The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal and the importance of properly evaluating evidence in an appeal against acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal against acquittal, the victim (name withheld), has assailed the judgment of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, dated 11.10.2013, in Session Trial No. 222 of 2009, acquitting the respondent no. 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity) on the ground that the judgment recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, is perverse, unjust and unreasonable.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant of the case (name withheld), who has been examined as PW1, produced a written report before the S.H.O. Manglore, Haridwar, that his elder daughter has been married in Village Tashipur, P.S. Manglore, and that the victim went to her house and stayed there for sometime. On 01.06.2008, respondent no. 2 forcibly abducted and took her away. The complainant was informed about it by his elder daughter, and, therefore, he presented the report before the S.H.O. On the basis of the report, the investigation of the case was taken up. In course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and other witness, seized the important documents, and after completion of investigation has submitted the charge sheet against respondent no. 2 for the offences described above.

3. The defence took a plea of simple denial, and false accusation.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined 9 witnesses. PW5 is the appellant/victim herself, PW1 is her father. He is the complainant in this case. PW2 and PW3 (names withheld) are two sisters of the victim, PW4 Dr. Kamal is the medical officer who has examined the victim on the requisition of police, PW6 S.I. Satyaprakash Sharma, PW7 Constable Sanjayram, PW8 Dr. Yogesh Kumar and PW9 Ajay Kumar Saini are other official witnesses examined in this case. The prosecution also relied upon several documents, which are, Ex. Ka-2 is the medical report with respect to the victim, Ex. Ka-9 complementary( izrhiwjd ) medical report of the victim, Ex. Ka-10 copy of family register.

5. In defence, respondent no. 2 examined DW1 Meghnath to prove the school admission register exhibited as Ex. Kha-1.

6. On the basis of the evidence led from both the sides and the documents produced, the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the date of birth of the victim was 10.05.1992, rather the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge accepted the defence case specially the evidence of DW1, which is supported by the school admission register, which reveals that her date of birth is 10.05.1989. Further, holding that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW5, and that since she was a consenting party to the entire episode, the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge held that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed, and, therefore, he acquitted the respondent no. 2.

5. In assailing the such finding, the learned counsel for the appellant/victim, Mr. Gaurav Singh would submit that the appreciation of evidence of learned 3rd Additional Session Judge is perverse, and, that in view of clear evidence of the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence, the Additional Session Judge should have convicted the respondent no. 2. The learned counsel for respondent no. 2 Mr. Pawan Mishra, on the other hand, would submit that school leaving certificate is a better proof of age of the victim-girl in view of the fact that it is in accordance to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007, and, therefore, the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge has not committed illegality in convicting the respondent no. 2.

6. In order to appreciate the facts of the case and to find out whether the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge has come to a wrong conclusion or not, it is appropriate to take into consideration two aspects of the case. Firstly, the evidence of PW5 has to be examined and the ev