JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2006 passed by Mohammed Kasim, Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-II, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No.105 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years and a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging FIR by the victim-Kumari Seema Behra by submitting written complaint in her own handwriting and the same was registered as Kharsawan P.S. Case No.14 of 2005 dated 15.04.2005. It has been alleged that when the victim was a student of class-8, the appellant used to follow her. Subsequently the accused had established physical relation with her against her will and on the pretext of marriage continued for about two years. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that before lodging FIR, menstrual cycle of the victim has stopped and as such, she complained to her mother. Thereafter, mother of the victim took her for medical examination by a private doctor who confirmed that the victim is carrying pregnancy of about three months. Thereafter, panchayati was held but the appellant refused to marry with the victim rather he has offered some money for the termination of pregnancy and hence the present case has been lodged. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer referred the victim to Government Hospital, Seraikella on 16.04.2005 for medical examination by formulating four questions.

¼1½ ihfM+rk dh mez D;k gS\

¼2½ D;k ihfM+rk ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k x;k gS\

¼3½ D;k ihfM+rk dk xHkZ gS\

¼4½ vxj ihfM+rk dks xHkZ gS rks fdrus ekg dk xHkZ gS\

4. The victim has been examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 30.04.2005 and this has been marked as Ext.2/2. The same has been proved by P.W.8-the Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. In her statement she has repeated the allegation with some more details. The medical report of the doctor has been received on 21.04.2005 which has been marked as Ext.1 and it has been proved by P.W.4-the Doctor. In the medical report it has been opined by the doctor that the age of the victim is 17 years, further he also opined that she is not pregnant and the stoppage of menstrual cycle may be due to other reasons. He has negated the termination of pregnancy.

5. After conclusion of investigation, the appellant had been chargesheeted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to which cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. The charge has been framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eight (08) witnesses have been examined. The defence has also examined one witness namely Bikash Mahato.

P.W.1-Ratan Behra, P.W.2-Anant Behra and P.W.3-Manoj Rajak have been declared hostile.

P.W.4-the Doctor namely Manorma Sidhesh has proved the medical report and in medical report the pregnancy has been negated.

P.W.5 is the victim girl who has confirmed the allegation levelled against the appellant regarding having sexual relation on the pretext of marriage. She has stated in her statement in para-8 that the pregnancy has automatically got terminated before medical check-up. This fact has not been stated either in the FIR or in the statement made before the magistrate recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

P.W.6. is the mother of the victim girl. She has also supported the allegation and regarding the pregnancy. She has stated that two to four days before medical examination the pregnancy of the victim lady has got automatically terminated.

P.W.7. is the Investigating Officer who has testified that the victim girl has sta