HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the age of prosecutrix Anju Gangwar has been found about 17 years according to the medical report. No any injury was found on any part of the prosecutrix. She had gone with the present applicant and remained with him for about 8 days and she was also apprehended after 8 days. It is further contended that she may be consenting party.

(3.) ACCORDING to the submissions made on behalf of learned A.G.A. date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15 -7 -1993. This occurrence had allegedly taken place on 8 -6 -2006. According to the Educational Certificate of the prosecutrix, she is below 14 years at the time of alleged occurrence. Educational Certificate and medical certificate are available regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix. In such circumstances, preference will be given to the educational certificate wherein date of birth is mentioned. Therefore, date of birth regarding prosecutrix will be considered. On that basis, she was minor under the age of 14 years. She was taken by the applicant without consent of her guardian. She was used to sexual intercourse by the applicant. Even then there is consent of the prosecutrix, her consent is immaterial as she is below under the age of 16 years. Prima facie ease of kidnapping and rape is made out. This is the case wherein one teacher committed the rape with her, who was his pupil.