Judgment on Board

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 153/2007, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, a minor aged about 16 years, was employed in a contracting business and used to accompany the accused, who is a mason, for work at Hingna Road. On the date of the incident, i.e. 08.07.2007, at about 8:00 AM, the accused came to the house of the complainant and took the prosecutrix along with him on the pretext of going to work. However, the prosecutrix did not return to her home till 8:00 PM on the same day. Upon making inquiries, the complainant came to know from one Khedva Sahu that the prosecutrix was last seen in the company of the accused, namely Dhananjay.

3. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a missing report of his daughter at Police Station Nandini. On the basis of the said report, a case under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the accused’s maternal uncle, namely Sundarlal, situated in village Gadadih and on the basis of information given by the prosecutrix, the accused had committed rape on her. The prosecutrix was thereafter subjected to medical examination with the consent of her father. The accused was apprehended and also medically examined. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix and the accused were seized. During the medical examination of the prosecutrix, vaginal slides were prepared and the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 (on four counts) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

4. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence, alleging false implication in the case. The accused/appellant, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.03.2008, held the prosecution case to be proved and the evidence to be reliable and trustworthy. Consequently, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as specified in paragraph 1 of the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law as well as on f