A consensual relationship with a woman above 16 years does not constitute rape under IPC, particularly when no false promise of marriage is established.

JUDGMENT :

Navneet Kumar, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction dated 17.05.2006 and Order of Sentence dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track court-IInd, Bokaro in S.T. No. 265 of 2004, in G.R. Case No. 496 of 2004 arising out of B.S. City (Sector-XII) P.S. Case No. 123/04 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under sections 376/316 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under both the sections 376 and 316 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for 6 months. Both the sentence directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the victim/PW3 on 05.06.2004 is as under:

PW3 stated in her statement that Gopal Singh (appellant) was her neighbour and when her father got fracture in his leg and during the treatment of her father the victim/PW3 and the appellant became friend and thereafter the appellant started making physical relation with her. Whenever her father tried to settle her marriage, Gopal Singh on one pretext or other got it cancelled and claimed to marry her. Since seven months Gopal Singh maintained physical relation with her and when she became pregnant for seven months, Gopal Singh denied to marry her.

On this information B.S. City (Sector-XII) P.S. case no. 123/04 was registered u/s. 376 of IPC and N. K. Mishra PW-8 was given charge for investigation who has recorded re-statement of the prosecutrix and sent her for medical examination to Chas Referal Hospital with a requisition Ext.5.

He has inspected the place of occurrence, received the medical report and filed the charge-sheet against the accused u/s. 376/316 of the IPC vide chargesheet No. 144 of 2004. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and after commitment the record was sent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro and from there the same has been transferred to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.-II Bokaro has framed charge under section 376 and 316 of IPC on 16 October 2004, for the contents of charges, the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenged in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant:

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial court is contrary to law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the learned trial court has passed his judgement not on Judicial appreciation of evidence on record but on his own unwarranted surmises, conjectures and suspicions. He further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to apply his judicial mind and the defence of the appellant has not properly been considered.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that the learned court below has not considered properly that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, i.e. after seven months. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider the material evidence available on record, where