CR.A/757/1994 1/13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUKESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI MISTRY - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PN BAVISHI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PD BHATTE, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 02/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant is the original accused who was charged with offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. By impugned judgement and order dated 4.7.1994 CR.A/757/1994 2/13 JUDGMENT rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, he was convicted for the said offence and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of two years for offences punishable under Sections 363 an 366 of the Indian Penal Code was imposed. Fine was also imposed. 2. As per charge exh.2, it was alleged against the the appellant that on 11.11.1991, at about 11:15 in the morning the accused had kidnapped minor daughter 'J' of complainant Manjulaben and thereafter, also had forcible intercourse with her. He was thereby charged with offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Mistri-PW4, complainant, was examined at exh.11. In her deposition, she stated that at the relevant time her daughter was aged 15 years and 3 months. She was studying in S.S.C.. Her date of birth is 11.7.1976 which was registered in the Municipal Register. She is engaged in selling of fruits. Her husband is doing the carpentry work. On the date of incident when she returned home in the evening at 5 O' Clock, 'J' was not present at home. Her son Umesh told her that 'J' has left home at about 11 O' Clock and she was carrying her CR.A/757/1994 3/13 JUDGMENT clothes. She inquired with the relatives. Her husband's uncle told her that he had seen 'J' and the accused near Shalimar cinema at 11 O' Clock. Even after inquiring with the relatives since her daughter was not found, she lodged the complaint with the police after three days. 'J' was brought back by the police after about four days. 3.1 In the cross examination, she stated that she is an illiterate. She did not know her birth date or date of birth of her other children. She could not state with accuracy when her daughter 'J' was born or on which month she was born. Five days after the birth, 'J' was named. Though she stated that she was aged 35 years, she had no evidence to support her age. She stated that 'J' was born at home. She admitted that in her statement before the police, she had stated that upon inquiry in the locality, 'J' was not found and at night through gossip she learnt that accused has taken away 'J' with him. She admitted that in her complaint she had not stated that her husband's uncle Devjibhai had seen 'J' in Shalimar Cinema. 4. Devjibhai Nathubhai-PW5 was examined at exh.12. He stated that on the date of incident, he had seen 'J' and the accused behind Bharti Talkies. 5. Victim Girl-PW-10 'J' was examined at exh.25. CR.A/757/1994 4/13 JUDGMENT She stated that on 11.11.1991, when she was alone at home, the accused who stayed in the neighbourhood had taken her giving false promises of getting married. They first went to Bharuch S.T. Depot. From there, they went to Palej by Rickshaw and from Palej they went to Ahmedabad by tempo. From there, they took the bus to Bayad. From Bayad, they went to Gabar village at the house of Kokiaben, sister of the accused. There they stayed at night where the accused had intercourse with her forcibly. They stayed there till 14.11.1991 during which time the accused raped her every day. From there, they went to Bhavnagar by Bus to her Sister Gita's house. They stayed at Bhavnagar on 14th and 15th. Her uncle Karsanbhai Mistri came there on 14.11.1991 in the evening. She however, did not return with her uncle but sat back at Bharuch. Next day on 15.11.1991, her another uncle Ganpatbhai came there with police and brought her back. 5.1 In the cross examination, she had admitted that she had written a letter to the accused. The two had also got photographed together. She could not remember whether in her police statement she had stated that she and accused had decided to get married. The accused had told her that his parents would be willing but since her parents would not agree, she suggested that they should elope. She had left her house CR.A/757/1994 5/13 JUDGMENT carrying her clothes. She agreed that accused had told her that they would get married in Bhavnagar to which she consented. She admitted that in her statement before the police, she had not stated that at Kokilaben's house she and accused were sleeping in one room where accused had left her. She stated that she had tried to resist and pushed the accused and also kicked him on his chest upon which he had fallen down. Further detailed cross examination of the witness was carried out to show that the intercourse the accused had with her was not forcible and that she was a consenting party. In my opinion, the cross examination was bordering to crossing the line of decency and ought not to have permitted by the Presiding Officer. 6. Dr. Laxmanbhai Somabhai Rathod-PW7 was examined at exh.15. He had carried out the physical examination of the accused as well as the victim girl on 16.11.1991. He was the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Bharuch. He found that hymen of the girl was torn. Her breasts were well developed. There were no marks of injury on her body. From the ossification test carried out, he assessed the age of girl between 16 and 18 years. He was emphatic on his opinion that girl could not have been below 16 years or above 18 years of age. He was of the opinion that girl was habituated to having intercourse. He had also examined the accused. CR.A/757/1994 6/13 JUDGMENT 7. To prove age of the girl, prosecution examined Kanaiyalal Narbheram Kapadia-PW9(exh.22). He was employee of Bharuch Municipality. He produced extracts of Birth and Death Register in which date of birth of 'J' was recorded as 12.7.1976. 7.1 In the cross examination, he stated that at entry No. 1648, there is no signature of the person who made the entry. In the register which he brought also, signature of any employee is not found. He could not state as to who made such an entry. He of-course did not have personal knowledge about the date of birth. The Register recorded that the age of the mother was 24 years and the child was born at Sutaria Municipal Hospital, Bharuch. 8. Primarily on the above evidence, the prosecution sought to prove the charges. Before assessing the evidence, it may be noted that there were certain witnesses examined to establish that the accused had taken away the victim girl. These witnesses however turned hostile and in any case, it is not possible to dispute that the victim girl and accused had gone together on 11.11.1991. The police also collected the clothes of the victim girl as well as the accused and sent the same for analysis along with blood, saliva, etc. of the accused as well as of the victim girl. It is not necessary to CR.A/757/1994 7/13 JUDGMENT take note of details thereof since it is also not seriously in doubt that the accused and 'J' had sexual intercourse during their stay together. 9. From the evidence on record, question is whether the accused had committed rape on 'J' and whether he had kidnapped the girl or not. 10.Insofar as deposition of Devjibhai-PW5 is concerned, same is completely unreliable and appears to be a got-up witness. In the complaint or statement before the police, complainant never narrated that she was informed by Devjibhai-PW5 that he had seen the accused and 'J' together in the afternoon of 11.11.1991. Deposition of Devjibhai-PW5 does not inspire confidence. He stated that he inquired with the accused as to where they were going. The accused told him that it is none of his business after which he returned home. In short, no reliance on the evidence Devjibhai-PW5 can be placed. However, there is enough independent evidence to show that accused and 'J' were together between 11.11.1991 to 15.11.1991. 11.The complainant Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Mistri- PW4 stated that on 11.11.1991 when she had gone for selling fruits and her husband was out of station, her daughter had left the house which she learnt in the evening when she returned home CR.A/757/1994 8/13 JUDGMENT and 'J' was not found for about four or five days. 12.Deposition of 'J' is of utmost importance. She stated that on 11.11.1991 she took some clothes with her and left home with the accused. She clearly stated that in the morning, accused had conveyed to her that they would elope and go to Bhavnagar and get married. The fact that 'J' left house voluntarily is not in dispute. The two travelled by public transport and stayed on various places such as at Gabar village at the house of Kokilaben, cousin sister of the accused and thereafter at Bharuch at the house of Gitaben, another sister of the accused. All this while, 'J' had sufficient opportunity to complain if she was under any kind of threat, coercion or confinement. Apparently, she had moved from place to place along with the accused out of her free will. Though she tried to suggest that the accused had forcible intercourse with her, not once but several times during the stay at the house of Kokilaben, same simply cannot be believed. Despite such alleged act of forcible intercourse 'J' complained to no one. The two stayed at Kokilaben's house for about three days. From there they went to Bharuch at Gitaben's house and stayed there for two days. All these while, 'J' made no issue about the forcible intercourse. In the cross examination, she described in detail the kind of CR.A/757/1994 9/13 JUDGMENT resistance she had put up. The Doctor who examined her however, found no marks of injury. It is apparent that 'J' and the accused had intercourse with consent of the girl. 13.The question is was consent of 'J' relevant. In other words, was 'J' less than 16 years of age at the relevant time. 14.As per the date of birth recorded in the public record, 'J' was aged more than 15 years but less than 18 on the date of incident. Dr. Laxmanbhai Somabhai Rathod-PW7 however, stated with confidence that age of the girl could not have been less than 16 years. Ordinarily, public record regarding the date of birth of a person is a reliable evidence to assess the age, however, in the present case such record is to be examined carefully. This is so because there are several aspects raising doubts about the genuineness of the date of birth of 'J'. First and foremost complainant Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Mistri-PW4 in her deposition stated that she is an illiterate. She does not know her date of birth or the date of birth of her children. She also did not remember on which date or month her daughter 'J' was born. Significantly, she stated that 'J' was born at home. Municipal record however, indicates that 'J' was born at Sutharia Municipal Hospital at Bharuch. Additionally Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Mistri-PW4 stated that her CR.A/757/1994 10/13 JUDGMENT daughter was named after five days of her brother. The Birth Register suggests that child was born on 12.7.1976. The birth was registered on 16.7.1976. Name of 'J' also appears in the record. Additionally, Kanaiyalal Narbheram Kapadia-PW9 stated that there is no signature of person who recorded the birth. He obviously had no personal knowledge about the same. 15.All these internal contradictions would make reliance on such entry highly unsafe. To recapitulate, though Manjulaben Bhikhabhai Mistri-PW4 mother of 'J' stated that 'J' was born at home, municipal record of her date of birth suggests that child was born at Sutharia Municipal Hospital at Bharuch. If she was named five days after her birth, in the Register when the birth was registered on 16.7.1976, her name could not have been entered. Even otherwise the Register which the witness had brought did not carry signature of any of the employee of the Municipality. All these circumstances raise serious doubt about the entry No. 1648 in the Birth and Death Register of Bharuch Municipality being that of 'J'. In other words, prosecution failed to establish that 'J' was born on 12.7.1976. In absence of any reliable proof regarding the age of victim girl on the date of incident, one shall have to fall back to the medical evidence where the Doctor assessed that 'J' could not have been below 16 years or more CR.A/757/1994 11/13 JUDGMENT than 18 years. In this view of the matter, the consent of 'J' becomes more relevant. I have already discussed the evidence on record in this regard. During the entire evidence of 'J' I have little doubt in my mind that 'J' had voluntarily left her parents home on account of love affair. Two had desired to get married after eloping. They stayed together for few days at different places. They also had sexual intercourse during their stay. The element of force was howevr, totally missing. In that view of the matter, finding that 'J' was not less than 16 years on the date of incident, offence of rape i not made out. 16.Question is can the accused be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 17.Here also I find that though 'J' may be below 18 years of age, she was not an uneducated person. She was studying in S.S.C. when the incident took place. From the deposition also she comes across as a person of fair maturity. She had left her parents' house out of her free choice. In fact, she appears to have stated before the police that though the parents of accused would be agreeable to their marriage, her parents would not and she had therefore, suggested that the two should run away. CR.A/757/1994 12/13 JUDGMENT 18.Under the circumstances, considering the evidence on record, it cannot be stated that the accused had taken 'J' out of the custody of her guardians. 19.In an order dated 22.11.2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.493 of 1990, this Court has made the following observations : “17.5 Reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, wherein the Apex Court observed that there is a distinction between “taking” and “allowing a minor to accompany a person”. The expressions are not synonymous. Where the minor leaves her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she is doing, voluntarily joins the accused person, the accused cannot be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. It was further observed that : “27. I agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that when the girl was about to cross 18 years of age, if not already crossed the age of 18, was mature enough to understand the implications of her steps and had also studied upto 12th standard, her act of leaving her parents custody out of her own free choice would not amount to the appellant taking her away from the care of her parents as is observed by the Apex Court in the case of Varadarajan (supra).” 20.Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I find that there was no evidence to hold that the appellant had kidnapped 'J'. CR.A/757/1994 13/13 JUDGMENT 21.Under the circumstances, I find that conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code could not have been recorded. His conviction and sentence are therefore, set aside. Appeal succeeds. Bail bond stands cancelled. Fine, in any paid shall be refunded. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)