Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 192
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. KHARE
SUMITRA BAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 158 Of 1988
Decided On : 02/26/1999
A.P.SHUKLA, S.C.DATTA
School register entries are admissible as evidence to prove the age of a person under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - KIDNAPPING - AGE OF VICTIM - SCHOOL REGISTER ENTRY - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 35 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 363 AND 366 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Sangeeta, a 15-year-old girl, was allegedly kidnapped by the appellants from her home. She was taken to the house of appellant Sumitra Bai, where she was confined for a day. The appellants were charged with kidnapping under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction of appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy under Section 363 and appellant Sumitra Bai under Section 368, but acquitted the other appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the school register entry is admissible as evidence to prove the age of the victim? 2. Whether the appellants were guilty of kidnapping the victim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the school register entry is admissible as evidence to prove the age of the victim under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan and Biradmal Singhal v. Anand Ram, which held that school certificates are admissible in evidence to prove age. 2. The High Court found that the victim was induced and taken from her house to the house of Sumitra without the consent of her parents. The Court held that the act of appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy was covered by Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with kidnapping, and not by Section 366, which deals with kidnapping with intent to marry.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants Basantram, Shrichand, Ghuran, Anil Mishra, and Vijay. The Court upheld the conviction of appellant K. Shanker Rao Reddy under Section 363 and appellant Sumitra Bai under Section 368, but reduced their sentences.
( 1 ) APPELLANTS No. 2 to 6 have been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively. They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- each for these offences. Appellant Sumitra Bai and Vijay have been convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 22-8-1985 at about 2. 00 p. m. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) aged about 14 years and a student of Class VIII was reading in her house. She is daughter of Bindasingh (P. W. 7) who was Security Guard in Katkona Colliery. Accused K. Shanker Rao Reddy, Basantram. Shrichand, Ghuran and Anil Kumar Mishra, knocked at the back door of her house. She opened the door. They told her that accused Sumitra was calling her. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) used to treat accused Sumitra, as her sister. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) went with them towards the house of accused Sumitra. In the way, accused K. Shanker Rao Reddy remarked why she was living with her poor father. He also represented that he would make her a Doctor and marry her. On the way, near the nala, accused Sumitra Bai was standing. All of them reached the house of accused Sumitra. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) asked Sumitra the reason for calling her. Sumitra Bai told her that she would tell this after some time. She gave her an apple and some groundnut to eat. She took those things and started feeling drowsiness. She fell asleep. In the evening at about 5. 30 p. m. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) expressed that she wanted to meet her mother. Sumitra Bai replied that now she would meet another mother. Sumitrabai took her to a room and closed it. Next day she was shifted to bath room of the house. A search was being made for Sangeeta (P. W. 10 ). She was recovered from the house of Sumitra Bai in the night. She was taken to her parents. She narrated the whole incident to them. Bindasingh (P. W. 7) lodged the report (Ex. P. 7) at Police Station, Patna on 24-8-1985 at 9. 30 a. m. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed.
( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated.
( 4 ) THE trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held the appellants guilty for the offences as stated at the outset.
( 5 ) IN this appeal, it is argued that Sangeeta (P. W. 10) is not proved to be below 18 years of age. It is further argued that it appears that she left her parental house and went to the residence of Sumitra Bai of her own accord.
( 6 ) THE evidence on record has been carefully scrutinized by this Court. The first question is what was the age of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) at the time of the alleged incident. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) has stated that she is 14 years of age. That is also the estimate made by the trial Court while recording her deposition. She has stated that she was a student of VIIIth Class. She has not been cross-examined on the point of age. Vimla Devi (P. W. 11) is the mother of Sangeeta (P. W. 10 ). She has deposed that age of Sangeeta is 15 years. She has two sons, elder to Sangeeta. The evidence of this witness also regarding the age of Sangeeta has not been assailed in cross-examination. Bindasingh (P. W. 7) is father of Sangeeta. He has stated that age of his daughter is 13 years. He does not correctly remember the date of her birth. He was working as a Security Guard. Sangeeta (P. W. 10) is his third child. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not remember where Sangeeta was born as he is transferred from one place to another every year or two.
( 7 ) THE parents are the best witnesses regarding the age of their child. It is true that parents of Sangeeta (P. W. 10) are not able to specify her exact date of birth but they are able to depose about her age on the basis of their estimate keeping in view the ages of their other chil
