RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.04.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused/non-Petitioner, Sharvan @ Vikram, for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2006, Ram Kumar (P.W. 10), the complainant, lodged a written report that his daughter, Saroj (P.W. 8), is staying with his elder brother Sohanlal for the last eight months at Udyog Nagar, Jaipur. According to him, his daughter was fifteen years old and had completed her tenth class. On 18.01.2006, his daughter left the house of his brother. Therefore, his brother Sohanlal lodged a FIR for a missing person. Subsequently, they discovered that Sharvan @ Vikram Singh has taken away Saroj. He has further claimed that two or three love letters were written by Sharvan to Saroj. However, as they cannot locate his daughter, therefore, a report was filed before the police. On the basis of the said report, a FIR was chalked out for offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. After Saroj was discovered, the offence under Section 376 IPC was added. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses and had submitted twenty documents. In order to buttress its case, the defence had examined one witness and has submitted twelve documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 19.04.2008, the learned Judge had acquitted Sharvan for the offences mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Biri Singh Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Mukesh Saini, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently that according to the school documents, Saroj was minor on the date of the incident. Therefore, the question of her giving consent for sexual intercourse does not arise. According to him, the learned Judge has ignored the school documents and has wrongly relied upon the medical evidence. Secondly, according to the prosecutrix herself, she was kidnapped by Sharvan and kept in a room and was ravished by him. Therefore, there is ample evidence to prove the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the learned Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused-Respondent for the said offence.