IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 174 of 2000. Date of decision: 10.11.2010. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Partap Chand alias Partapu …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J(Oral. The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted against the impugned judgment dated 9.7.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Kullu, in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1996, acquitting the alleged accused for the offence under Section 376, 109 of the IPC in reference to FIR No.74/1992 dated 15.3.1992, Police Station Sadar, Chamba. 2. The Prosecution case is that on 15.3.1992, a report was lodged by victim that Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… about six months back, accused had kidnapped her and thereafter married her in a temple. According to the victim she was brought back by the police from the house of the accused and then taken to Civil Hospital, Chamba for medical examination and thereafter restored to her father Kirpa. As per FIR victim alleges that she remained at the house of her parents, but about 20 days back her father brought her to Chamba on the pretext of bringing maize, but in the evening he took her to village Tunda at the house of the accused and then left her at the house of the accused where accused had committed sexual intercourse with her daily till she was again recovered from the house of the accused. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses, whereas, accused-respondent, through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. 4. PW-1 victim has reiterated the prosecution case that she was forcibly married with Partap Chand @ Partapu. PW-2 Nito, the mother of the victim in her cross-examination has stated that victim is her elder daughter and she was married about 25 years and after one year of the marriage victim was born. The entire testimony of Nito (mother of victim) that the age …3… of prosecutrix was 17 years at the time of incident. In view of the testimony of PW-2 Nito, the victim is her elder daughter and she was married about 25 years and after one year of the marriage victim was born, the victim from this point of view was 17 years of age at the time of incident. According to the prosecution the date of age of the victim was recorded in the Parivar Register as 12 years but it was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge as the same has not been proved that at whose instance the entry was made in the Death and Birth Register. As per prosecution case the victim was married to Partap and she was already more than 17 years of age then the offence under Section 376 IPC cannot be made out against accused/respondent and the father of victim/prosecutrix cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 109 IPC. The exception clause of Section 375 is also not attracted as the age of victim was more than 17 years. 5. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and after carefully perusing the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. On the …4… basis of the material on record and on appraisal of prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt and has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused/respondent. In these circumstances, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (Kuldip Singh) Judge 10 th November, 2010 (sks)