Aniruddha Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant-Dhirendra Patel Alias Jony challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Chitrakoot in S.T. No. 142 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2012, under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 363 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.4,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further one month additional imprisonment and under Section 366 I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further one month additional imprisonment. It was further ordered that 50% of the fine, so deposited by the appellant, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted in the sentence awarded by the court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is against fact and law. The prosecutrix had gone with the appellant on her free will and consent along with golds, silvers and cash. It is admitted case of the prosecutrix that she was major hence no offence under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C. is made out. According to medical report, prosecutrix was above 16 to 17 years of age. In view of settled law, two years benefit may be given to the accused. Then she becomes major. There is no allegation of threat agaisnt the appellant to compel her to marry. Signature at paper 20-Kha was admitted that is marriage agreement between Salman and prosecutrix, which was executed on 27.7.2012 after two days of the incident and in this document the prosecutrix has clearly admitted her signature hence this document is admitted to the prosecution. It was executed between Salman and prosecutrix and she stated therein she is 20 years of age and Salman is 21 years of age.;