LALAN PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case as given by Sham Sunder complainant are that he was the brother of the prosecutrix Kamlesh-the youngest of his brothers and sisters. He had let out a portion of his house to Lalan Parshad-the accused, who was employed in a workshop in Faridabad. After taking her dinner, Kamlesh had gone to sleep in the residential house, whereas he (Sham Sunder) was sleeping in his shop At about 6 A.M. on 31st March, 1986, his mother Kela Devi told him that Kamlesh Kumari was not present in the house and she had disappeared. He also observed that Lalan Parshad accused was also missing which created a suspicion that she had been taken away by the accused. He reported the matter to the police and his statement was recorded by A.S.I. Rohtas Singh on the basis of which, a formal First Information Report was registered at Police Station, Faridabad at 9.20 P.M. the same evening for an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. On 8th April, 1986, A.S.I. Rohtas Singh received information that the accused was staying in Mujjossar alongwith Kamlesh Kumari and she was duly recovered after a raid had been conducted and the accused Lalan Parshad was also taken into custody at that time. After completion of the necessary investigation, the accused in challaned for having committed offences punishable under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty to the charges, was brought to trial.

(2.) The prosecution in support of its case, relied upon the evidence Dr. Suman Bishnoi, who had examined Kamlesh Kumari the prosecutrix on 8h April, 1986 and had found no mark of injury on her person eating the commission of rape, although she noted that Kamlesh Kumari was habituated to sexual inter course. The prosecution also relied the evidence of PW-3 Sham Sunder the complainant; PW-6 Kishan from whose house the accused as well as the prosecutrix had been apprehended, PW-7 Dr. S.K. Chhabra who had examined Kamlesh Kumari ascertain her correct age. PW-8 Dr. A.K. Saxena, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad who examined the accused Lalan Parshad and had an opinion that there was nothing to suggest that he was not fit to perform sexual intercourse. PW-9 R.L. Gupta, who had brought the gazette of the Middle School Examination held in March, 1984 in which the date birth of Kamlesh Kumari was entered as 1.10.1971: PW-10 the prosecutrix herself and PW-11 A.S.I/Investigating Officer Rohtas Singh.

(3.) When examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused claimed innocence and pleaded that he was a young boy of 14 years of age and had been falsely implicated due to enmity. He also produced Jogiya Nand Devedi as PW-1 and Kailash his father as DW-2.