JUDGEMENT

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, district Narmadapuram (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 28/2019, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further RI for six months.

Case of Prosecution 2. On date 19.09.2018, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) that she is resident of Imaliya Turning, Ward No. 76, Pariyat, Police Station – Adhartal, District Jabalpur and has also done Bachelor in Science and Master in Arts. It was further stated in the complaint that through Facebook present appellant got in touch and they were regularly in talking terms through video call and voice call, thereafter, after 4-5 months, appellant and prosecutrix exchanged their phone number, thereafter the appellant met her at Jabalpur Railway Station. After some time, appellant asked the prosecutrix to go to Panchmarhi on dated 29.07.2017 they both went to Panchmarhi from Jabalpur via Pipariya, thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, appellant made physical relation with her at Panchmarhi.

Thereafter, again they both went to Maihar and stayed together in a hotel. There also appellant made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, prosecutrix and appellant went to the home of appellant at Rewa and again they both made physical relation. After a lapse of five months i.e. on 19.09.2018 the prosecutrix (PW-1) has lodged a report at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur, thereafter, matter was transferred to Pachmarhi and Crime No. 61/2018 was registered for commission of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and her medical examination was conducted, wherein Dr. Shikha Bhatnagar (PW-

7) has opined that no sign of injury was found on the prosecutrix. During investigation, the investigation agency prepared spot map, recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after following the due process of law, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court of law.

3. After committal of the case, learned trial court framed the charges against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case and prays for trial.

4. In support of its case, prosecution introduced following witnesses namely, Prosecutrix (PW-1), sister of prosecutrix (PW-2), father of prosecutrix (PW-3), Suresh Jain, Hotel Manager (PW-4), Udal Singh Gurjar (PW-5), Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW-6), Smt. Dr. Shikha Bhatnagar (PW-7), Smt. Sonal Shukla (PW-8), Laxman Singh Dhurve (PW-9), Satish Mehra (PW-10), Smt.Geeta Jatav (PW-11), Shubhash Chand (PW-

12) andRavindra Parashar (PW-13).In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. though the appellant abjured his guilt and submitted that he was falsely implicated in the matter but in defence he did not examined any witnesses.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence, convicted the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 01 of this judgment. Contentions of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that as the prosecutrix itself deposed that she was taken from one place to other and visited various hotels and stayed with the appellant and also visited the home of appellant at one occasion. Prosecutrix was in relationship with appellant for