Consent of minors is not legally relevant; the offence of rape established through credible victim testimony and corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2007 and 29.10.2007 respectively passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-3), Godda in Sessions Trial No.228 of 2005 arising out of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.271 of 2005 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.884 of 2005), whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for six years for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C., with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.08.2005 since 02:30 p.m., informant’s minor daughter aged about 16 years (victim girl) was traceless from the house, the informant Mahendra Mandal (P.W.3) was attending his work and returned to home in the evening at about 05:00 p.m. then his wife Shila Devi (P.W.2) disclosed about the said incident. It is alleged that the informant along with other family members made hectic search of his daughter, then it was disclosed by his neighbours that victim girl used to talk with the accused Dharmendra Sikdar. The informant went to the house of Dharmendra Sikdar but he was not present and his father Suresh Sikdar told that he had gone to Godda in search of job and has not returned. The informant was about to lodge the F.I.R. in connection with the said occurrence, meanwhile, on 22.08.2005 at about 10:30 a.m., Officer-In- Charge Godda (Town) Police Station arrived at his house and his fardbeyan was recorded.

4. Accordingly, Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.271 of 2005 was instituted for the offences under Section 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. against the accused Dharmendra Sikdar.

5. In the course of investigation, victim was recovered from the house of accused Dharmendra Sikdar and her statement was got recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and she was also medically examined.

6. After completion of investigation and collection of evidence, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 363, 366A and 376 of the I.P.C.

7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.228 of 2005 was registered. After Commitment of the case, charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. After completion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the victim girl voluntarily accompanied with the appellant on account of love affairs between them and the sexual intercourse was consensual. The victim was a major girl. All these facts are not properly considered by learned Trial Court while appreciating the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the victim girl voluntarily solemnized marriage with the appellant at Dhansai Mandir (Temple) by allowing the appellant putting vermilion on her head. The victim girl was residing with the appellant and peaceful marital life was going on but due to lodging of this false case, the v