STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KULDIP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 23.8.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.10.2001 Jai Kishan (PW -8), father of the prosecutrix was away in connection with his work as labourer. The mother of the prosecutrix, namely, Simro Devi had gone outside to bring the rice and the prosecutrix was alone in the house. It was alleged that when PW -9 Simro Devi came back at 2.00 P.M., she found the accused missing from the house. She searched for her and went to the place where her husband was working and they searched for the prosecutrix in the nearby villages. The accused used to visit their house off and on and he was also found missing from the house since 18.10.2001. PW -8 Jai Kishan searched for his daughter and then learnt that the accused had taken the prosecutrix to village Bassa Patti to the house of one Piara Singh and other places and a missing report was lodged with the police on 22.10.2001. The girl was recovered from Ludhiana and was brought to her house and handed over to the father on sapurdarri. The medical examination of the girl was conducted and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) THE prosecution had examined two witnesses to prove this fact. PW -10 Partap Singh, has stated that the prosecutrix was the student of their school and passed Middle Standard Examination in March, 2000. According to the admission register, her date of birth was entered as 18.8.1986. He had not made the original entries in the register and has not stated as to on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered as 18.8.1986. He also admitted that the signatures of the parents of the prosecutrix are not on the admission form.