STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the State to challenge the correctness and propriety of a judgment dated 10.09.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.86/2011 arising out of FIR No.395/2011 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri by which the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/376/506 IPC. The appeal is contested by the respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that in between May 2011 and 13.09.2011 at a place near District Park, Nand Nagri, Delhi, the respondent after kidnapping the prosecutrix 'X'(assumed name), aged around 16 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents committed rape upon her at various places and also criminally intimidated her. The incident was reported to the police on 17.09.2011. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. Documents concerning her age were collected. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent. The proseuction examined twelve witnesses to establish its case. In 313 statement, the respondent pleaded false implication and declined his involvement in the crime. He examined DW-1 (Tejdhar), DW-2 (S.I. Kunal Kishore) and DW-3 (Rajeev Ranjan) in defence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondent of all the charges. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, State has filed the instant appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. At the outset, it may be mentioned that learned Additional Standing Counsel challenged acquittal on the sole ground that the prosecutrix being below 16 years of age was incapable to give consent for physical relations (if any) with the respondent. The Trial Court committed grave error in determining her age 17 years merely because she was a student of XIIth standard. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the prosecution was unable to place on record any clinching evidence regarding exact age of the prosecutrix and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment to interfere.