Criminal Appeal No.1427-SB of 2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1427-SB of 2001. Date of Decision : 9.11.2010. Amrik Singh & others ......Appellants Versus The State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 28th, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the appellants were convicted under Sections 366, 368, 376 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default Amrik Singh 366 IPC RI for 1 year `1000/- 1 month 368 IPC RI for 1 year `1000/ 1 month 376 IPC RI for 7 years `5000/ 6 months Dharam Singh 368 IPC RI for 1 year `1000/ 1 month 376 IPC RI for 7 years `2000/ 4 months 380 IPC RI for 3 months -- -- Kabal Singh 366 IPC RI for 1 year `1000/- 1 month 368 IPC RI for 1 year `1000/ 1 month 376 IPC RI for 7 years `2000/ 4 months 2. The prosecution was launched on the statement Criminal Appeal No.1427-SB of 2001. 2 of Jaswant Singh (PW-3) father of Harvinder Kaur-prosecutrix (PW-6) on February 18th, 1999. He made statement (Exhibit PE) to Darbara Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Sadar Rajpura (PW- 11) to the effect that his daughter Harvinder Kaur was learning typewriting at Rajpura. She used to go to Rajpura from the village in a bus. Amrik Singh-appellant No.1 was the conductor on the said bus. On January 30th, 1999 she boarded bus to go to Rajpura but did not return. A search was made but no clue could be found. On March 12th, 1999 she was apprehended at the house of Jaswinder Kaur daughter of Dharam Singh-accused-appellant No.3, uncle of Amrik Singh in village Issapur, District Hoshiarpur while in the company of Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh, his father Kabal Singh and Dharam Singh were arrested and case under Sections 366, 368, 376 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against them. 3. Charge, in respect of commission of offences punishable under Sections 366, 368, 376 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. 4. Prosecution in support of their case, examined 12 witnesses viz. Dr. Ashdeep Singh (PW-1), Dr. Satish Bansal (PW-2), Jaswant Singh (PW-3), Kuldip Singh (PW-4), Satnam Singh (PW- 4/A), Ramesh Chand (PW-5), Harwinder Kaur (PW-6), Bhupinder Singh (PW-7), Kesar Singh (PW-8), Dr. Manpreet Sodhi (PW-9), Surinder Pal Singh (PW-10), Darbara Singh (PW-11) and Dr. Manpreet Sodhi (PW-12). 5. When examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They added that Harvinder Kaur was in love with Amrik Singh. Marriage was solemnized between them on December 21st, 1999. Both of them applied for registration of marriage before the District Magistrate, Dehradun. The marriage certificate (Exhibit D-22) was issued by the District Magistrate on February 1st, 1999. The documents (Exhibits D- 1 to D-25) were also relied upon. 6. In this case, the questions which arise for Criminal Appeal No.1427-SB of 2001. 3 adjudication are (i) whether the prosecutrix was minor at the time of alleged commission of crime ? (ii) whether she married with Amrik Singh with her consent or not ? 7. Per Matriculation Certificate (Exhibit PJ) and Detailed Marks Certificate (Exhibit PJ/1) date of birth of the prosecutrix is January 5th, 1980, that is, she was more than 19 years of age when she performed marriage with Amrik Singh. Jaswant Singh (PW-3) and the prosecutrix (PW-6) have also stated in their respective statements that she was 19 years old when she left the house on January 30th, 1999. It is not the case of the prosecution that she was less than 16 years of age on January 30th, 1999. Thus, it is conclusively proved that the prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age at the time of her marriage with Amrik Singh. 8. The photographs (Exhibits D-6 to D-18) are admittedly of the prosecutrix and Amrik Singh. Out of these photographs, photographs (Exhibit D-16) and (D-17) are of the marriage ceremony. Prosecutrix is wearing marriage dress--lehnga of red colour. Many persons attended the marriage feature in the photographs. Prosecutrix has also admitted in her evidence that she signed some documents while presenting application for registration of the marriage. However, she gave an explanation that she married and signed the documents under threat but it is not acceptable. She remained in the company of Amrik Singh from January 30th, 1999 to March 12th, 1999, that is, 1 month and 12 days. Surprisingly, during this period, she did not raise any alarm nor lodged her protest before any one. She even did not try to flee from the clutches of the accused. The marriage certificate (Exhibit D-22) was also issued by the Marriage Officer, Dehradun on the asking of prosecutrix and Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh also filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before District Judge, Dehradun (Exhibit D-23) and an ex-parte decree was passed in his favour by judgment and decree (Exhibit D-24 and D-25) respectively after registration of the present case against him. It shows that Amrik Singh was still interested in keeping the prosecutrix as his wife. The conduct of the Criminal Appeal No.1427-SB of 2001. 4 prosecutrix voluminously speaks for itself that she was a consenting party throughout. In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, the prosecution have failed to prove that prosecutrix was raped by Amrik Singh or his father and uncle viz Kabal Singh and Dharam Singh-accused-appellants were at all concerned with the offence in question. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge are set-aside and the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges. The bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged. (NAWAB SINGH) 9.11.2010. JUDGE SN