Nafe Singll v. The State of Haryana

Learned counsel for t he appellant has subm it t edt hat t he prosecut rixwas m ore t han18 yeailsof age The has exainined DrArun 6PWellwho hasgivent lheage of t he proseculrix bet ween 14 t o 161zyears This wit ness hasst at edt hat 1t llerecan be variat oion int he age by 2 t o 3 years on eit herside Accordingt o t he ossiflcat ioont es4 t hevariat ion is consideredshe would be agedabout 18 V19 Vzyearsl1le t rial Court has relied upon t he school cert ificat eExPR The fonn on t he basis of wihicht he age of t he has been in t he school record has been producedby Dalbir Siilfll PW 101 fat her of t he has st at edt hat t he age of t he prosecut rI Xwas 12w1314years So lt cannot be said t h I rosecut rixwas agedlesst han 16 years To supI oortt his coilt ent ioll learned counselfor Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original t he PHHC, Chandigarh has relied upon t he followingaut horit ies JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 P Crim inalAppealNo 1 SB of 2001 6 1 0 C3 I C5 I Ct I a5 m Z I l 6il Jaipal SinPh 1Crim inall310 vse St at e of Harvana 2003 ReCeR Om Parkash CalMit ha a3Premvs St at e ofHarvana 1997111ReCRe Crim inall 741 Arvinder Kaur vse St at e of Puniab 2007 RCeRe Crim inall 818 3 O Hk RlI keshvse St at eofl3aryana200I l RCRe m inall 505 PS2Hl i LearnedSt at e counselhassuppoorlt he of t he t rial Court I have consideredOle sublllissions m adeby loot ht he sidesand havegonet hrought herecordsoft he case wit h t lleir able assist ance ln a case where fences underSect ions363 366 and 376of t he lPC are involved t he age of t he is a orelevantfaclor t o be det erm inedbyt he Cout lSe I n t he presentcase t he t rial Court afhr t lle evidenceon t he flle reached t o t he conclusiont hat age of t he lesst han 16 years at t he t it ne of occurrence Prosecut ionexam ined PW6 Drl4im ani Gupt a who has given t he age of 13 years Dalbr Siilgh6PWOl fat ller oft he prosecut ix hasgivent he age oft he as 121314 ycars Prosecut lixherself as on 202000 has givenher age as 14 years ExPR in which t he dat eof birt h of t he Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh 2011986 The occurrence relat es t o Jult luly 1999 So t he age of t lle has been m ent ioned as JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 r d 4 Crim inalAppealNo 1 SB of 2001 7 1 was less t han14 years I naut horit yJaipalSinPhs case ipral t he age of andshehasst at edher age as 1lY yearsbeforet he doct or So 4 I n Om Pvkash C Mit ha Pren C8SC SllPral was15 t hat t he washeld t o be t nore t han 16 years and was a part ySo t hat is also I n Arvinder Kaurs supral t he age of t lle prosecut rlXwas found t o be lnore t han16 years Sot his is also The schoolrecord which is by t he oral evidence shouldbe relied uloon t he age of t he So I have no hesit at ion in holdingt ha1t he age of t he has been conect ly det erm inedbyt he t rialCOU The ot her lim b of argunlentof t he leailnedcounsel for t lle is t hat is a part y Shehas t he accusedt o Ludhiana in a vehicle Slle st ayedat Ludhainafor abouta m ont hwit h t he accused Sllehasalnple t o raise a noise duringt he periodof her and st ayat Ludhaina So it cannot be said t hat t here is t he by t he accused The left her hom e volunt arilywit h her sweet will and not under any inducem entor t hreat So t he abduct ingor is not proved I n supportoft his cont ent ion I eam edcounsel for t he has relied upon t he followingaut horit ies Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh o Narindcr vse St at e of Harvana 2003 ReCRCrim h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 1 1 4 Crim inalAppealN 1 SB of 2001 8 m C 0 C C5 I Z 0 08 erm VA Z 721Lt e1 0iI Vinod VSe St at e of Haryana2010 ReCeRCrim inaI l 3092 I ll Tukaram vse St at e of Maharasht ra AI R 1979 SeCe185 SuDrem eCourt 1 have careflillyconsideredt he subm issionslnade bycounsel for t heappellantand havealsocarefullygone t hrought lle aut horit ies The said subm issionsare wit hout any subst ance The has adlnit t edt he fact t hat prosecut rix his niece She 1S I esst han 16 years of age and as such consent of t he 1S im inat erial Even in t he st at einentunder Sect ion313 CrPC it has been st at edbyt he accused t hat m ot her Om Parkash and has furt her st at ed t hat inot her of hasillicit relat ionwit h one t he prosecut rixwas giving sedat ivet o t he prosecut rixt o indulgein t he t radeof Now duringt he course of argum ent t he said point s hallenot beenpressed So t he st at em ent of t he prosecut rixt o t he effectt hat she was givensedat ive and accusedcom m it t edrape upon her canies weightand has t o be accept ed The prosecut rixor her fat herwould be t he I astperson t o iinplicat esuch a closerelat ivein a heinousoffenceinore so when t herewas no reasot l for t he The st andt aken byt he accusedbeforet he t rial Court t hat Rs 150001 was owed by m ot her of t he prosecut rixwas also not pressedduringt he course of argum ent s The accused wasina posit ionbeingt he uncle of t he prosecut rixand he has m isusedhis posit ion t he accused has t hree children and 111 spit e of t hat he has indulged Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh his own So he 1SllOt ent it led t o get anyrelief ilronl t he JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 111 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 06 1 5 4 V 2 R k e I t 5 4e 417 V4eCrim inalAppealN 1 SB of 2001 9 Courtregardingreduct ionof sent ence also So far as t he above said aut horit ies are concem ed t he said aut horit iesdo not helpt he case oft he it l any m anner as t he ageof t he has beenprovedt o be lesst han 16yearsin t hecase in hand Learnedcounselfor t lle hasfuit ller subm it t edt hat t he m edicalevidence doesnot prove t he fact um of rape There was no nla1kof int em aland ext ernalinj urieson t he bodyooft he So t here I V8S st ruggleon t he partof t he The presenceof sem endoesnot provet herape but onlyprove t he sexualint er course I have carefullyconsideredt he said subnlission but do not Snd anyforce in t he said subI nission As t he below 14 years of age SO lll t llese circum st ances she was unable t o raise any st ruggleA40re0ver it 1S llOt t hat in a case of rape t here lllUst be ext em al nlark of inj uries Presence of sem en Oll t he clot hesprovedt he fact uinof Ot herwisealso duringt lle course counsel for t he appellanthas not denied t he wit h t he pt osecut rixbL hast aken t he st and t hat t he ls a part y As observed above 1 0 C CD 1 Z C I a5 S7 Z t l t 17 19 even t he consent of t he less t han 16 years of age at t ract st he of offence punishableunder Sect ion 376 I PC The has st at edt hat undert hreat and allurenlentshe has t heaccused t o Ludhiana So ill t hese circum st ancesit cannot be said t hat offence punishableunder Sect ions 363 and 366 I PC are s not at t ract ed Aut horit yDharm ender VSe St at e of Haryana 2010 131 Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh ReCeRI Crim inall 179 relied upon byt he learnedcounseI for t he appellant JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 1 Crim inalAppealNo 1 SB of 2001 10 is not helpfult o t he appellantEI S lll t hat case t he prosecut rixwas aged17 Aut horit iesPart ap Misra VS St at e of Orissa AlR 1977 1307 SCJ and Tam eezuddin C Tam m u vs St at e oVCTI Delhi uprem e Court I Paee 345 reed uponbyt he learnedcounselfor t he appellantare not helpfult o t he appellant inedicalevidenceas lt l t hose cases prosecut rixwas m ore t han 16 years of ageand in t he Tam eezuddin m arriedwoinan 0 Tam m us case 4SllPrillt lle prosecut nx was even a P 1 C 0 C C5 C Z Tlle last lim b of argum entof t he learned counsel for t he C2 appellantis t he delayin I odgingt he FI R 08 4 7 Z CL As discussed above t here is very close prosecut rlXwit h t he The fainilym em berst hink t housandt im e beforelodgingt he FI R 0Hencepunishableunder Sect ions363 366 and 376 oft he I PC as virt uallyin sucht nat t ers t heyput t heir honour at st ake So t heappellantcant lot deriveany beneflt of t he delay as well as Chint a Sinku VS St at e of Jharkhand Jharkhandl2008 CrI e L J Paee 2192 relied upon by t he leam ed counsel for t he appellant I n view oft he bovediscussiont he appealis wit houtany m erit and t he sam e st andsdism issed The accused who lS Oll bail be t akenint ocust odyt o t he partoft he sent ence Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 I l1 7 I r I 8 I 5 964 419 1 4J Crim inalAppealN 1 SB of 2001 11 A copy of t his be sent t o t he t rial Cout t for st rict 1 JUDGE Novem berI l 2010 D g 81 1 E m 0 3 0 I Z r rL n7 Z 0 Pooja 2014.03.12 14:56 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document