A conviction for rape cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to prove the victim's minority through reliable admissible evidence and where the evidence, including the prosecutrix's conduct, indicates a consensual sexual relationship, thereby negating the element of force required for the offence.

Judgment on Board

1. Considering that this case has been pending since 2008 and no one appears for the appellant today, in these circumstances, the Court directs Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, learned Panel Lawyer to assist the Court and contest the matter on behalf of the appellant.

2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee is directed to appoint Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate to contest the matter on behalf of the appellant and authorization letter in this regard be also issued.

3. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.08.2007 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 89/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :-

(All the sentences are directed to run concurrently)

4. The prosecution case, as per the records and the impugned judgment, is that on 12.02.2007, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report at Police Station- Bhilai-3, alleging that the appellant had taken his daughter by allurement and the matter was taken up for investigation by the police. During the investigation, information was received that the prosecutrix was living with the appellant in Village Maradkather. She was recovered and stated that the appellant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Based on her statement, a report under Section 376 IPC was lodged and she underwent medical examination. The accused was arrested and subjected to medical examination. The clothes worn by the accused and the prosecutrix at the time of the incident were seized and the prosecutrix’s vaginal slide was sent for chemical analysis. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. The appellant/accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial.

5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, two witness examined by him in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.

7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant su