RANG LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three appellants, namely, Rang Lal, Balraj and Sumer Chand have filed this appeal against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, on various counts on which they were sentenced as follows: (a) All the appellants under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months further Rigorous Imprisonment each ; (b) Balraj appellant was also convicted under Section 363, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months further, Rigorous Imprisonment. In addition, he was convicted under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo two months further Rigorous Imprisonment. All the substantive sentences in case of Balraj appellant were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution version contained in the First Information Report made by Inder Singh (PW5) father of Roshni prosecutrix (PW3) on August 16, 1984, he had six children, i.e. four sons and two daughters. Roshni was the third child and was mentioned as sixteen years of age. The family resided in the village Abadi. There was a double-storyed residential house owned by Singh Ram which adjoined the house of the informant. The first floor of the house was in the occupation of the three appellants for the last two years. It is the case of the informant himself that his daughter Roshni prosecutrix used to go to his gawar for removing cow-dung and for doing allied chores all alone and in the process all the appellants had developed 'relations' with her. This matter was in the notice of Sona Devi mother of the prosecutrix who had seen Roshni communicating while all the three appellants in the gawar. On account of this, both the parents of Roshni had been reprimanding Roshni to mend her ways, but without result. On the day previous to the day of the Report, Roshni and her parents had gone to their paddy field and in the afternoon Roshni was sent back to the village to bring meals from the house. She did not return to the field till 4 p.m. When her parents returned to their house, they found her missing. They tried to look for their daughter in the gawar and elsewhere, but she was not to be found anywhere. It is stated that one Sultan son of Chatru of the village told them that Roshni had been seen making overtures to all the three appellants from the roof of her house and was later noticed going from the gawar to her house. The narration in the first Information Report goes on to state that Roshni had taken along-with her Rs. 900/- in cash and three wearing suits from her house.

(3.) IN a matter of the present nature, it is necessary to determine the age of the prosecutrix because this factor would largely decide the fate of the case. If the prosecutrix is found to be a minor her consent in regard to her kidnaping or the alleged rape would afford no benefit to the appellants. On the other had, if she has attained majority, the question of consent would assume importance. In so far as the prosecution is concerned, it seems to rely upon Birth Entry Exhibit PJ in which the Date of Birth has been recorded as January 21, 1969 which makes the prosecutrix (if the Birth Certificate relates to her) to be 15 years and over 6 months on the date of the commission of the offence. However, the other material on the record falsified the Birth Entry. Discussing this aspect of the matter, the trial Court has come to the following conclusion in Para 18 of its judgment :