Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-2-2000 passed by learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, As-

hoknagar, Distt. Guna in Sessions Trial No. 348/1998, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned Trial Court convicted the appellants and passed the sentences against them as under :--

Name Offence Sentence
(i) Shivraj 363, IPC 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default one year's R.I. 366A, IPC 7 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default one year's R.I. 376, IPC Seven year's RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, one year's R.I.
(ii) Lakhan 363, IPC 5 Year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default one year's R.I. 366A, IPC Seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-in default, one year.'s R.I. 118, IPC Five years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default one year's R.I.
(iii) Rani Bai Raghuvanshi 118, IPC Five years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default R.I. for one year.

(iv) Pran Singh 118, IPC Five years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default one year's R.I. In brief, the case of prosecution is that in the mid night of 10-4-1998, accused Rani Bai came inside the house of prosecutrix who was sleeping there and asked to accompany her. Both of them came out from the house and went to the house of Rani Bai where, accused persons namely Shivraj and Lakhan were present. Thereafter, these two accused persons carried the prosecutrix on a Rajdoot Motor Cycle and went to the Bus Stand from where, it is said that Lakhan came back to his house and accused Shivraj carried the prosecutrix to Village Maholi in a bus. It is said that in Village Maholi, accused Shivraj kept the prosecutrix at the house of his maternal uncle namely Pran Singh who is also an accused in this case. These two persons stayed for 15 days and during this period, it is said that Shivraj committed rape for several times, despite being resisted by the prosecutrix. After 15 days, one day prosecutrix came out from the house and ran away. On the way, she met with her brother Kamal Singh who was searching her. Thereafter, FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by prosecutrix on 30-4-1998. Earlier to this report, one Hari Singh who is the brother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report of on 11-4-1998 in Police Station, Shadhora.

3. Learned Trial Judge, on perusal of charge-sheet, framed the charges punishable under Sections 363/34, 366A and 376 of IPC against Shivraj. Accused Lakhan was charged under Sections 363/34, 366A and 376 of IPC, accused Rani Bai was charged under Sections 363/34 and 366A of IPC and similarly, accused Pran Singh was charged under Sections 363/34 and 366A of IPC. Needless to emphasis that all the accused persons abjured their guilt. The defence of the accused persons is that of false implication. In their defence, accused persons examined one Ghanshyam Singh Raghuvanshi who is a teacher of Primary School, Mathner.

9. The appellant Shivraj was charged under Sections 363/34, 366A and 376 of IPC. Accused Lakhan Singh was charged under Sections 363/34, 366A and 376 of IPC and other two accused persons namely Rani Bai and Pran Singh were charged under Sections 363/34 and 366A, IPC. In order to prove offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC, age of the prosecutrix is a relevant factor and plays a vital role. If the prosecutrix is a mirror girl then even if her consent is there, offence would be made out. However, if the prosecutrix is a major lady, then whether she is a consenting party, is to be seen. Thus, I shall decide first that what was the age of the prosecutrix on the date of commission of offence.