GURPREET SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Gurpreet Singh Chauhan has preferred this appeal through jail authorities against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 9/16.4.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 148/2012. The said trial pertains to Police Station Gadapur, wherein the appellant was tried for the offences of 363, 366, 376 IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He has been sentenced appropriately. Ms. Saroj was enticed away by the appellant from the custody of her lawful guardians (parents) and she was induced to compel her marriage with the accused appellant. In the intervening night of 17/18.4.2012 when other members of the victim's house were away from the home in order to attend the Devi Jagran in the close vicinity, the accused approached Ms. Saroj and she left her house with him. She was carried at different places and ultimately the accused brought her to Sultanpur Patti within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station Bajpur. He hired a room in the house of Devendra Kumar (PW3) to keep Ms. Saroj with him there. The accused by vocation is a driver. So, he used to keep the victim confined in the said room for the whole day while away from the house in order to attend his duties and with the warning to the victim that if she disclosed the real facts and his detention without her wishes, it may be fatal to her.

(2.) FATHER of the victim Rajendra Singh lodged the missing report on 21.4.2012. The police came into motion and recovered the girl from the rented house, as aforementioned, on 24.4.2012. She was taken for her medical examination. The doctor found her hymen torn, but desisted from expressing any opinion regarding the rape with her. Her age could be assessed by the doctor on the basis of ossification test between 15 to 17 years.

(3.) THE averments of the appellant as have been stated in the grounds of appeal are of no avail in view of the age of the victim. As per the School Leaving Certificate Ex. Ka -7, her date of birth is 5.5.1998. This way, she was even bit little than 14 years of age. So, even if she left her home on the persuasion of the accused appellant, the same cannot exonerate the appellant from the offence of Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Ossification test to determine the age of a person is not conclusive. This has also been held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Prem Chand v. State of H.P., : 2000 Cri.L.J. 951. This Court also concurs with the same view.