RAJA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried under Section 366/376 IPC on the allegations that on 23.4.2001, he had kidnapped Kumari Malti, aged about 14 years, from the lawful guardianship of his father and thereafter committed rape upon her between 23rd April, 2001 and 27th June, 2001. Vide a judgement dated 23.10.2002, the appellant was convicted under Section 366 as well as 376 IPC. On 26.10.2002, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 366 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo four months SI.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the impugned judgement and Trial Court file. In support of its allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Sandeep, a Radiologist from AIIMS, who had examined the prosecutrix for determining her bony age. He proved his report Ex.PW-1/A according to which, her age was between 10 to 15.8 years. In his cross- examination, he admitted that two years variation was possible on either side. He stated that he had not seen the victim and his report was based on examination of x- ray plates only. PW-2 Dr.Varun Dixit had examined the appellant and found that he was capable of committing sexual intercourse. PW-3 Malti, the prosecutrix, did not support the prosecution case. She stated that she wanted to marry the appellant and had told this fact to her parents but they wanted to marry her to someone else. On 23.4.2001, she ran away from her house and thereafter, the appellant, who had met her while going to his duty, took her to Ghaziabad and thereafter Hathras where they stayed in a hotel for two days. On 26.4.2001, she married the appellant in a temple and thereafter, remained with him for about 2 months. In her cross- examination by learned APP, she denied that she was wrongly giving her age as 18 years to save the appellant. She stated that she went with the appellant of her own free will and had left her parents' house voluntarily. She also stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her consent only. She further added that she had run away from her house under the fear that her parents would marry her to someone else and in case she refused, they would beat her. She stated that she was not willing to go back to her parents. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that till date, the prosecutrix is living in Nari Niketan and has not gone back to her parent's house.

(3.) PW-4 Head Constable Ranbir Singh proved the FIR Ex.PW- 4/A, PW-5 Ms.Vimla Kumari, MM proved the 164 Cr.PC statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PW-3/A, PW-6 Dr.Abhijit proved the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.PW-6/A, PW-7 Constable Laxman Singh had taken the Rukka to PS for recording of the formal FIR, PW-8 Vipin had taken the prosecutrix to AIIMS for her medical examination, PW-9 Constable Ramesh had gone to Hathras along with I.O. and had brought the prosecutrix from there to Delhi, PW-10 Dr.V.K.Goel, Assistant Director, Biology had carried out blood and semen examination and proved his reports Ex.PW- 10/A and 10/B and PW-11 SI Sanjeev Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. He denied the prosecution case and stated that he had married the prosecutrix with her consent. He also stated that the prosecutrix was a major. DW-1 Roshan Lal deposed that he knew the prosecutrix as well as her family as they were his tenants. He stated that the parents of the prosecutrix were aware of the love affair between the appellant and prosecutrix. He also stated that the parents of the prosecutrix used to compel her and beat her to work as a maid servant and as such she was not happy.