STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARI RAM & HARISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused -respondent, Hari Ram @ Harish, for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. In short, the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2008, Achlaram (P.W.2) filed a written report before the Police Station Ramgarh, wherein he has claimed that he is the resident of 21 SC Murabba No.104/60. He lives there with his family. On 23.01.2008, the farmers were on strike. Therefore, he went to Jaisalmer. He received a call from his wife informing him that their daughter, the prosecutrix, is missing from the house. Therefore, he came back to his home on 24.01.2008. His neighbours told him that at night the accused -respondent Hari Ram had come along with four to five persons and had taken away his daughter. His neighbour, Premaram, had assured him that he will bring back his daughter. However, he failed to do so. Thus, the complainant approached the police. On the basis of the report, a formal FIR was chalked out. The prosecutrix was recovered from Hari Ram. Subsequently, the police submitted a charge -sheet for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

(2.) IN order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, and submitted ten documents. In defence, although the defence did not examine any witness, but it did submit thirty documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 29.01.2010, the learned Judge acquitted the accused -respondent. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, the learned counsel for the accused -respondent, has strenuously contended that it was for the prosecution to establish beyond a shadow of doubt that the prosecutrix was, indeed, minor. However, the prosecution has failed to do so. Although Smt. Paru (P.W.3), the prosecutrix's mother, has been examined, but Achlaram (P.W.2), the prosecutrix's father is absolutely silent with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. Moreover, though the prosecution had produced the school certificate, the same had not been proved. In fact, the prosecution has failed to examine the person who had filled the said documents. Therefore, the prosecutrix's date of birth cannot be taken as 14.10.1994. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in relying upon the medical evidence. According to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was anywhere from fifteen years to eighteen years old. Thus, she was major. Moreover, the learned Judge has considered the existence of an application (Ex.D/2) submitted by the prosecutrix before the Judicial Magistrate, wherein she had clearly stated that she had gone with the accused -respondent for the purpose of marrying him. Furthermore, the learned Judge has considered the photographs (Ex.D -6 to Ex.D/29) which clearly show that both the prosecutrix and the accused -respondent had married each other. Therefore, obviously the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused -respondent. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondent.