1. By way of present appeal, filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2007. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is sentenced for 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment 3 months S.I. for each offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Mandaben Gautambhai Vankheda came for residing at Dangri Falia, Vapi, for labour work. The complainant is originally resident of Boregam, Manju Taluka, Akola, Maharashtra. The complainant was residing with two sons and one unmarried daughter, namely, Sarika. On 19.7.2006, complainant and daughter – Sarika went for labour work. At 6:00 o'clock in the evening when the complainant came at home she did not find daughter – Sarika so she asked her daughter inlaw, Savita whereabout of Sarika. Savita replied that Sarika came from the labour work at 5:00 o'clock and told her that she is going to shop to purchase cream. On 8.8.2006, the complainant lodged complaint before Vapi town Police Station. Thereafter the complainant came to know that Rafik Subhratikhan and his son Afsarkhan and friend Sureshbhai all three were residing in one room. On inquiry being made the room was found locked. From the day Sarika was missing these three persons were also not found at the room and the room was found locked. It is alleged that previously Rafik Subhratikhan was oftently visiting her house and used to talk to her daughter. The complainant lodged the complaint that daughter Sarika, aged about 17 years is kidnapped by enticing.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi. As the case was triable by the learned Sessions Court it was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Valsad.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the present accused, to which the accused not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of present accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad, by his judgment and order of conviction dated 28.1.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.1 of 2007, convicted the present accused as stated above.
8. I have heard Ms.Meenu Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant, appointed through Legal Aid committee and Mr.H.L.Jani Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
9. Ms. Meenu Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant has read charge Ex.7 and contended that the learned Judge has wrongly convicted present appellant. It is contended that the learned Judge has not considered oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution. She read oral evidence of the present appellant and contended that it is a case of consent and prosecutrix was in love with the present appellant and in the result she had run away with her own wish with the present appellant and stayed with him for more than two months. She has contended that prosecution has produced documentary evidence and pregnancy report of the prosecutrix but the act of the present prosecutrix and oral evidence of the present appellant is required to be considered.
10. She has read oral evidence of the P.W.No.1 – Ambadas Anna Kuhade Ex.12 and read contents of panchnama of cloth of prosecutrix Ex.13 and contended that so far as cross examination of this witness is concerned, present appellant is not identified by him. She has read oral evidence of P.W.No.2, Nareshbhai @ Tarabhai Chharabhai Halpati Ex.15 and panchnama of clothes of accused Ex.16 and contended that from the contents of Ex.16 case of the prosecution is not proved primafacie. It is further contended that from contents of Ex.18, panchnama of physical condition of the accused, prosecution has examined P.W.No.3 Natubhai Manilal Halpati at Ex.17 and through evidence of this witness it appears that prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. She has read oral evidence of P.W.No.4, Dr.Heenaben G. Patel, Medical Expert Ex.19 and contended that as per case history given by the prosecutrix to this witness, the prosecutrix has admitted that there was her consent. So far as contents of the case history is concerned, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove case of the prosecution, but as per say of the Medical Expert the prosecutrix was habitual as per Medical Certificate Ex.21.
12. She has read oral evidence of P.W.No.5, Dr.
Ruta Bhanuchand Gokani Ex.24 and contended that it is stated before her that present appellant has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and act of the prosecutrix shows that there was consent hence ingredient of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13. She has read oral evidence of P.W.No.6, Banshilal Ramdas Ex.28 and contended that the complainant is illiterate lady. She could not read and write Gujarati and complaint is written by the Investigating Officer without consent obtained from the complainant. She has contended that P.W.No.9, Mandaben G. Vankhede at Ex.34 has admitted that she is illiterate and unable to read and write. She has read oral evidence of the Investigating Officers P.W.No.7 and P.W.No.8 and contended that police has not carried out investigation properly. She has read oral evidence of P.W.No.13, Jayantilal Mafatlal Patel at Ex.47 and contended that from the crossexamination of this witness it is proved that this is a case of consent. Lastly she has prayed that the present appellant is wrongly convicted by the learned Judge, therefore the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.
14. Heard Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent – State. He has read charge and oral evidence of the prosecutrix and contended that oral evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to consider the case of the prosecution. He has read version of crossexamination. He has contended that when the report regarding pregnancy is produced on record and prosecutrix has admitted that there was no consent and against her will present appellant has committed said offence, the guilt of the appellant is proved. It is primafacie proved that at the time of offence the prosecutrix was minor. From the medical evidence and report regarding pregnancy offence in question is primafacie proved. Lastly he has contended that the learned Judge has awarded lesser punishment to the present appellant. The judgment and order of the learned Judge is proper as per provisions of law, therefore present Appeal is required to be dismissed.
15. I have heard the learned advocates of both the sides at length and in great detail. I have also gone through papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
16. The present appellant is convicted by the learned Judge for the offence of Section 376 of the Code. The prosecutrix examined by the prosecution is a star witness and in her deposition she has stated that she was forcefully taken away from the custody of her legal guardian. The prosecutrix has stated that she was tempted by the present appellant and against her wish and will the present appellant committed sexual intercourse. It is contended by Ms.Meenu Kumar that the prosecutrix stayed with the present appellant for more than two months, however, it is required to be decided from the oral evidence of the prosecutrix that whether she was forcefully detained or not. So far as cross examination of the witness is concerned, present appellant has failed to prove that there was consent of the prosecutrix. In the oral version prosecutrix has admitted that the present appellant has committed the sexual intercourse without her consent.
17. I find that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Judge below.
18. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z. K. SAIYED, J.) kks