- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant is a teacher in a government school. Vimala was a student reading in the said school. She alleged that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on putting her to fear that she would be failed in her classes. In fact, she was studying in class VII for three years. A First Information Report was lodged. She became pregnant. Appellant took her to a hospital at Satna where an abortion took place. In the meantime a missing diary was recorded on 1.02.1997. On 11.02.1997, the prosecutrix herself came back and gave a statement before the Investigating Officer. She alleged that at the relevant time she was only 13= years old.
(3.) The said allegations were not found to be correct in the trial. A finding of fact was arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that she was a consenting party. She was found to be more than 18 years of age. On the basis of the said findings, it was categorically held that the accused was not guilty of the offence of commission of rape. The learned Trial Judge, however, was of the opinion that as the school, in question, was a government school, the appellant was a public servant. The prosecutrix was a student, and thus, in that capacity, was in his custody and in that view of the matter he was guilty of commission of an offence under Section 376B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default thereof to undergo sentence of 6 months R.I. An appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed by reason of the impugned Judgment by the High Court.;