The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the use of force beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving charges under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sanjay Priya, J.

None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Ram Swarup Prasad has been appointed as Amicus Curiae. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State.

2. Sole appellant stood convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the convict will have to undergo R.I. for two years. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict will have to undergo further R.I. for one year by the judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2008 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2008 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Siwan in G.R. case no. 833 of 2006, Sessions Trial no. 122 of 2007, arising out of Maharajganj (Basantpur P.S.) case no. 34 of 2006. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that niece of the informant came to the house of the informant on 17.3.2006. The appellant Sanoj Yadav came to the house of the informant on 19.3.2006 at 4-5:00 PM and told his niece, namely Ranita (victim girl) that her mother is not well. He has come to take her. The niece of the informant went with appellant. The informant after six days went to the house of her sister and came to know that accused had not brought the victim girl. It is further alleged by the informant that appellant Sanoj along with his mother induced the victim girl either for illicit relation or for marriage. The informant went in search of his niece but she could not be found.

4. The police, on the basis of aforesaid written report, drew FIR and registered Basantpur P.S. case no. 34 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against this appellant for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC. The trial against the sole appellant proceeded for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC.

6. The prosecution has examined total nine witnesses during trial. No defence witness has been examined.

7. The victim girl Ranita Kumari has been examined as PW-3. She has stated, in her examination-in-chief, that appellant Sanoj came to the house of her mama. She knew her from before. He told that her mother is ill. Thereafter she went with him. He took her first to Gopalganj. Thereafter he took her to some unknown place where he kept her for four months. He also established physical relation with her against her wish. He brought her after four months to Pandey Mor(chowk) Maghar Gaon by Maruti car and left her. She was brought to the police station by the police. Thereafter she was brought before the Magistrate where she gave her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., which has been proved by Sageer Alam (PW6) and marked as Ext. 1. The victim girl has stated her age to be 16 years. The Court has assessed her age to be 17 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164 C.P.C., she has stated that she lived with this appellant for four months. During that period, the appellant established physical relationship with her against her wishes. Thereafter, he left her near Pandey Mor by Maruti Car.

8. In this case, doctor Ranjeeta Srivastava has been examined as PW-9. The doctor has stated in her evidence that as per X-ray finding the age of the victim girl was assessed between 18-19 years. She was having pregnancy of 17 weeks at the time of her medical examination. The Medical Report has been marked as Ext. 2. The doctor has mentioned in her evidence that she did not find any mark of violence or external injury on any part of the body. Her hymen was found torn. The vaginal swab was sent to microscopic examination and no spermatozoa was found. She has furthe