Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 429 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Balwinder Singh

2005-03-23

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This crl. revision has been filed by Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh against the judgment dated 30.10.1995 by which the accused-respondents were acquitted. 2. According to the prosecution case, Harpreet Kaur (fictitious name of the prosecutrix) was the daughter of Amrik Singh-petitioner No.1 but was adopted by Avtar Singh-petitioner No. 2. She was a student of ten plus two class in Sunflower Public School, Patiala. She was above 16 years of age. Both the respondents namely Balwinder Singh and his mother Gurcharan Kaur were on visiting terms with Avtar Singh. 3. According to the further prosecution case, in the morning of 6.9.1993, Avtar Singh and his wife Navdeep Kaur were away to their native village Ajner (PS Khanna). The prosecutrix was alone in the house. In the evening, both Avtar Singh and his wife Navdeep Kaur returned home and they found the doors of their house shut and their daughter was missing. They made enquiries from the neighbourhood but their daughter was not found. Petitioners made further enquiries and came to know from Darshan Kumar that both the respondents namely Balwinder Singh and Gurcharan Kaur had visited the house of Avtar Singh at 7.00 a.m. On that day they had taken away Harpreet Kaur with them. Thereafter Avtar Singh-complainant and his wife Navdeep Kaur continued searching for their daughter in the house of the relatives but her whereabouts were not found. Avtar Singh suspected that her daughter was kidnapped by both the respondents. Accordingly on 11.9.1993, at about 11.20 a.m. Avtar Singh proceeded towards police station, Sadar, Patiala for reporting the matter to the police station and made his statement to ASI Om Parkash, on the basis of which the present case was registered. 4. Later on the prosecutrix was recovered. The accused were arrested. The investigation was completed and the challan represented. 5. On receipt of the challan, a formal charge for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC were framed and the accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of their case, the prosecution examined Doctor Harminder Kaur Sodhi as PW-1, Doctor Amarjit Kaur as PW-2, Harpreet Kaur Prosecutrix as PW-3, as lady Constable Sarbjit Kaur as PW-4, Amrik Singh (natural father of the prosecutrix) PW-5, ASI Gulab Singh as PW-6, ASI Om Parkash as PW-7 and ASI Baldev Singh as PW-8. The prosecution closed its evidence. 7. The prosecution closed its evidence. 7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Balwinder Singh accused-respondent took the plea that he knew the prosecutrix. She was married to him on 18.6.1993 in Gurdwara Sainik Vihar, Village Jandali, Model Town, Ambala City. The marriage was solemnised and performed by the Granthi of said Gurdwara. The marriage had taken place with the consent of both the parties. After the marriage, the prosecutrix had gone to her house but she had come to him once or twice. On 30.6.1993, she has come to his house and told him that she did not want to go back to her parental house and wanted to live with him. Then he told her that he was a Central Government employee and, therefore, he could not go anywhere without getting leave from his office. She agreed, but she again came to his house at Ambala on 6.9.1993. Then he along with her went to Saharanpur for the registration of their marriage in the Office of Registrar under the Hindu Marriage Act. The said Officer checked their birth certificates and other documents and the certificate issued by the Granthi of the Gurdwara as well as the marriage photographs and after satisfying himself, their marriage was registered by him. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was 26.5.1975. The Sub-Registrar had also registered the marriage on the basis of the birth certificate of the prosecutrix showing her age to be 26.5.1975. 8. Balwinder Singh-accused appellant also took the plea that he was not on good terms with his mother. He denied if he and his mother had come to Patiala on 6.9.1993 and pleaded that the prosecutrix had come to his house at Ambala of her own free will. On 24.11.1993, he and the prosecutrix were arrested from the Diamond Factory, near Sachin Factory, Gujarat State and he was implicated in this false case as he was not liked by Amrik Singh and Surinder Kaur, natural parents of the prosecutrix and by Navdeep Kaur and Avtar Singh who are the adoptive parents of the prosecutrix. 9. Gurcharan Kaur, accused-respondent also took the plea in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she is 58 years of age and she had not visited Patiala along with her son on 6.9.1993. She is a Government employee and serving in Military Engineering Services in Ambala Cantt. 9. Gurcharan Kaur, accused-respondent also took the plea in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she is 58 years of age and she had not visited Patiala along with her son on 6.9.1993. She is a Government employee and serving in Military Engineering Services in Ambala Cantt. She remained present in her office from 6.9.1993 to 13.9.1993. She denied if she had cordial relations with her son. She denied her knowledge as to when her son Balwinder Singh married with the prosecutrix and when got their marriage registered at Saharanpur. She was a patient of orthopaedics and of high blood pressure. She has been implicated falsely in this case. She had made representations against her false implication to the higher police officers. She had no connection with her son nor she ever joined the marriage of her son with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix used to visit her house in Ambala Cantt along with her family members. Surinder Kaur mother of Harpreet Kaur was also related to her. 10. In defence, the accused examined one Anil Kumar, Superintendent from the office of Garrison Engineering Services, Ambala Cantt as DW-1 who proved that Gurcharan Kaur (accused-respondent) remained present in the office from 6.9.1993 to 13.9.1993. Gurabinash Kaur DW-2 is the real sister of Gurcharan Kaur, accused-respondent. She also proved the relationship of Gurcharan Kaur accused-respondent with Surinder Kaur mother of the prosecutrix. Sham Sunder Kalra, Registration Clerk from the Office of Registrar under Hindu Marriage Act was examined as DW-3 who brought the relevant record and proved that on 6.9.1993, Balwinder Singh was married with the prosecutrix-Harpreet Kaur who was 20 years of age. Smt. Kaushalya, Clerk in the Rajindra Hospital was examined as DW-4 who brought the Register from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and deposed that a female child was born to Surinder Kaur wife of Amrik Singh on 26.5.1975 at 3.15 p.m. The defence evidence was closed. 11. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the accused-appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment 30.10.1995. 12. Aggrieved against the judgment, the present revision petition has been filed by Amrik Singh, natural father of the prosecutrix and Avtar Singh, who is the adoptive father of the prosecutrix. 13. Therefore, both the accused-appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment 30.10.1995. 12. Aggrieved against the judgment, the present revision petition has been filed by Amrik Singh, natural father of the prosecutrix and Avtar Singh, who is the adoptive father of the prosecutrix. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned DAG, Punjab. I have also gone through the whole record of this case. 14. So far as the age as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, according to the prosecution case it was stated to be 26.5.1977. The prosecutrix while appearing as PW-3 also deposed that her date of birth is 26.5.1977 and she had passed the Matriculation examination from the Higher Secondary School, Lahori Gate, Patiala. Amrik Singh, natural father of the prosecutrix appeared as PW- 5. He also deposed that the date of birth of his daughter is 26.5.1977. Therefore, it was submitted that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on the day of occurrence which had taken place on 6.9.1993. 15. it may be noticed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded in the school record, but the said record has not been produced on the file to prove her date of birth. The prosecutrix also deposed that she had passed the Matriculation Examination. That was the best piece of evidence to prove her date of birth. It was not filed by the prosecution. It was put to Amrik Singh PW-5 that the prosecutrix was born on 26.5.1975 in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but he has denied the suggestion. 16. The respondents have also examined a witness from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala namely Smt. Kaushalya as DW-4 who brought the record from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and deposed that a daughter was born to Surinder Kaur wife of Amrik Singh on 26.5.1975 at 3.15 p.m. 17. Respondents have also examined Sham Sunder Kalra, DW-3, Registration Clerk from the Office of Registrar, under the Hindu Marriage Act, Saharanpur who deposed that the marriage of the prosecutrix with Balwinder Singh was registered on 6.9.1993 and at that time the prosecutrix was 20 years of age. Therefore, the respondents have been able to create a dent in the prosecution case regarding the age of the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the respondents have been able to create a dent in the prosecution case regarding the age of the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence. If her date of birth was 26.5.1975, then she was above 18 years of age at the time of occurrence on 6.9.1993. 18. The respondents have also succeeded to prove by examining Anil Kumar DW-1 that Gurcharan Kaur, accused-respondent was a Central Government employee and she remained present in her office from 6.9.1993 to 13.9.1993. This witness had brought the Office record of the said office. This also makes the prosecution case highly doubtful that Gurcharan Kaur accused-respondent was missing from her office. 19. Moreover, the respondents have proved that they had married each other in Gurdwara Sainik Vihar, Village Jandali, Model Town, Ambala City on 18.6.1993 and the prosecutrix was consenting party to this marriage. They have also proved that the said marriage was registered with the Registrar of Hindu Marriages in Saharanpur and for that purpose the official from the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Saharanpur has appeared as DW-3 with record. 20. Moreover, Avtar Singh who was the complainant and adoptive father of prosecutrix was given up as won over. If this marriage had not taken place, he would not have been won over the by the prosecution. This clearly goes against the prosecution case. 21. In view of the discussion, held above, I find no merit in the revision petition. The prosecutrix was adult on 6.9.1993 and she had conducted her marriage with Balwinder Singh respondent accused with her own free accord. Gurcharan Kaur, mother of Balwinder Singh had nothing to do with it. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.