KANT TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant Kamruddin Alias Guddu and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) BY this appeal, the appellant Kamruddin Alias Guddu has impugned the judgment and order dated 27.05.1992 rendered by Sri P.K. Agnihotri, the then Assistant Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 613 of 1990, State vs. Kamruddin Alias Guddu, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant Kamruddin Alias Guddu under section 363 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand and has further convicted and sentenced him each under section 366-A and 376 IPC to under go rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. One thousand. The learned trial court further directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall under go rigorous imprisonment of one and a half year with regard to each of the aforesaid offences. The prosecution story in nut shell is that on 27.5.1990 the complainant Ram Bharose lodged the F.I.R., Exhibit ka-1, at the police station Shahabad district Hardoi with the allegation that one Sharif son of Moudhu and his mother kidnapped his daughter aged about thirteen years about ten days before lodging of the FIR. The complainant Ram Bharose had also expressed suspicion against the wife of one Ishwar Dayal Nai. On the basis of that FIR, the police registered the case and proceeded to make investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and was referred to the Women Hospital, Hardoi on 11.6.1990 for medical examination. PW-3 Dr. Reeta Singh, the lady doctor, found that axillary and pubic hairs were absent and breast were in the process of development and the prosecutrix had no external injury. Hymen was old torn and healed and vagina admitted two fingers easily. The lady doctor took vagina smear for pathological examination and referred her for X-ray to determine her age. After the X-ray, the lady doctor Reeta Singh prepared supplementary report Exhibit ka-4 and opined that the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse, therefore, no definite opinion regarding rape could be given. The lady doctor was further of the view that the prosecutrix was aged about twelve years. It may also be mentioned that no sperm was seen on pathological examination of vaginal smear. The investigating officer, after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
(3.) THE learned trial court framed the charges under sections 363, 366-A and 376 I.P.C. against the appellant and co-accused Sharif, who denied the charges and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity.;