Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh District Churu in Sessions Case No.80/2001 (20/2000 ADJ Ratangarh) by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:-

Name of accu sed appellants Convicted u/Section Sentence awarded

(1) Rajan 366/120-B IPC Four years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, RI for six months.

366-A/120-B IPC Four years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, RI for six months.

376 IPC Ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, RI for one year.

(2) Hariram (3) Ramsharan Das 366/120-B IPC Four years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, RI for six months.

366-A/120-B IPC Four years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, RI for six months.

All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also convicted the accused appellants for the offence u/Secs. 363/120-B IPC, but no sentence was passed for the said offence.

(2). The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-

On 19.3.2000 at about 11.30 a.m., PW1 Leeladhar lodged a written report Ex.P/2 with the Police Station Kotwali, Churu stating inter-alia that his niece Pinky, PW2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 14 years, daughter of Nandlal (PW3) came to Churu, from Delhi and on 18.3.2000 at about 2.00 p.m., she was found missing and in that report, suspicion was placed on the accused appellant Pankaj @ Rajan that she had gone with the accused appellant Pankaj @ Rajan.

Thereafter, on 23.3.2000 PW1 Leeladhar lodged another report Ex.P/1 before Dy.S.P., Churu stating inter alia that on 18.3.2000, prosecutrix PW2 Pinky was being enticed by the accused appellant Pankaj 2 Rajan and his brother Hari Ram (accused appellant No.2) and both had taken her from Delhi to Churu and he had come to know from reliable sources that they all are at Delhi. It was further stated in the report that age of the prosecutrix PW2 Pinky was 14 years and she was student of 8th Class and efforts be made to recover prosecutrix PW2 Pinky.

On that report, police registered the case for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC and chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/3 and started investigation.

During investigation, on 24.3.2000, prosecutrix PW2 Pinky was got recovered through Ex.P/4 and her medical examination was got conducted by PW8 Dr.Satyapal and her medical examination report is Ex.P/15, where doctor found that her vagina admits two fingers and her medical examination report Ex.P/15 further shows that she was experienced one for sexual intercourse. For the purpose of ascertaining her age, X-rays of her wrist, elbow and pelvis were taken and after seeing the X-rays, the doctor opined that her age was between 16 to 17 years and that Certificate of age is Ex.D/3.

During investigation, police also came to know that prosecutrix PW2 Pinky was student of Nigam Prathmik Vidyalaya, Rohini Sector 4, Delhi and in the TC Certificate (Ex.P/21A), her date of birth was shown as 16.10.1986. Ex.P/22A is the admission from submitted by PW3 Nandlal, father of the prosecutrix and in that also, the age of the prosecutrix PW2 Pinky was shown as 16.10.1986 and Ex.P/23A is the admission and withdrawal register of the school, namely Sarvodaya Girls School, Delhi, where the age of the prosecutrix was shown as 16.10.1986.

The accused appellants Rajan, Hariram and Ramsharan Das were arrested through Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9 respectively.

After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.

On 30.6.2000 the learned Addl. Sessio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document