Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This case is one of the glaring examples of sexual exploitation of a teenaged helpless village girl below 16 years of age by able bodied youth.

2. These four appeals by the accused appellants are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.4.1998, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner: I. Accused appellants Ramjilal, Kanhaiyalal, Hemraj and Radhey Shyam - under Sections 376 and 376/120-B IPC: Each to undergo 7 years RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months RI on the first count and on the other count, to undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months R.I. II. Accused appellants Radhey Shyam and Ram Kishan - under Section 292 IPC: Each to undergo one year RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months RI. The sentences were to run concurrently.

6. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused appellants for offence under Section 376, 341, 323, 384, 292 and 120-B IPC in the Court of learned judicial Magistrate, Dudu, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

7. On the basis of the material on record and after hearing the arguments of counsel for the accused the Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Court framed charged against the accused appellants Hemraj, Kanhaiyalal and Ramji Lal under Section 376 and 376/120-B I.P.C. against appellant Radhey Shyam under Section 376, 376/120B, 341 and 292 I.P.C. and against accused appellant Ram Kishan under Sections 376/120-B and 292 I.P.C..

10. The trial Court found the prosecution case, as alleged, proved against the accused appellants. In the opinion of the trial Judge, the testimony of the prosecutrix inspired confidence. It was corroborated by other evidence in material particulars. The prosecutrix was held to be below 16 years of age at the time of commission of crime. Accordingly, the accused appellants were found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376, 376/120-B and 292 I.P.C. For the purposes of ascertaining the age, the school record of the prosecutrix was produced. After examining the school record, the trial court opined that the age of the prosecutrix was 15 years.

27. I have also seen the photographs of prosecutrix Manju Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 with a view to find out the correctness of the finding of guilt under Section 292 IPC arrived at by the trial Judge against accused appellant Radhey Shyam and Ram Kishan and in my opinion the photographs cannot at all be said to be of obscene character as the same are not lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest. In my opinion the photographs Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 do not at all stand to the test of Section 292 IPC and therefore, the conviction of accused appellants Radhey Shyam and Ram Kishan is liable to be reversed. So far as accused appellant Ram Kishan is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he took the photographs of the prosecutrix and appellant Radhey Shyam. He is not at all involved either in the commission of offence under Section 376 nor the conspiracy, though he was charged under these offences. There is no evidence against him except that he took the photographs, which in my opinion was in the course of his business activities. Therefore, appellant Ram Kishan deserves to be acquitted of the offence under Section 292 IPC.