IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1423 of 2002 Date of decision: September 02, 2011 Ranjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Malik, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryanan for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J This petition has arisen out of the judgment of acquittal dated 15.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, acquitting the accused under Sections 363/366/376/506 IPC. Neither the State nor the complainant has preferred any appeal or revision, but only Ranjit Singh father of the complainant has preferred this petition. The brief facts are that on the intervening night of 25/26.3.2000, the prosecutrix (name not disclosed) aged about 16 – ½ years resident of village Budhanpur was watching the television show, on the first floor of her house along with her mother, whereas, her father Ranjit Singh was sleeping on the ground floor. She kept sitting before the television till mid night but after 12.30 a.m. she was found missing from the house. Thereafter, on the statement of her father Ex.PC, on 26.3.2000, FIR Ex.PC/2 was registered and the prosecutrix was recovered on the same day. The case was investigated and the accused was challaned. The trial court acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. Crl. Revision No. 1423 of 2002 -2- Arguments heard. Record perused. Before determining the factum of rape, the age of the prosecutrix needs to be adjudged. In this regard, it may be observed that the prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box on 8.9.2000, gave her age as 16- ½ years. Even according to the school record, she is proved to be 16- ½ years at the time of occurrence. As far as testimony of Ranjit Singh father of the prosecutrix is concerned, according to the certificate Ex.P3, he was born on 8.11.1945, thus, he was 55 years old at the time of making statement, but he has given his own age as 45 years, however, it was admitted by him that he was married at the age of 24 years and his marriage was solemnized 30 years back. Thus, certainly, he is proved to be 54 or 55 years old. According to his testimony, the prosecutrix, she was the third child and is proved to be 23- ½ years old. Under these circumstances, it would not be inappropriate to hold that she was certainly above 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. It was night time, the prosecutrix was in her own house and watching television. There was no occasion for her to go on the ground floor at such an odd hours and her father who was sleeping at the ground floor could respond to the call. She also did not raise any hue and cry if the accused had taken her forcibly. She was recovered from the house of the accused. No knife is shown to have been recovered from the accused with which she was allegedly threatened. The testimony of the prosecutrix also is not worth believing but she appears to have affair with the accused. She, in her statement, has stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her one week prior to the occurrence also. But, she has contradicted her own statement while making statement that the accused had sexually assaulted her after coming to her house after summer season. If this aspect Crl. Revision No. 1423 of 2002 -3- of her statement is accepted, then the accused might have sexually assaulted the prosecutrix six months prior to the occurrence. Any way, the medical evidence also does not support the ocular version of the prosecutrix. Dr. (Mrs.) Naresh Sani (PW1) who had conducted medico-legal examination on the prosecutrix found her secondary sex characters well developed. She did not detect any external marks of injury or injury anywhere on her body. Breasts, axilary hair and pubic hair were developed, menarche started 2-3 years back. All this goes to show that the prosecutrix had previously love affairs and was a consenting party. As such, the trial court correctly recorded findings of fact that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. September 02, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge