STATE OF H.P. Vs. JANAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1995, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix was aged about 13 years on 21.9.1992, the date when occurrence took place. According to the complainant at about 7.30 p.m. the prosecutrix went out of her house to throw the used waste water. When she did not return for 15 -20 minutes, her mother PW -5 (the complainant) got worried. She came out of the house looking for the prosecutrix but could not find her. She thereafter called out the name of the prosecutrix but there was no response. The neighbours came to the spot. The co -villagers as well as the complainant searched the prosecutrix but could not find her. On the next date i.e. 22.9.1992, search was made of the prosecutrix but she was not found. On 22.9.1992 when the complainant returned home after searching for her daughter she was informed by one Narayan Singh of Village Salwan that the prosecutrix had been enticed away by the accused with a view to marry her. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. After the complaint was filed the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the parents of the accused where she was sitting in the company of Smt. Labdhu, mother of the accused. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was handed over to the complainant on 28.9.1992.

(3.) THE prosecutrix admittedly remained in the company of the accused in his parental house for almost one week. The prosecutrix herself did not support the case of the prosecution. When she was examined in the Court she stated that her age was 21 years and she had married the accused. A child has also been born out of this wedlock. In fact, according to her, her parents had got this marriage solemnized. Thus, it is a clear case of consensual sex. She was declared hostile and in cross examination she stated that her younger sister Amar Dei is about 10 -12 years old. However, when cross examined by the defence she stated that her younger sister is 18 to 19 years of age. A Court question was put to her as to why she had given these two separate versions with regard to the age of her younger sister. In answer, she stated that her younger sister may be 14 -15 years old. She did not give any reason why she had given three different ages of her younger sister. Despite Court question being put to the prosecutrix and her giving different versions, we are surprised to note that in the final judgment no reference has been made to this very important piece of evidence.