JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.74/2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 363 and 376 of the J.P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay find of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month on first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months on the second count.

2. Complainant PW Rajendra Korde is clerk in the office of Panchayat Samiti. He is inhabitant of village Khedle-Kajali. The appellant is remotely related to him. The parental house of the appellant is situated in a small locality (vasti) on way between village Khedle-Kajali and Pravara-Sangam. There is school at Pravara-Sangam which is around 5 kms. away from locality of village Khedlet Kajali. The prosecutrix is the second daughter 5 complainant PW Rajendra Korde. She was 1 aged about 15 years at the relevant time. She was attending 10th standard in the secondary English school at Pravara-Sangam in the relevant period. She used to commute to the school on a bicycle.

3. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that the appellant had developed intimacy with the prosecutrix. He enticed her to go with him on assurance of performing marriage with her. They had eloped on 2nd June, 2008, but then complainant PW Rajendra had filed only a missing report as any prosecution could have probably ruined the marriage prospects of the prosecutrix. After a few days, the prosecutrix was restored to the custody of her father i.e. complainant PW1 Rajendra. The house of the appellant falls on the way of the school of the prosecutrix and there was apprehension that he would against allure her to go with him. There was a proposal to perform their marriage to which complainant PW Rajendra had initially consented to, but later on declined when he come to know that the appellant was already married. He found that the appellant was disgruntled when the marriage proposal was turned down. He further noticed that the appellant used to loiter in the proximity of his house. So, he reached the prosecutrix at farmhouse of his aunt on 22nd July 2008, situated near village Narayanapur. The appellant and his brother went to the farmhouse on 8th August, 2008 and kidnapped the minor prosecutrix on a motorcycle. He took her to various places. When he was contacted on mobile phone, he demanded ransom.

Complainant PW Rajendra lastly agreed to pay amount of Rs.22,000/- to Rs.25,000/- as ransom amount. The appellant threatened to sell the prosecutrix to a brothel if the amount was not paid. Consequently, PW Rajendra lodged a report. After about a couple of months, on 28th October, 2008, the appellant alongwith the prosecutrix went to the Police Station at Waluj. He was arrested. The prosecutrix was subjected to clinical examination. Her statement was recorded. Her statement revealed that she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the appellant, without her consent, during the relevant period of their consortium. The police collected evidence pertaining to age of the prosecutrix, got recorded statements of witnesses and thereafter, charge-sheeted the appellant alongwith his mother and younger brother for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A and 376 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh-12). His defence was that the prosecutrix was major and willignly accompanied him. According to the defence version, the appellant and the prosecutrix had entered the wedlock. He denied that he had used force against her to accompany him. He admitted that he and the prosecutrix went to several places, hotels and inns during the relevant period. He categorically denied that ransom amount was demanded from complainant PW Rajendra.

5. At the trial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document