Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Pardeep Kumar @ Balram And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CRA-D-1158-DB-2018 (O&M),CRA-S-4406-SB-2018 (O&M),CRA-AD-354-2019 (O&M) AND CRR-907-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the accused - appellants in; CRA-D-1158-DB-2018 and CRA-S-4406-SB-2018.; Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate; for the complainant - petitioner in CRR-907-2019 and; for the appellant in CRA-AD-354-2019.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Conviction of accused for abduction and sexual offences against minor - Evidence established that prosecutrix was a minor as per school records - Accused's defence of consent rejected as irrelevant due to minor's age. (Paras 41, 52)
(B) Minors and Consent - Legal provisions determine age of victim and invalidate consent given by minors - Court emphasized that sexual intercourse with a minor is statutory rape regardless of consent. (Paras 54, 52)
(C) Evidence Assessment - Court found that testimonies of the victim were credible despite inconsistencies; corroboration from medical evidence established possibility of sexual intercourse. (Paras 50, 52)
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix, aged 15 years, was allegedly abducted from her school by the accused, wherein she was subjected to repeated sexual assaults. The defence claimed consensual relation and denied forcible act.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of one accused affirmed, sentence modified from life imprisonment to 10 years under POCSO; second accused acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the age of the victim and whether the accused's claims of consent were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that age determined by school records is conclusive; consent of a minor is legally immaterial, affirming child protection laws.
Result: Conviction upheld and sentences altered; one accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts of the case and appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details about the prosecutrix's age and abduction. (Para 4 , 11 , 30) |
| 3. accused's defense and claims of consent. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. evidence analysis and connection to crime. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 5. criteria and procedures for age determination. (Para 43 , 45) |
| 6. legal implications of minor's consent. (Para 52) |
| 7. final rulings and outcomes for the parties. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals, arising out of the same FIR, these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-1158-DB-2018 and CRA-S-4406- SB-2018 have been filed by the accused - appellants Pardeep Kumar @ Balram and Rajinder Parshad, respectively, against their conviction and sentence vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2018 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Exclusive Court, Amritsar in Sessions case No. 124 of 2018 whereby they, along with one Baldev Raj were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366-A, 120-B, 376, 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Name of Convict-Appellant | Sentence |
| Pardeep Kumar | Under Section 363 IPC - Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven years, fine Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 366 IPC - RI for ten years, fine Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for six months. Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act -RI for Life, fine Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year. |
| Rajinder Parshad | Under Section 17 of the POCSO Act - RI for ten years, fine Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for one year. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Baldev Raj was acquitted.
3. Criminal Revision No.907 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.AD-354-2019 have been filed by Surjit Singh - complainant. In the revision, he has sought enhancement of sentence of Rajinder Prashad, whereas in the appeal, he has challenged the acquittal of Balev Raj.
4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 12.09.2017, complainant Surjit Singh got his statement recorded before ASI Kabal Singh to the effect that he is agriculturist and is residing at village Sangoana, P.S. Jhander. He has two children. The date of birth of his daughter (the prosecutrix) is 07.09.2001. She is studying in 10 th Class at St. Peter Marry Convent School, Dial Bharang. His younger son is studying in the same school in 5 th class. He usually takes his children to school in the morning. After school, they come back home on the school bus. On 11.09.2017, his son Prince Pal informed him on returning home that the prosecutrix was not in the school when classes got over. He went to the school to inquire about the whereabouts of his daughter. On inquiry the clerk of the school revealed that one young boy claiming to be her cousin had taken the prosecutrix from the school at about 1.20 pm. On seeing C.C.T.V footage, they came to know that one Pardeep Kumar son of Baldev Raj who was known to him had taken her daughter in a car driven by Kartar Singh. He alleged that his daughter has been allured by said Pardeep Kumar on the pretext of marrying her. On the basis of his statement FIR Ex. PW 9/B under Section 363 ,366-A, 120-B INDIAN PENAL CODE was registered. On 16.09.2017, supplementary statement was got recorded by complainant Surjit Singh against Baldev Raj and his daughter Radhi, wife of Sanjeev Kumar. On the basis of said supplementary statement, Baldev Raj was arrested on 19.09.2017. His daughter Radhi was found innocent during
