Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1893 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Ramesh Kumar

2009-11-04

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. Babu Lal son of Kanni Ram, lodged a complaint that on 21.7.1997 at 7 A.M, his daughter Sushila aged 14 years and Suman daughter of Lala Ram also aged 14 years, studying in 9th Class in Government Girls High School, Dahina, were going from their village Nimoth to their School on foot via Pakka road, when a Contesa Car bearing No.DDQ-1428 driven by Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.2) offered a lift to the girls, who initially refused, but since they knew saicl Ravinder Kumar, who had assured to drop them at the bus stand, Dahina, they took the lift in the car. Said Ravinder Kumar instead of stopping the car at Railway Crossing, Dahina on the request of the girls, took it to main Rewari road and ultimately, stopped it at unknown place and left the girls in the car after locking the window. After some time, said Ravinder Kumar offered some sweets to the girls which they did not consume. Ravinder Kumar kept on waiting for their companions, who did not come. Thereafter, he dropped the girls at a distance from bus stand, Nimoth. On these allegations, FIR No.441 dated 28.7.1997, was registered under Sections 363, 366, 114 IPC and 3/77 Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, at Police Station, Khol, against Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.l), Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.2) and Naresh Kumar (respondent No.3). 2. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses namely, PW-1 Ram Kumar, PW-2 Suman, PW-3 Lala Ram, PW-4 Partap Singh, PW-5 Banwari Lal, PW6-Raghubir Parshad, PW-7 Constable Brahm Parkash, PW-8 Babu Lal, PW-9 Sushila and PW-10 Mahender Singh and also tendered documents Ex.PA to Ex.PF. 3. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the respondents/accused have pleaded innocence but they did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. From the evidence available on record, the trial Court found that no offence punishable under Section 366 IPC was made out because the girls were not compelled by the respondents either to marry any of the persons against their wishes or to have sexual intercourse with any person. Insofar the provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 is concerned, the same was also not found to have been committed because the investigation was admittedly carried out by S.I. Mahender Singh (PW-10) who was not authorised. Insofar the provision of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 is concerned, the same was also not found to have been committed because the investigation was admittedly carried out by S.I. Mahender Singh (PW-10) who was not authorised. In this regard, the trial Court had relied upon a decision in the case of D-Ramalinga Reddy @ D. Babu v. State of A.P.; 1999(2) Criminal Court Judgments 415. that whole dispute was with regard to age of both the girls, namely Sushila and Suman. In order to attract the provisions of Section 366 IPC, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-2 Suman, PW-3 Lala Ram, PW-5 Banwari Lal, PW-8 Babu Lal and PW-9 Sushila. 5. The statement of PW-5 Banwari Lal, Headmaster, Government Girls High School, Dahina and document Ex.PC School Leaving Certificate of both the girls, do not inspire confidence to prove the case against the respondents/accused beyond doubt because this PW has been unable to tell whether parents of the girls got recorded the correct dates of birth in the original admission register of first standard because according to PW-5, what has been stated by him was on the basis of record available with him which was not prepared on the basis of information given by the parents of these girls. Rather, this witness had admitted that he got recorded the date of birth of these girls as mentioned in the certificate of middle examination. Similarly, it has been found that PW-3 father of Suman did not state that he got admitted Suman in Government Girls High School at Dahina and he did not state that his daughter Suman was got admitted by him in first standard and had taken any proof of date of birth produced in the school. Father of Sushila appeared as PW-8. He also did not state about the date of birth of Sushila. He did not mention that he got admitted her daughter in first standard and mentioned her date of birth as 15.7.1981. He rather admitted that he did not remember as to whether or not her date of birth was recorded in the register of Chowkidar of the village 6. He did not mention that he got admitted her daughter in first standard and mentioned her date of birth as 15.7.1981. He rather admitted that he did not remember as to whether or not her date of birth was recorded in the register of Chowkidar of the village 6. The trial Court did not consider Ex.PC as a conclusive proof of age of Suman and Sushila and relied upon Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 318 and Jai Narain v. State of Haryana, 1974 C.L.R. Short Note No.6. 7. After appreciating the entire evidence, the the court formed an opinion that there is no conclusive evidence on record to prove that both the girls were below the age of 18 years, therefore, the provisions of Section 363 IPC were not attracted. The trial Court after giving benefit of doubt, acquitted all the respondents/accused of the charges framed against them under Sections 363/34 and 366/34 and 114 of IPC and Section 3(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity), Act, 1989, vide its judgment dated 19.1.2000. 8. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by State of Haryana in which leave to appeal was granted on 07.12.2000 and the appeal was admitted. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has vehemently argued that the register maintained in the school is admissible in evidence to prove the date of birth, though it may not conclusive proof, but if the entry in the school register is corroborated by oral evidence regarding the date of birth registered by the parents of the victims, then the same can be taken into consideration 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reminder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 156 has submitted that entry of date of birth in school record is merely a piece of evidence but it is not a proof of age in absence of material on the basis of which age was recorded. He submitted that in a case of appeal against acquittal, if two view are possible on the basis of evidence and the view taken by the trial Court is possibly reasonable, the High Court should not interfere in acquittal. He submitted that in a case of appeal against acquittal, if two view are possible on the basis of evidence and the view taken by the trial Court is possibly reasonable, the High Court should not interfere in acquittal. In this regard, he has also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana and another; A.l.R. 2004 Supreme Court 124 and Bhagirath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 924. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to their respective arguments and also perusing the record, I have found that document Ex.PC is not based upon material to prove date of birth of both the girls because admittedly, the dates of birth were not registered/recorded by the father of the girls with the Chowkidar of the village in a register of Births and Deaths or in the office of C.M.O of the area. It is also not recorded from the original admission register, rather date of birth has been obtained from the certificate of 8th Class. Moreover, the learned counsel for the State could not point out any other error in the judgment of the trial Court, which has formed an opinion in favour of the accused/respondents on the basis of evidence. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that if two views are possible in a case of acquittal, then the view which has been taken in favour of the accused/respondents should be maintained. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the trial Court and as such, this appeal is dismissed.