STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. TONU ALIAS HARPALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of M.P. against the judgment dt.2.8.2010 passed in S.T.No.356/09 by learned Sessions Judge Guna, M.P, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from charges of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (1) of IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that prosecutrix, who is below the age of 18 years, was missing from her house, therefore, her brother Dharmendra Singh lodged the report on 26.8.2009, which was registered as missing person report. On 6.9.2009 when prosecutrix was found by the police, she alleged that respondent accused Harpal took him on pretext of marriage to Amritsar and committed rape with her at Amritsar. After registration of crime and after investigation challan has been filed against the respondent-accused. Learned trial court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC and by the impugned judgment acquitted him from the2 Second Appeal No.101/2009 charges on the ground that the prosecutrix is major and has gone with her consent with the accused and she has not narrated incident, nor tried to escape nor complained about the incident and denied the allegation of rape.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/State on the ground that trial court has failed to consider the effect of evidence of prosecutrix (P.W.3), her brother Dharmendra (P.W.4) and her father Kamal Singh (P.W.5) regarding the age of the prosecutrix and has also not considered the school record, according to which her date of birth is 2.2.1993.