2010 Supreme(P&H) 700
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Dinesh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2005,
Decided On : JANUARY 28, 2010
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.366 and 376--Kidnapping--Rape--Prosecutrix was 16 years, 10 months and 27 days on date of occurrence--Testimony of prosecutrix reveal that she had herself left house and had met accused in Bazar--From there she accompanied accused in auto-rickshaw to bus stand where tickets were purchased--She herself boarded the bus--There was police post at bus stand and number of persons were also roaming at bus stand--Prosecutrix had not made complaint to anybody--She not raised any grievance in bus also--She remained in house of accused for three days--From conduct of prosecutrix it can be safely concluded that she herself had accompanied appellant and she had consented for sexual intercourse--No offence under Section 376 made out against appellant--However prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age--She was taken away from lawful custody of her parents--Therefore offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC made out--Conviction and sentence under Section 376 set aside but conviction and sentence under Section 363 and 366 maintained.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. The present appeal has been instituted by Dinesh son of Ved Pal, aged 20 years. He was held guilty of offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, sentenced him as under:-
S. No. Section Rigorous Fine Simple Imprisonment Imprisonment in default 1 363 Five Years Rs.2000/- One Month 2 366 Five Years Rs.2000/- One Month 3 376 ten Years Rs.6000/- Three Months All the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. In the present appeal, judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed. The appellant was named as accused in case FIR No.559 dated 8.11.2002 registered at police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.
2 Ashok Kumar, on 8.11.2002, presented a written application Ex. PD at police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The subject of the application stated that that the same has been submitted for search of prosecutrix (as per orders of honble the Apex Court, name of prosecutrix is withheld ). Prosecutrix was daughter of Ram Chander. Ashok Kumar stated that his father Ram Chander was suffering from paralysis. He was working as Peon in the office of Deputy commissioner, Hisar. His sister (prosecutrix), who was born on 10.12.1985, had failed in matriculation examination. It has been further submitted that his sister (prosecutrix) was missing from the house since 7.11.2002. It was further stated that she left the house at 3.00 P. M. They were searching for the prosecutrix but she was not traceable. The prosecutrix used to go to Sewing center for learning stitching work. From search it was learnt that Dinesh son of Ved Pal was also missing from his house since 7.11.2002. A suspicion was expressed that her sister (prosecutrix) has been enticed away due to the inducement given by Dinesh. This application was submitted on 8.11.2002. Application was exhibited as Ex. PD, on basis of which, formal FIR was registered. The prosecutrix was recovered on 10.11.2002 at village Achera kalan. At that time Dinesh was also present. Statement of prosecutrix, under section 164 Cr. P. C. , was also recorded by the Court of Mr. J. S. Sidhu, Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. The investigation was concluded and report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. The appellant was charged on 11.4.2003 by the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Hisar. The first charge stated that on 7.11.2002, in the area of Patel nagar, Hisar, the accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Sec.363 IPC. Secondly, the charge stated that the prosecutrix was kidnapped with an intention to commit illicit intercourse, thus, offence under Sec.366 IPC was made out. Lastly, the charge stated that on 7.11.2002, in the area of village Achera Kalan, the appellant had committed rape upon prosecutrix, thus, offence under Sec.376 IPC was made out. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined rajiv Deshwal, Inspector, as PW.1. He stated that he had prepared a report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. PW.2 Raju, Draftsman, had prepared a scaled site plan ex. PA.
3. Prosecutrix appeared as PW.3. She stated that she has got two brothers. Both brothers namely Baljit and Ashok are elder to her. She failed in matriculation examination and her date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate Ex. PB was 10.12.1985. Thus, on the date of occurrence, prosecutrix was about one month less than 17 years. The prosecutrix has stated that on 7.11.2002 she went to meet her friend Parveen who live in her neighbourhood. The accused had met her in the market at 3.00 P. M. Accused told that she is being called by her mother and sister, who were standing at bus stand. She accompanied the accused in three wheeler, but she did not find them at bus stand. The accused had threatened her to kill her and asked her to accompany him in the bus. She was taken by the accused to vi