NARESH MALAKHE DHURMEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 27/2/2006 passed by learned III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule recording guilt of the appellant for offence punishable under Sec. 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PW1 informant father approached Deopur police on 4/5/2004 and lodged missing report of his daughter. On 5/6/2004, he lodged further report that appellant lured his minor daughter on the promise of marriage and kidnapped her. On above report, crime was registered. On completion of investigation and on gathering evidence, PW5 P.I. Borase charge-sheeted accused. Trial was conducted by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution vide judgment and order dtd. 27/2/2006 held appellant guilty for offence punishable under Sec. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.

(3.) Pleading innocence and false implication learned counsel for appellant forcefully submitted that in this case at the outset prosecution has utterly failed to demonstrate and establish age of the alleged victim. He pointed out that, informant father has admitted that his marriage is 22 years old and therefore going by such year and his admission that victim daughter was born one year after marriage, his eldest daughter victim has to be definitely above 18 years of age. He pointed out that, there is no school record. That, Investigating Officer has merely collected birth certificate of municipal corporation and taken on record i.e. without examining authorities, who prepared and issued said birth certificate. He also specifically pointed out that, informant father was in the very service of municipal corporation and therefore there is every chance of creation of document to falsely sue prosecution case. He pointed out that, even Investigating Officer has in cross-examination admitted that he did not verify the original record. He also pointed out that, medical examiner also admitted about not ascertaining or determining the age of the victim and the date given by police was noted. For above reasons, learned counsel questions the very assertion of prosecution that victim was below 18 years of age.