STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 142 dated Dec. 16, 1994, was recorded at the instance of Mangal Prashad Pandey (PW7), father of prosecutrix Lalita (PW9). He, in his statement, stated that on December 12, 1994, his daughter Lalita (PW9), along with his another daughter Sonu, had gone to attend their school. Sonu came back to her house at about 12 noon. She was also holding bag belonging to her sister Lalita, who did not come back from the school. Search was made but the same remained unsuccessful. On suspicion, statement was made against the respondent that he might have kidnapped the prosecutrix. It is also mentioned that on Dec. 17, 1994, the complainant spotted his daughter, along with the respondent at Devi Talab Mandir, Jalandhar, and informed the police accordingly. Both the prosecutrix and the respondent were taken in custody. Thereafter, prosecutrix was got medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. Her statement was recorded, wherein she stated that on asking of the respondent - accused, she had left the School and went to the house of the respondent on Dec. 12, 1994, who raped her there against her will and consent and then took her to Ludhiana, where they stayed for 3 to 4 days. During that period also, she was sexually assaulted by the respondent many a times. Ultimately, on Dec. 17, 1994, the respondent brought her back to Jalandhar, where she was taken in custody by the police, as mentioned above. The Investigating Officer got recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Sec. 164 Code Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. With regard to age of the prosecutrix, PW6 and PW7 have stated that age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. To prove the same, the Investigating Officer had taken into possession school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix. On completion of investigation, final report was prepared and put in Court. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated Jan. 24, 1996, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(2.) The respondent was charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then, besides bringing on record documentary evidence, produced as many as ten witnesses to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the respondent was recorded under Sec. 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. It was further stated by him that he was on visiting terms with family of the prosecutrix, whose father had obtained money from him and when he demanded back the same, quarrel had ensued. He further asserted that the prosecutrix had eloped with somebody else and on account of suspicion, he was involved in this case. He also took up a stand that the prosecutrix was major at the time of alleged occurrence. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. Trial Court on appraisal of evidence found the accused innocent and acquitted him. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant -State, by making reference to school leaving certificate Ex. PA, statement made by the prosecutrix PW6 and her father PW7 argued that the prosecution had successfully proved on record that age of the prosecutrix was about 13 years. However, the Court below has erred while opining to the contrary. He further argued that the trial Court has misread the evidence of Dr. Harpreet Kaur (PW2), who medico legally examined the prosecutrix and has specifically stated that age of the prosecutrix was about 13 years. He further argued that there existed ample evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix was actually allured by the respondent with a promise that he would get her treated for the ailment, with which she was allegedly suffering at that time, i.e., cancer. By making reference to the statement of PW6, the prosecutrix, counsel argued that commission of offence of sexual assault by the respondent was proved on record. He prayed that the appeal be accepted, judgment under challenge be set aside and order of conviction and sentence be passed against the respondent.