RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the conviction of the appellant for the commission of offence under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 376 read with Section 120B of the IPC. The sentence awarded was as follows: -

(2.) ALL the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged victim was not proved to be a minor. Developing further he stated that if it was taken that the victim was not a minor then the conviction cannot stand because in her first statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which she made before the Magistrate, she had categorically deposed that she had gone along with the appellant voluntarily and that he had never raped her. To corroborate the argument that the victim was not a minor he has argued that the birth certificate placed on record Ex. PC (which showed the year of birth of the victim as 1986) cannot be said to be relating to the victim because in that the name of the child is given as Mam Kaur which is not the name of the victim. The Statistical Assistant (PW4) who brought the record, admitted in his cross -examination that there was overwriting both in the name of the village where the birth had taken place and the name of the father. He had further admitted that the earlier writing was rubbed off and then the name of the father was written. Further, the overwriting in the name of the village and the name of the father were in different inks. Learned counsel has further argued that the mother of the prosecutrix in her testimony accepted that she was an illiterate person and did not know the dates of birth of any of her five children. In the circumstances, as per him, the trial Court erred in believing her testimony that the birth certificate Ex. PC related to the victim.