IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 741 of 1996. Decided on : 17.05.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ..…Appellant. Versus Amrik Singh …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur. R.B. Misra, Judge (oral). The present appeal has arisen after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) Cr. P.C in reference to the impugned judgment dated 6.6.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1995, acquitting the alleged accused from the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The case of the prosecution was that on the intervening night of 29th/30th July, 1994, the alleged accused Amrik Singh kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 17 years from her parental house in village Jaskot, where she was living with her father and brother and after doing so, during the same night solemnized marriage with her in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the ‘Sain Baba’ temple at Morsu, in the presence of his family members and the Pujari of the temple. After marriage ceremonies were over, she was taken by the accused to Power House Project at Joginder Nagar in the taxi and from there to Punjab State Electricity Rest House at Barot in the bus, where they reached at about 2 P.M. and stayed in Set No. 2 in the Rest House. Next morning i.e. on 31.7.1994, the police in the company of the prosecutrix’s brother arrived in the Rest House and after recovering her, she was entrusted to her brother 3. FIR of the case was lodged with the police by Shri Dev Raj – brother of the prosecutrix during the intervening night of 29th/30th July. During investigation, the prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination, whereas the accused on medical examination was found fit for sexual inter-course. The record relating to the date of birth of the prosecutrix was taken into possession. Large number of letters written by the prosecutrix to the accused prior to the occurrence were also taken into possession. The photographs alongwith prosecutrix were also taken into possession. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty two witnesses. Whereas, the alleged accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has denied the prosecution case. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the record. 6. The prosecution has endavoured to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and both were in love 3 and affection and the prosecutrix was student of the alleged accused, who was teacher. The alleged accused had managed to take away the prosecutrix and had married her on 29th/30th July, 1994, when the prosecutrix was minor. Whereas, on the other hand, the above version was refuted by the defence side on having relied upon Ex.PR Birth and Death register of Gram Panchayat, which was maintained in routine manner, whereby, the date of birth of the prosecutrix had been shown as 13.7.1971. As such, at the time of the alleged offence i.e 29th/30th July, 1994, the prosecutrix was aged 23 years and large number of letters Ex.DD to DZ, DAA to DZZ and DAAA, written by the prosecutrix to the alleged accused during the period from January, 1993 till the commission of offence, were demonstrated. 7. According to the defence, it is the prosecutrix, who had abducted the alleged accused and compelled him to marry her against the wishes of her parents, as her parents were intending to marry her somewhere else with somebody against her wish. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses and material on record, it is revealed that it was the prosecutrix who was in warm love with the alleged accused, as she has written as many as about fifty letters and has addressed the alleged accused as ‘SURAJ’ and herself as `SAPNA’. The entire event was designed in such a way that the marriage was solemnized in a pre-planned manner at the instance of the prosecutrix herself. From the material on record and Birth and Death register of Gram Panchayat, it has been rightly derived that the prosecutrix was not below 18 years of age, as her 4 date of birth is 13.7.1971 and not 13.7.1977 and the prosecutrix after marriage was taken to different places where she stayed with the alleged accused comfortably and the marriage was solemnized by the prosecutrix. In the facts and circumstances, there is no question of commission of alleged offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, against the accused. 10. In the facts and circumstances and on the basis of record learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, had rightly arrived at the conclusion acquitting the alleged accused of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, as the prosecution has filed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no scope of any interference in the impugned judgment dated 6.6.1996. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 17, 2010. (lsp)