IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.58 of 1995 Date of decision: 5.3.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Inderjit and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Surender Verma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti at Mandi in Sessions Trial No.26 of 1992, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 366- A, 109 and 120-B IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Inderjit @ Raju conspired with the other 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 accused Beena Devi and kidnapped/abducted Meena Devi a minor from the care and custody of her natural guardian and father PW-1 Haru Ram. According to the prosecution story on 21.7.1991 Meena Devi along with PW Anju had gone to Cinema Bazaar, Sundernagar for purchase of onions in the evening. In the bazaar one Pinki told Meena Devi that accused Beena Devi was sitting in a van along with the accused Inderjit and wanted to talk to her. Meena Devi then went to talk to Beena Devi who asked her to get into the van so that they could go to Slapper. Meena Devi refused to enter the van and then it is alleged that the accused forcibly dragged her into the van and took her to Slapper. At Slapper the accused and Meena Devi stayed for a night and on the next day Meena Devi was taken to a temple at Kangra where she was asked to marry Inderjit. She refused but Beena Devi applied Vermillion to her head and asked Meena Devi to tell every one that she was married to Inderjit. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of PW Kamal Kumar from where she was taken to her parental house. In the meantime, her father had lodged a report with the police that his daughter who was studying in 9th class was missing. He further stated that his wife had 3 informed him that one Kumari Anju had told her that his daughter Meena Devi, aged 15 years, has been kidnapped by accused Raju, owner and driver of Van No.HPY-1485. They then went to search for Meena Devi and came to know that Meena Devi had been taken towards Slapper. They then went to Slapper but could not trace out the daughter. The most important point in this case is with regard to the age of Meena Devi. Though the father has stated that his daughter was aged about 15 years, according to the medical opinion her skeletal age was 17 to 19 years. This has been proved on record by Dr.Jai Vaidya, PW-6. The prosecution has relied upon a certificate Ext.PW-10/A which shows the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 13.3.1974. This would mean that on the date of the incident i.e. 20.7.1991 she was a little more than 17 years old. However, this date of birth has not been properly proved on record. This certificate has been produced by the Investigating Officer PW-10 and no effort was made to prove this date of birth in accordance with law. Further more the father of Meena Devi has himself stated that he had not got the correct age of the prosecutrix recorded when she was admitted to School. From a reading of his 4 evidence it is clear that the date of birth of Meena Devi was not recorded when she was born but was only recorded when she was admitted in School. The father could not tell the day, month or year of birth of any of his children. In the FIR the father had clearly recorded that Meena Devi is studying in Class 9th but in Court he stated that she is studying in class 7th. He is therefore clearly telling lies and his statement cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Meena Devi was below 18 years. The evidence on record also clearly shows that Meena Devi was not forcibly abducted but she went with the accused of her own free will. She is alleged to have been abducted and forcibly taken in a van in the middle of Bhojpur bazaar in the evening hours. At that time the Bazaar was crowed. Even as per this witness a hue and cry was raised. If that had been so it would have been impossible for the accused to take her in the van without her consent. There is evidence on record to show that Meena Devi and the accused Inderjit were known to each other prior to the incident and were meeting each other. Meena Devi in her statement has not supported the prosecution case herself. The father states that on the 5 first day itself he came to know that Meena Devi had been taken towards Slapper and he went to Slapper. According to Meena Devi she spent a night in the van at Slapper. The father was aware of the number of the van. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that the Slapper is a small place and in case the father had gone there he would have easily traced the van. It is, therefore, apparent that a false story has been concocted by the prosecution. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 5, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. PV