Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1628 (PNJ)

Naresh v. State of Haryana

2003-12-03

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been instituted against judgment and order dated 27/29.10.1993 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby he found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 363 Indian Penal Code; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to rigorous imprisonment for there years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 366 Indian Penal Code; and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that PW-6 Jeet Ram, father of Minto Rani-PW-6 prosecutrix had three daughters and one son. Minto Rani was his second child. She had passed her 9th standard from Government School of village Gheer and in the year 1992, she was admitted to Guru Kul Khan Pur, District Sonipat in 10th standard. However, she had come to her village Gheer in summer vacations and the same was to end on 5.7.1992 and she was to go back to attend her school on that very day. 3. On 4.7.1992 at about 1.30 P.M. Minto Rani told her Aunt Raj Dulari that she was going to the house of her friend Poonam Lata. However, thereafter, she did not return and an enquiry was made at the house of Poonam Lata but she was not found there. Later on, it was revealed that the appellant, who had worked as a servant for ten years with Jeet Ram had left the job about one month prior to the occurrence and induced Minto Rani to accompany him to some un-known place. 4. A case was registered on the statement Ex. PE of Jeet Ram-PW-6 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On 18.7.1992, Amar Singh-PW-7 along with Jai Singh received an information that the appellant and the prosecutrix Minto Rani were living in the house of Telu Ram at village Jaroda. 4. A case was registered on the statement Ex. PE of Jeet Ram-PW-6 under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On 18.7.1992, Amar Singh-PW-7 along with Jai Singh received an information that the appellant and the prosecutrix Minto Rani were living in the house of Telu Ram at village Jaroda. On receipt of the said information, they went to the village Jaroda where Naresh-appellant and Minto Rani met them at the house of Telu Ram. Minto Rani started weeping on seeing both of them. She was consoled by Amar Singh-PW-7 and was brought to the village along with Naresh. The statement of Minto Rani Exhibit PF/1 was recorded before the Magistrate. Rough site plan Exhibit PH of the place of occurrence was prepared. Minto Rani was got medically examined at Government Hospital, Karnal and her medical report is Exhibit PC. The appellant was also got medically examined and his medical report is Exhibit PD. 6. After completing the investigation, challan was put up in the Court and the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal who vide his order dated 24.11.1992 committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Karnal. 7. Having made out a prima facie case, the appellant was charged under Sections 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He next stated that he had worked as labourer for ten years with Jeet Ram but he did not make payment of his wages. He demanded the amount but Jeet Ram turned him out of job and then he was falsely implicated in this case. In his defence, he examined DW-1 Dr. Neelima Shangla, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon. She stated that she recorded statement Exhibit DB/1 of the prosecutrix. Minto Rani daughter of Jeet Ram was aged about 16 years. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the State and the defence learned counsel, the Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.10.1993 found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him vide order dated 29.10.1993 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 9. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the State and the defence learned counsel, the Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 27.10.1993 found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him vide order dated 29.10.1993 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal. 10. I have heard Sh. Sunil S. Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Sudhir Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and carefully gone through the file. 11. The first question to be seen is that what was the age of the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence i.e. 4.7.1992. In order to prove the age, the prosecution has produced in evidence School Certificate Exhibit PG. According to the school certificate Exhibit PG, her date of birth is 5.9.1975. Thus, she was aged about 16 years 7 months on the date of occurrence. It is an admitted fact that her date of birth was not entered in the register maintained by the Chowkidar. There is no other evidence to determine the age of prosecutrix except the School Certificate. 12. The statement of prosecutrix has been recorded as PW-8. She has stated in her statement that she was first raped by the appellant in the month of March, 1992, but she did not reveal this fact to anybody in order to avoid humiliation and then she was raped in the month of July, 1992. She further stated that she and appellant had stayed at Saharanpur and at Saharanpur appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her consent. This shows that she was not induced by the appellant but she was carrying love affair with the appellant, who was working as a servant at her house. She accompanied him to enjoy the life. Thus, it cannot be said that she was raped forcibly by the appellant or that she was abducted by the appellant and taken to various places. In fact, she had induced the appellant to accompany her to enjoy life. 13. In view of the above facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed.