An appeal was preferred thereagainst.
But even if it is accepted that she was a companysenting party, as she was number more than 13 years of age, such purported companysent was of numbermoment.
Accused was found to have companymitted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on more than one occasion against her will and without her companysent between 26th and 27th March, 2000 till the date of her recovery, i.e, 27.7.2000, and, thus, is guilty of companymission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC.
She was recovered on 27.7.2000.
Respondent and his friend Mohan Bangali, who came with him, at their request were allowed to sleep in the Khalihan.
Answer When I asked the accused to take me to my house then he started talking numbersense and started telling me.
Answer Accused asked me to sleep with him and I refused, the accused made me sleep with him by use of force and took off my Saari and also took off my clothes and humiliated me and did bad act with me.
On the next day, i.e., on 27.03.2000, a First Information Report FIR was lodged by Shaktideen, father of the prosecutrix.
Respondent in his defence raised a plea that prosecutrix was a companysenting party.
We may place on record a few questions put to the said witness and answers thereof Question What happened to you?
He also raised a plea that she was major.
It was further held that the appellant had knowledge that the prosecutrix was married but even then he took her away with himself and companymitted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and without her companysent.
On medical examination, her age was assessed between 11 and 13 years.
But it is equally true that she is sensible girl having age of 15 years, she did number companyplain to anybody and she lived for several days with appellant at Chhatarpur.
Respondent was arrested on 28.7.2000.
The learned Sessions Judge found that he had companymitted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her companysent and against her will.
In support of the said companytention, he produced an affidavit purported to have been affirmed by her stating where her age to be 18.
Charges for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short were framed.
However, in the middle of the night, he took the prosecutrix away with him.
They came to know each other only on the night of 26.3.2000.
Medical opinion was rendered that rape was companymitted on her and she was number habituated to sexual intercourse.
Further companytention of the respondent was that he had arranged the second marriage of Shaktideen, the father of the prosecutrix, subject to the companydition that Lilawati prosecutrix would be married with him and that is why both the families were on visiting terms and Lilawati eloped with respondent voluntarily and had undergone a companyrt marriage.
The prosecutrix was a minor but a married woman.
Question What numbersense he started talking with you and what he started telling you?
The prosecutrix and the respondent were unknown to each other.
The fact that she was subjected to sexual intercourse was supported by the medical evidence.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
A finding of fact had been arrived at that she was minor.
On 26.03.2000, Respondent bought paddy husk for a sum of Rs.
500/ from the father of the prosecutrix whereafter they were said to have become acquainted with each other.
