1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 2000 Decided on December 6, 2010 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Nand Lal ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, Amicus Curiae. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 13.7.1998, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 14.9.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 26-S/7 of 1998, titled as State of H.P. vs. Nand Lal, accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was working as a labourer in village Damkari. He was employed by Roshan Lal (PW.3) father of the prosecutrix (PW.2). There accused and prosecutrix developed intimacy. On 13.7.1998, accused allured the prosecutrix of providing her ornaments and getting her a job. Under allurement, prosecutrix accompanied the accused to Solan and then to Baddi. Accused 2 and prosecutrix got married at a 'Shiv Mandir'. Finding that prosecutrix was not at home, her parents searched for her. One Tara Devi informed her father that she had seen the prosecutrix accompanying the accused in a bus to Nalagarh. On 16/17th father of the prosecutrix reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 145/1999 dated 16.7.1998 (Ex.PW.3/A) was lodged with Police Station, Solan. On 24th August, prosecutrix was recovered from the house, taken on rent by the accused. Her custody was handed over to her parents. She was got medically examined by doctor Radha Chopra (PW.13), who issued MLC (Ex.PW.13/A). Her radiological age was got determined through doctor J.P Kaushik (PW.1) and report (Ex.PW.1/B) obtained. Accused was got medically examined by Dr.S.L.Verma, who issued MLC (Ex.PW.12/A). Certificate (Ex.PW.8/A) showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 1.2.1981, issued by the Gram Panchayat, was taken by the police. To the said effect, certificate (Ex.PW.7/A) was also obtained from the school record. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged of having committed offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. 3 5. Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal. 6. Age of the prosecutrix is not in dispute. Also from the material on record, it is evident that she was more than 18 years of age. Her radiological age is proved by doctor J.P.Kaushik to be of 19 years Birth certificate (Ex.PW.8/A) cannot be relied upon as legal evidence, admissible under law, for the reason that Hans Raj (PW.8) Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jaunaji, has admitted that there is cutting in the Births and Deaths Register, maintained by the Panchayat. To our mind, authenticity of this register itself is in doubt. Entry recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix is the last entry in the register. Thereafter all pages are blank. It cannot be said that no person was born in the village after the birth of the prosecutrix. Further, entries are also not made in a seriatim order. Entry dated 30.12.1988 has been made prior to the entry dated 29.12.1988. Entry in the school record is also not on the basis of authentic record i.e. register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration, Act, maintained by the Panchayats. Consequently not much reliance can be placed upon the same. 7. From the deposition of doctor Radha (PW.13), it is evident that prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse. It also is the case of the prosecution that between 13.7.1998 and 24.8.1998, prosecutrix stayed with the accused as his wife at Baddi. It also cannot be disputed that both had got married at 4 'Shiv Mandir'. 8. However, it is the case of the prosecutrix that she got married under allurement. According to her, accused promised her to give ornaments and assured her of a job. We find her statement not to be inspiring confidence. Importantly, it is not her case that the accused refused to fulfill the promises and representations made out by him. Her statement, in any event, is vague and unspecific on this aspect. She admits to have travelled with the accused in broad day light from place to place. In fact, she left the house of her parents of her own accord. She admits to have met various persons at various places yet she did not register her protest with anyone or disclose about the allurement allegedly given by the accused. She admits to have written letters to the accused. Prior to her recovery by the police, she did not make out any grievance about non fulfillment of the assurances allegedly made by the accused. She admits that accused had worked for her father for more than one year. Importantly, she admits to have written letter (Ex.DA) to the first wife of the accused, expressing her desire to continue to reside with the accused. She was aware of his first marriage and children born out of his first wife. To us, it appears to be a case of consent and not deceit. 9. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public 5 Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge December 6, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (Purohit) Judge