M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16 th January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2554 of 1997 affirming the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I., the accused -appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.
(2.) This is a case where the prosecutrix, who is blind and an illiterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage.
(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father at Village Nandini Khundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere else and, thereafter, the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers Nand Kumar, Iswari and Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Iswari, the accused Tikendra was also studying. Because of the friendship, the accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused used to visit her and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that about one year before the incident, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in love with her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since she was a blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by the accused that he will marry her and will give her all support and, therefore, she submitted herself to the accused. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the prosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used to come and commit sexual intercourse with her. By such course of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the prosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point of time, the accused stopped visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident was disclosed to the father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of the Panchayat in the Village. In the Panchayat, the accused was also called. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Panchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refused to marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case of prosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she could recognize the accused person by his voice and by touch.;