Raj Yadav @ Ashish Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.200

with default stipulation

Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500

with default stipulation

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000

with default stipulation

Under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth ‘the Pocso

Act’)","Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000

with default stipulation

,All the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently

away but she did not do so. Rather, she visited different places and stayed along with the Appellant and she did not even try to shout at those places.",

To Tulsi (PW3), they introduced themselves as husband and wife. 1 month after the incident, the Appellant himself informed to the father of the",

prosecutrix that they were living at Orissa happily. Thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she herself joined the company of",

the Appellant.,

With regard to the age of the prosecutrix in her Court statement she stated that her age was 16 years and her date of birth is 7.7.1997. on that,

basis she stated her date of birth to be 7.7.1997 has not been disclosed by her. Her father Manharanlal (PW8) also deposed that age of the,

prosecutrix was about 16 years but he could not state her date of birth because he could not remember it. He also deposed that he did not know even,

his own date of birth. In paragraph 7, he further deposed that he had got date of birth of the prosecutrix registered in Kotwari Panji but the police did",

not seize the said panji. According to the entries of Dakhil Kharij Panji (Ex.P18C), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 7.7.1997. This entry was",

recorded by Headmaster Vijay Singh Thakur (PW10). In his deposition he admitted that he recorded the said entry of the date of birth of the,

prosecutrix on the basis of the mark-sheet and transfer certificate of primary school.,

On a minute examination of the above evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, it is also clear that Manharanlal (PW8), father of the",

prosecutrix did not even know his date of birth and he could also not state date of birth of the prosecutrix. Though Manharanlal (PW8) and the,

prosecutrix (PW1) both have stated age of the prosecutrix to be 16 years, on what basis they stated so has not been made clear. As stated by",

Manharanlal (PW8), date of birth of the prosecutrix was got recorded in the Kotwari Panji, but the said panji has not been seized by the police. In",

Dakhil Kharij Panji also, entry of date of birth of the prosecutrix has been made on the basis of the mark-sheet and transfer certificate of the primary",

school. The record in which the entry which was got registered in the primary school with regard to date of birth of the prosecutrix has not been,

produced by the prosecution. Therefore in my considered view the prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of,

age at the time of incident. As discussed above, since the prosecutrix was a consenting party, she herself joined the company of the Appellant and the",

prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of incident she was below 18 years of age, the conviction imposed upon the Appellant is not",

sustainable.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges",

framed against him. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith.,