- (1.)This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-7-2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahasamund, CG in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2012 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 363 & 366 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, with default stipulations. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
(2.)In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/1. As per version of prosecution, prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident i. e. ,26- 10-2011 and she was in custody of her parents. The appellant took her from lawful guardianship of her parents on 16-10-2011 from village Salhebhata and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under: i) As per version of DW/3 Dr. Rajesh Ruprel, age of the prosecutrix is more than 19 years as per x-ray report (Ex. D/14), therefore, she was not minor on the date of incident. ii) The trial court has failed to appreciate that prosecuttrix is a consenting party and she was married to appellant in Arya Samaj. iii) The trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside.