daughter prosecutrix in the school, the . P."w'. 3 Punnibai, mother of the at her daughter is 13 to l4-years Class 6.- 5She was admitted in the .s no Cross-examination of these 7 trial Court is based on proper ble on record. ‘55 ‘ / 7/ mi ssmd/R-A NESW it ‘ f ; w