( 1 ) SESSIONS Judge, Rewa in s. T. No. 185/89 vide impugned judgment dated 17-7-91 recording conviction of appellant under Section 376 of the I. P. C. sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a. period of 5 years. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2), cr. P. C.

( 2 ) PROSECUTRIX (PW/2) per post sent a letter dated 14-4-89 (Ex. P/l) to the Police stating inter alia that while she was working at the residence of Abdullah (PW/3) she came in contact with the appellant and remained indulged in sexual intercourse since february 1988. As a result in the month of november-December she conceived a pregnancy. Appellant developed intimacy on assurance of marriage, however, the pregnancy being disclosed appellant suggested for an abortion. Prosecutrix (PW/2) declined to abort and a week before 20-5-89 delivered a female child. On the basis of letter (Ex. P/l)the police on its own recorded FIR (Ex. P/e)on 19-5-89 and sent the prosecutrix (PW/ 2) for medical examination. Dr. Smt. S. B, nema (PW/9) on examination found the prosecutrix (PW/2) being habitual of sexual intercourse. Accordingly report (Ex. P/4) was recorded and the prosecutrix (PW/2) was referred to ossification test for confirmation of age. Dr. S. K. Pathak (PW/7) on the basis of X-ray examination recorded report (Ex. P/3) to the effect that prosecutrix was aged about 18 years. Completing the investigation appellant was charge-sheeted. Appellant abjured the guilt and contended that Abdullah (PW/3) himself is a man of doubtful character. On account of enmity abdullah (PW3) had instigated the prosecutrix (PW/2) to falsely allege that she was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse by the appellant. The Court below relying upon the state-ment of prosecutrix (PW/2) held that appellant allured her with a promise to marry as such she submitted herself to the act of sexual intercourse. As a result she conceived the pregnancy and on being asked to marry appellant resiled from the promise. On facts and in the circumstance the Court below in st No. 185/89 vide impugned judgment recording conviction of appellant under Section 376 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo RI for the period said above.

( 3 ) PROSECUTRIX PW/2 states that she was aged about 15 years at the time when she indulged into sexual relationship with the appellant. Her father Rajjab Khan PW/4 has stated herself to be aged about 14 years. However, there is nothing In the statement of (PW/1) Kuttan, the mother to state the age of her daughter the prosecutrix (PW/2 ). Abdullah PW/3, Rajjab Khan PW/4 in their statements (Ex. P/l and D/2) before the police have stated that the prosecutrix (PW/ 2) on the date of incident was aged about 17 years. PW/9 Dr. Smt. S. B. Nema has stated that as per physical appearance the age of the prosexutrix (PW/2) was 17 years. However, for confirmation of age she was referred to ossification test. PW/7 Dr. S. K. Pathak has stated that X-rays of forearm-wrist and iliac crest of the prosecutrix (PW/2) have been taken. On the basis of examination of X-rays aforesaid she was found to be aged about 18 years. PW/7 Dr. S. K. Pathak has categorically stated that there may be further difference of two years on either side. Taking evidence on record it has been proved that in the month of February-1988 the prosecutrix was in fact aged about 18 years.

( 4 ) PROSECUTRIX PW/2 has stated that while she was working at the residence of abdullah (PW/3) she came in contact with the appellant and developed intimacy. On being assured of marriage she indulged into sexual relationship with the appellant. After about 10 months time as a result of sexual intercourse she conceived the pregnancy. Appellant resiled from the promise to marry her instead suggested to go for an abortion. She declined to do so and sent the letter (Ex. P/l) per post to the Police. After sometime she delivered a female child. However, she died. PW/1 Kuttan, PW/3 Abdullah, PW/4 rajjab Khan have stated that they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document