SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 18.11.2009 passed by Shri S.K. Choudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro by which the prayer of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2008 arising out of C.P. Case No. 329 of 2007.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that a complaint was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 Dr. Moti Lal Singh before the C.J.M., Bokaro giving rise to C.P. Case No. 329 of 2007 stating therein that the petitioner No. 2 Shiv Jatan Prasad @ Shiv Jatan Prasad was an employee at H.C.L., Bokaro and had been living with the members of his family at Jhopri Colony of Bokaro Steel Limited and the complainant O.P. No. 2 was also living there in the same colony. It was alleged that the daughter of the complainant Renuka Kumari fell in love with the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2001, who later on came in contact with each other very closely. The petitioner No. 1 - accused joined the military service in the year 2003 and for that his father i.e. petitioner No. 2 obtained loan of Rs. 10,000/- as his son was urgently in need of money to proceed for his joining. It was further alleged that the petitioner Sunil Kumar on the false assurance that he would marry with her developed bodily relationship with the daughter of the complainant namely Renuka Kumari at several occasions. It was alleged that whenever she insisted and pressurized him for marriage the petitioner Sunil Kumar used to subterfuge the matter on one pretext or another. Ultimately, when the petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar was asked by the complainant to marry his daughter, he endorsed his father petitioner No. 2 that he had to take decision. Pursuant to such endorsement the complainant approached the Petitioner No. 2 but the latter demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry from the complainant O.P. No. 2 to finalize the marriage. It was stated that as the complainant was not financially sound as he had already taken voluntary retirement in the year 2003, expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, as such, the marriage could not be settled. The complainant alleged that the petitioners committed cheating by their conduct and that the petitioner No. 1 cohabited his daughter on the false assurance of marriage which could not be settled. The complaint petition was transferred to the S.D.J.M., Bokaro and after preliminary enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prima facie offence was found under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Sunil Kumar whereas offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found to be attracted against the petitioner No. 2 and accordingly summons were issued against both of them.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Chhabra appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the complainant in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the statement of the girl Renuka Kumari recorded during enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would clearly reveal that Renuka Kumari had love affairs with the Petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar since 2001 and the parents of both the parties had full knowledge about their indulgence in love and sex. She admitted that bodily relationship between her and the petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar was established for the first time in the year 2003 which continued for long years without any protest from the family of either side. Though she stated in the Court that she was only 17 years when she first entered into sex with Sunil Kumar for the first time but such declaration of age could not be substantiated by any documentary evidence or any corroborative evidence nevertheless she was quite competent under law to take her own decision and to enter into sex willingly as she was above 16 years of age, as such, the offence under Section 376 could not be attracted against the petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar for the reasons that Renuka Kumari was a competent party.