The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if infirm, requires corroboration, and the failure to produce key witnesses can lead to adverse inferences against the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar whereby the accused appellant Amar Singh has been convicted and sentenced under section 366 I.P.C. to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-and under section 376 I.P.C. for seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default provision in each of the offences. The appellant has been acquitted of the charge under section 363 I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The prosecution case is that the complainant Bablu, P.W. 1 lives in Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur in a hut and carries on the business of selling eggs for livelihood. Amar Singh, the present appellant works in Arya Nagar karkhana. He also lives in Swaroop Nagar. On 22.3.2010, Amar Singh enticed away daughter of the complainant aged about 16-17 years, from her home. He agreed her to marry. The complainant apprehended both, the accused Amar Singh and his daughter from karkhana and gave them in the custody of police. A written report was given by him to the police station on the basis of which case crime No.60 of 2010 under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered.

4. Investigation was conducted by the investigating officer. Statement(s) of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses were taken. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement was recorded under section 164 CrPC. On pointing out of the prosecutrix, place of occurrence was inspected and site plan was prepared and consequently charge-sheet against the accused appellant under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. was filed. Against the accused appellant, charges under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. From the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 Bablu, P.W.2 prosecutrix, P.W.3 Dr. Jyotsana Kumari, P.W.4 S.I. Ram Chandra Pal and P.W.5 Constable Pradeep Kumar were examined. The written report has been exhibited as Ext.Ka-1, supurdaginama as Ext. Ka-2, medical report of the victim as Ext.Ka-3, supplementary medical report as Ext.Ka-4, site plan as Ext.Ka-5, charge-sheet as Ext.Ka-6, chik FIR as Ext.Ka-7 and G.D. entry as Ext.Ka-8. Statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded where the case of the accused is of denial.

6. The prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 CrPC has stated that she went with the accused to Arya Nagar Karkhana. She was forcibly raped there and was threatened. She was subjected to rape thrice. She became unconscious and in the morning, she came home and told the incident to her mother and then her parents and brother Deepu went to karkhana and caught the accused from there and gave him to the police.

7. P.W.1 Bablu has stated that on 22.3.2010, the accused enticed away the prosecutrix from his home. He also went to karkhana. Both of them were found there and he agreed them to marry. From the karkhana, he apprehended the accused and the prosecutrix, and handed them over, to the police.

In cross-examination, he changed the time of the incident and stated that the incident took place in the month of November, then stated that the incident occurred on December 28 evening. He further stated in his cross examination that his daughter has not told him that she was enticed away. He knew the accused. He is a resident of the same mohalla. He caught the accused from karkhana and stated that he will get them married.

It is further stated that he has shown the place of incident to the investigating officer. He stated that he got the written report written by Rajvansh of mohalla. He told the investigating officer that his daughter has agreed for the marriage. He did not agree for the marriage. However, he stated that if the daughter is ready, he can marry her. The accused was caught from Karkhana by P.W.1 and hi