JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The present appeal has been filed challenging the
conviction for the offence under Section 366 of Indian
Penal Code.
(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that Tripta,
who is the daughter of Puran Chand, was studying in 8th
Class and was born on 13.6.1972. On 21.10.1987, Puran
Chand along with his wife had gone for their respective
jobs and children had left for school. When they
returned in the evening, they found that Tripta had not
returned to the house. Search was made but Tripta could
not be traced. Appellants-accused were also found absent
from their house. It seems that no report came to be
made for five days and it was only on 26.10.1987, Puran
Chand lodged a report to the police about the kidnapping
of his daughter. The police then carried out
search. On 4.11.1987, Tripta was found in the company of
Parshotam Lal and Ved Parkash at Nakodar and they were
arrested. It is alleged that during the elopement, the
accused kept Tripta at Hoshiarpur where both of them
committed rape on her. For some mysterious reasons
which are beyond our comprehension, the accused were not
charged with the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. All
that we see in the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge is that the charge for the offence under Section
376 I.P.C. was dropped for want of territorial
jurisdiction. We are completely at a loss to understand
as to how the learned Sessions Judge lacked the
territorial jurisdiction if the kidnapping of Tripta and
her subsequent rape were part of one and the same
transaction.
(3.) Be that as it may, the long and short of it is
that the accused persons were never tried for the offence
under Section 376 I.P.C. Here was the perfect scenario
for conviction of the appellants for the offence under
Section 376 I.P.C. because Tripta had not even attained
the age of consent i.e. 16 years. She was medically
examined after she was retrieved and it was found that
she had been subjected to sexual inter-course and it was
doctor's opinion that her age was more than 15 years and
less than 17 years. The prosecution in support of its
case led the evidence of Tripta, her father Puran Chand,
two doctors and the witnesses from the investigating
agency. Accused Parshotam Lal examined Balwant Rai (DW1)
in his defence who deposed that Parshotam Lal got married
to Tripta. Photographs Ex. D6 & D7 relating to this
marriage were also produced.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.