STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Lal son of Kanni Ram, lodged a complaint that on 21.7.1997 at 7 a.m. his daughter Sushila aged 14 years and Suman daughter of Lala Ram also aged 14 years, studying in 9th Class in Government Girls High School, Dahina, were going from their village Nimoth to their School on foot via Pakka road, when a Contesa Car bearing No. DDQ 1428 driven by Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.2) offered a lift to the girls, who initially refused, but since they knew said Ravinder Kumar, who had assured to drop them at the bus stand, Dahina, they took the lift in the car. Said Ravinder Kumar instead of stopping the car at Railway Crossing, Dahina on the request of the girls, took it to main Rewari road and ultimately, stopped it at unknown place and left the girls in the car after locking the window. After some time, said Ravinder Kumar offered some sweets to the girls which they did not consume. Ravinder Kumar kept on waiting for their companions ,who did not come. Thereafter, he dropped the girls at a distance from bus stand, Nimoth. On these allegations, FIR No. 441 dated 28.7.1997, was registered under Sections 363,366, 114 IPC and 3/77 Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station ,Khol, against Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.1), Ravinder Kumar (respondent No.2) and Naresh Kumar (respondent No.3)

(2.) THE prosecution examined 10 witnesses namely, PW-1 Ram Kumar, PW-2 Suman, PW-3 Lala Ram, PW-4 Partap Singh, PW-5 Banwari Lal, PW6-Raghubir Parshad, PW-7 Constable Brahm Parkash, PW-8 Babu Lal, PW-9 Sushila and PW-10 Mahender Singh and also tendered documents Ex. PA to Ex.PF.

(3.) FROM the evidence available on record, the trial Court found that no offence punishable under Section 366 IPC was made out because the girls were not compelled by the respondents either to marry any of the persons against their wishes or to have sexual intercourse with any person. Insofar the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the same was also not found to have been committed because the investigation was admittedly carried out by S.I. Mahender Singh (PW-10) who was not authorised. In this regard, the trial Court had relied upon a decision in the case of D Ramalinga Reddy alias D. Babu v. State of A.R 1999 (2) Criminal Court Judgments 415 : (1999 Cri LJ 2918), that whole dispute was with regard to age of both the girls, namely Sushila and Suman. In order to attract the provisions of Section 366 IPC, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-2 Suman, PW-3 Lala Ram, PW-5 Banwari Lal, PW-8 Babu Lal and PW-9 Sushila.