Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dt. 04.03.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 35/2005, whereby the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sec. 376(2)(g) IPC as under: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years SI.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2005, the complainant Kishorilal Meena lodged a written report Ex. P -1 at Police Station Rajgarh stating therein that both the accused appellants have committed rape and sexual exploitation with her minor daughter Mishrilata and they are committing rape on her from last 8 months. They have threatened his daughter and on 23.09.2005 her pregnancy has been terminated which was due to the rape committed by the appellants. An FIR No. 248/2005 has been registered for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the present appellants. Offence was triable by the Sessions Court, therefore, it was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar. Charges against the appellants for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(g) IPC were framed. 14 witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution story. Statements of accused were recorded under Sec. 313 IPC and after hearing the case, the present appellants have been convicted and sentence as stated above. Hence this appeal: The contention of the present appellants is that the whole prosecution story is unreliable as it does not inspire any confidence. FIR is delayed one. Time of rape and pregnancy does not correlate and the age of the prosecutrix was 19 years at the time of incident, the Court below has wrongly convicted the accused appellants. Hence, they should be acquitted.
(3.) PER contra, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that the age of the prosecutrix, according to school certificate is 06.07.1989. Court below has rightly convicted the accused appellants, no interference is needed.;