The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt and the impact of delay in filing the FIR on the case.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.

1. Present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – State being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar dated 10/7/1995 in Sessions Case No.45 of 1994 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted all the accused / respondents from the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 366A, 506(2), 376, 341, 342, and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant - PW-2 lodged an F.I.R. on 21.11.1993 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 342, 363, 365, 366, 376, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Original Accused. It has been alleged that the daughter of the complainant – victim was kidnapped by the Accused No. 1 who is her step maternal uncle, the Accused No. 1 had given a threat and kidnapped her due to the family rivalry, he was aware of the fact that on 15.09.1993, in the afternoon, the victim was alone and therefore, threat was given and kidnapped her and called near the school and took her to the Vaishali Talkies, Himmatnagar and handed over to Accused No. 5 - Ishwarbhai Kalabhai. As per preplanned, Accused No. 5 dropped victim at the house of Accused No. 3 - Punjaji Thakor whereby the Accused No. 3 was knowing that the victim was minor and against her will, physical relation has been administered and offence under Section 365 and 376 has been committed. The Accused No. 6 has also abated in the offence and against the will of the victim, marriage has been solemnized between the victim and Accused No. 2 - Dashrathji Sankaji in the temple of Pavagardh. The complainant has further stated that on 21.11.1993, he was at his residence and PW No.4 - Hansaben Rajubharthi along with Bhikhabhai and Kantibhai Thakor, have brought the victim and Dashrathji at his residence and present F.I.R. has been filed by the Complainant - PW 2 - Mahendragiri Ranchhodgiri Goswami.

3. The investigation was set in motion and the investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses, panchnama of the scene of offence and other panchnamas were prepared, muddamal was sent to the FSL, as there was sufficient against the accused, thereafter chargesheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case, the case was committed to the Sessions Court accordingly and was numbered as Sessions Case No.45 of 1994.

4. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the case was committed, framed the Charge. The accused denied the contents of the charge. As a result, trial was conducted by the Sessions Judge. Further Statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which accused / respondents denied the charges and prayed for trial. Upon recording of the Further Statements of the accused, arguments were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter trial was resulted into acquittal of all the accused from the charges levelled against them, as a result of which the present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat.

5. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this appeal accused / respondent Nos.3 and 4 have expired and the present appeal stood abated qua respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the present appeal survives qua the rest of the accused / respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Mr.H.K. Patel, learned APP has submitted that the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the evidence on record and provision of law. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated and accepted the medical evidence which is corroborated by the version of the eye witness. The learned Sessions Judge has also not appreciated the evidence of the investigating officer in its true and correct perspective. It is further submitted that Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by th