Honble SINHA, J.–The Respondent herein was working in the house of the father of Sushila Bai (PW. 1). She is said to have been born on 25.12.1970. She was admitted in a village school in 1977. She was married in the year 1985. She came back to her parents place from her in laws house after the `gauna ceremony was celebrated. The Respondent herein is said to have induced her to leave the village along with him in the night intervening between 25th and 26.02.1986. A First Information Report was lodged on 26.2.1986 by Jeewan Ram Chandel (PW. 6) who happened to be the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix Sushila Bai. In the said report, the Respondent herein was said to have been abducted her. The father of the prosecutrix, however, was asked by the officer-in-charge of the police station to produce proof of her age whereupon certificate as per the school register was filed. A case under Sections 366 and 376 was thereafter initiated against the Respondent. The prosecutrix (PW. 1) and the Respondent thereafter were found to be residing at Nagpur. The first information was sent there by the father of the prosecutrix with the police party. PW-1 was recovered on 23.3.1987.

(2). PW-1 alleged in her evidence before the court that she was taken out of the house by the Respondent stating that he would take her to the Narmada Fair.

(3). The prosecution admittedly was proceeding on the hypothesis that the Respondent had assured her that he would keep her like his wife. When she denied the said fact, she was declared hostile.

(4). Before the learned Trial Judge, evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution to show that as on 25.2.1986, she was minor,. Apart from the statement of the prosecutrix herself, her father (PW-3) as also the Head Master (PW. 4) and the Assistant Teacher (PW-5) of the Primary Govt. School Baj Gauda were examined. The entry in the school register showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 25.12.1970 was proved. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the said evidence opined that on the date of occurrence she was a minor.

(5). The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that having regard to the age of the prosecutrix the stand of the defence that the accused had sexual intercourse with her with consent was of little importance. The learned Sessions Judge opined that in view of the fact that the Respondent herein had not disputed that he had sexual intercouse with the prosecutrix at Nagpur, the charge of rape must be held to have been proved. It was, however, held that no case has been made out against the Respondent under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking a lenient view of the matter, the Respondent was sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section of the Indian Penal Code.

(6). In the appeal, the High Court did not enter into the evidences brought on record. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was reversed on the premises that entries made in a school register is not conclusive evidence as regards the date of birth of PW.1. The evidence of PW.3 the father of the prosecutrix was also disbelieved solely on the ground that he was not in a position to say about the date of birth of his other children.

(7). The sole question which, thus, arises for our consideration is as to whether the State has brought enough materials on record to prove that PW-1 was a minor as on the date of occurrence.

(8). PW-4 Shri Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava was working as a Head Master in the primary government school Baj Gauda. He stated on oath that while taking admission, her mother disclosed about the date of birth on the basis of which the same was recorded in the school register as 25.12.1970.

(9). PW-5 Shri Jumuk Lal Sahu was an Assistant Teacher in the year 1977-78 when PW-1 was admitted in the said school. He proved the said entries as having been written by him. He further stated that the date of birth of PW-1 was certified by Shakuntala Devi, Mother of the prosecutrix.

(10). Nothing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document