IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No. 335-MA of 2009 Dated of Decision:- August 19 , 2009 State of Haryana Versus Amrik Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Sh. S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 18.2.2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he acquitted Amrik Singh son of Mehar Chand of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that on 10.5.2006, respondent, who was a Tantrik, came to the resident of Ram Kumar PW14 and took away his daughter. FIR was registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC against the respondent. Daughter of the complainant was recovered from the hospital at Fatehabad. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she was forcibly taken away and raped by the respondent. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box ASI Ram Parkash PW1, Constable Mahabir Singh PW2, EHC Raj Kumar PW3, Dr. Vijay Luxmi PW4, Dr. Gulshan PW5, Dr. Shilpa PW6, Sumit 2 Criminal Misc No. 335-MA of 2009 Kumar Constable PW7, ASI Vijay Singh PW8, SI Ram Niwas PW9, ASI Harish Chander Pw10, Lady Constable Chander Kala PW11, EHC Inderpal PW12, the prosecutrix PW13, Ram Kumar PW14, ASI Virender Singh PW15, Ms Manisha Batra, Addl. District Judge PW16 and ASI Udevir Singh PW17. Learned counsel for the State has further argued, that the prosecutrix was 16 years old. This has been proved by Dr. Vijay Luxmi PW4, Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Pakasma, who issued the date of birth certificate. Even if it is a case of consent, still the respondent is liable. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was 16 years 8 months of age, when she was taken away by the respondent, as per the certificate issued by the Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Pakasma. During cross-examination, Dr. Vijay Luxmi PW4, the Principal of the School has stated, that the entry in admission-cum- withdrawal register has been made on the basis of the certificate issued by the primary school, in which the prosecutrix was earlier studying. No certificate was issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths or any entry of the chowkidar was produced by the prosecution. No evidence has been brought on record qua the age of the prosecutrix regarding the certificate, which was issued by the previous school (on the basis of which the certificate produced was made) in which she was studying. The learned trial Court has rightly held, that the 3 Criminal Misc No. 335-MA of 2009 prosecutrix was not a minor at the time of occurrence and her age was more than 18 years. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted that she regained consciousness, when she was travelling in a bus along with the respondent. There were other passengers in the bus. They went to Patiala and thereafter they went to Kali temple on foot. She stayed in the temple for about 15/16 days and left the temple on 31.5.2006 in the morning. She further admitted, that she used to go to the market with the respondent to fetch food. She further admitted, that when the respondent had gone away to some place to fetch money, the prosecutrix kept on waiting for him for half an hour. Strangely the prosecutrix did not protest to anyone in those 15/16 days, nor did she try to run away when the respondent had left her for half an hour all alone. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) August 19, 2009 JUDGE SKArora