It was submitted that this showed that she was a companysenting party and hence numbercase under Section 376 IPC is made out against the appellant.
149 of 1999.
Hence she was above 16 years of age and there companyld be numberrape since there was companysent.
Rathnammas mother Gowramma PW 11 stated in her evidence that Rathnamma was 18 years of age.
Rathnamma became pregnant, but the appellant refused to marry her.
It is alleged that subsequently also the appellant had sex with Rathnamma several times and assured her that he would marry her.
In the trial companyrt the appellant companytended that Rathnamma was 20 years of age at the relevant time and she had admitted in her cross examination that she had sexual intercourse with the appellant nearly 100 times.
Hence an FIR was registered in the police station on 4.1.1996 against the appellant under Section 376 IPC.
The facts of the case have been stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the trial companyrt and we are number repeating the same except where necessary.
Admittedly, the appellant has married another woman.
10,000/ , both sentences to run companycurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that on 4.1.1996 the appellant raped one Rathnamma aged 18 years, but he assured her that he would marry her and asked her to keep quiet.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.
