MOLU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOLU Ram appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Shri R.P. Bajaj, Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, dated December 19, 1984, in Sessions case No. 24 of 1984, State v. Molu Ram, convicting and sentencing Molu Ram appellant under Section 366, Indian Penal Code to three years rigorous imprisonment. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Molu Ram accused used to teach Santosh Kumari, daughter of Panni Lal, resident of village Saha. Santosh Kumari was student of 8th class and the accused used to teach her sometime in his house and some times in the house of Panni Lal. It is said that on April 2, 1984, the accused committed sexual intercourse with Santosh Kumari without her consent and then he kidnapped her and brought her to Shahbad. The accused had told the prosecutrix that he would educate her and get her a good job. The accused and the prosecutrix spent two nights at Shahbad and then she was taken to Nariangarh. Panni Lal, Father of Santosh Kumari, lodged the report with the police on April 3, 1984, when he found that her daughter was missing from the house. A suspicion arose against the accused because he was also absent from his house. The accused and the prosecutrix were secured by the police at Shahbad on April 6, 1984. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Mrs. Arun Pahwa PW2 on the same day at 4.15 pm. The doctor found no mark of external injury on her person. Her hymen was found ruptured but the vagina admitted two finger tightly. Dr. Subhash Chander Goel PW 3 radiologically examined Santosh Kumari and vide his report Ex. PC found that she was 15 to 16 1/2 years of age. After necessary investigation, the accused was challenged and committed. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case because the parents of Santosh Kumari wanted him to marry her but he refused. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

(3.) IT was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the case of prosecution that the prosecutrix had been induced by the appellant to accompany him for getting her a good job does not appeal to reason. It appears that she willingly accompanied the appellant to Shahbad. She was not a child of tender years who was unable to think herself what was good and what was bad. She was not an uneducated or unsophisticated girl but a 8th class student and was thus far more capable of thinking herself. All the circumstances would lead to an irresistible conclusion that story about her being induced to accompany the appellant to Shahbad, on the pretext that he would get her a job was only a made up affair. The prosecution has failed to establish that she was taken away by the appellant. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail and as such his bail bonds are discharged.