Genwa Giri @APPELLANT@Hash State of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years

Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years

Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.200/-

with default stipulation

Kunti (PW4), sister of the prosecutrix, has only stated that the Appellants had taken the prosecutrix away with them. She has further stated that",

she was not aware of the place where the prosecutrix was taken. The prosecutrix had returned home after 7 months and she has also stated that after,

the return, the prosecutrix had told her that her marriage was performed in a Court.",

Anup Giri (PW5), who is uncle of the prosecutrix, has deposed that the prosecutrix, after her return, had told him that the Appellants had abducted",

her and they had also committed rape with her.,

The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Kshipra Shrivastava (PW9) on 8.9.1998. She has stated that her report is Ex.P11 in which she did,

not find any injury on the body of the prosecutrix nor on her private part. She reported that vagina of the prosecutrix was easily admitting two fingers.,

She found the prosecutrix to be habitual to sexual intercourse. She was unable to give any definite opinion regarding recent sexual intercourse with the,

prosecutrix. For determination of age of the prosecutrix, she advised for radiological test. Radiological test of the prosecutrix was done by Dr. M.K.",

Jain (PW8). His report is Ex.P9 in which he opined that age of the prosecutrix was between 17 to 19 years.,

Both the Appellants were medically examined by Dr. Roopsingh Parihar (PW3). He has deposed that his reports are Ex.P4 and P5 in which he,

found that both the Appellants were capable to perform sexual intercourse.,

Assistant Sub-Inspector S.S. Patel (PW11) is the Investigating Officer of the offence in question. He investigated into the offence.,

On minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that on the relevant date, the prosecutrix (PW7) was above 18 years of age. As stated by",

her, she was abducted by the Appellants and she was also gang raped by them for about 7 months. But, the story put-forth by her, being highly",

improbable and untrustworthy, does not inspire confidence of this Court. According to her, after her abduction, both the Appellants took her from",

Village Jheradih to Village Dorna on her legs. On the way, she did not raise any alarm. At Village Dorna, she resided with sister and brother-in-law of",

Appellant Tibhu Nath Giri for 2 days. But there also, she did not disclose them anything about the incident or to any other villager. Thereafter, she",

resided at Village Jivri with Appellant Tibhu Nath Giri, his brother and the brother's wife for about 7 months. There also, she did not tell them anything",

about the incident nor did she disclose the incident to any other villager.,

Had she been missing or abducted, her parents or her sister Kunti (PW4) would have lodged a report of her missing or abduction. But, no such report",

was made for about 7 months. Even after her return to home, the prosecutrix did not tell her sister Kunti (PW4) or her parents about the incident. It is",

the deposition of Kunti (PW4), sister of the prosecutrix that after the return, the prosecutrix had told her that her marriage was performed in a Court.",

Thus, it seems that the prosecutrix left home at her own will. There is nothing on record to establish that the prosecutrix was abducted by the",

Appellants or she was raped by them. The whole prosecution story appears to be suspicious. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence alleged",

against Appellant Genwa Giri under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.",

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant Genwa Giri is acquitted of the",

charges framed under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.",

It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of the provisions,

contained in Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,