- (1.) THE State has challenged the judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2010, the complainant, Sukhlal, lodged a written report before the Police Commissioner, Jaipur city (East) stating therein that on 13.04.2010 when he returned to his home in the evening, he found that his daughter was not at home. When he searched for her, he found that his daughter is with Harphool Dhobi, Chirangi Dhobi, Sitaram Dhobi, Kanahiya Lal Dhobi, Kailashi Bai, Hari Ram Dhobi, Keli Bai in village Rawal, Sawai Madhopur. He went there. THEy asked him to forget about his daughter otherwise he will lose his life. THE said report was sent to Muhana Police Station. It was registered as FIR, FIR No.148/2010 for offence under Sections 363 and and 366 IPC. THE statements of the witnesses and prosecutrix under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., and 164 Cr.P.C., were recorded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Chiranji Lal for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC. Vide order dated 13.01.2011, the accused-respondent was acquitted from the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that according to the complainant, Sukhlal, the prosecutrix was fifteen years old. Thus, she was minor. Hence, the question of her giving consent for leaving her paternal home and for having sexual intercourse does not even arise. Hence, the learned Judge has committed illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent for the aforementioned offences. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that according to the learned Judge, the complainant, Sukhlal, could not give the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix. Moreover, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as her testimony recorded before the Court, she had clearly stated that she is about 19 to 20 years old. According to her, her parents had given her age less than what it was. Furthermore, according to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was discovered to be between the age of 17 to 19 years. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the prosecutrix was major. According to the prosecutrix, she had been married with the accused-respondent. According to her, her parents wanted to sell her to another person who was 50 to 60 years old. Therefore, in order to save herself, she left her parental house of her own volition. According to her, she is living peacefully with the accused-respondent. According to the prosecutrix, she was pregnant at the time when she was recovered. Therefore, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that no offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC were made out.
(3.) THEREFORE, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;