KHALIKUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.11.2000, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Baran, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant with 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default 6 months R.I. for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and 5 years RI and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default one year, R.I. for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that PW-2 Udalal, father of the girl PA Gulab Bai, submitted a written report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Bhanwargarh on 10.2.1999, stating therein that the informant was the resident of Parania and at the time of incident was working at Kota. His wife alongwith children was residing in village. When the informant came to his house, he was informed by his wife that 12-13 days back, Naimuddin and his son Khaliquddin came to her and said that they were going to Madhopur to attend a marriage and asked to send her daughter Gulab Bai alongwith them but she refused and went to the field. In her absence, they took away his daughter. Mukesh Barman, Visvanath and Smt. Santra Bai have seen them going. When Naimuddin returned to the village, his wife enquired about her daughter but he pleaded ignorance. The age of the girl was 13-14 years. Formal FIR Ex.P/3 was registered. The victim Gulab Bai was recovered on 2.3.1999 vide Memo Ex.P/4. She was medically examined and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Baran, who framed the charges under section 363, in the alternative under sections 366 and 376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was examined as provided by Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution evidence but did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge having heard final submissions came to the conclusion that all the three charges were proved beyond doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated here-in-above. No separate sentence was passed for an offence under Section 363 I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the' appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. At the very out-set, learned counsel did not challenge the conviction of the appellant. He confined his submissions on the point of sentence only. Although the conviction of the appellant under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is not challenged. I have scanned the entire evidence. The important aspect of the case is the age of the victim. According to the statement of PW-1 Smt. Pramila, mother of the victim the age of her daughter was 13 to 14 years at the time of incident. PW-2 Udalal is the father of the victim. He stated that his daughter was about 12 to 13 years of age. PW-3 is the victim, who stated her age 13 years when her statement was recorded by the trial Court on 10.8.1999. Ex.P/5 is the progress report of the victim, issued by Head Master of Government Secondary School, Parania and her date of birth is mentioned as 2.5.1986. PW-8 Dr. Mustaq Ahmad Ansari, medically examined her on 3.3.1999. She was also x-rayed. According to his opinion the age of the victim was about 13 to 14 years. Thus in view of the entire evidence the age of the victim was 14 years at the relevant time.