LexSTA TE OF CHHATTISGARH versus LEKHRAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STA TE OF CHHATTISGARH v. LEKHRAM APRIL 5, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 366 and 376/Jndian Evidence Act; S. 35: Abduction and rape of a minor married woman by the accused-Age C of prosecutrix-Proof of-Entry in the School register-Admissibility in evidence-Held: A register maintained in a School is admissible in evidence to prove date of birth of a person-Though an entry in the register is not conclusive proof of date of birth of the student bu1 it has evidentiary value- Since entries in the register and statement of father of the prosecutrix D corroborated by other witnesses, there was no reason for disbelieving the same by the.High Court-Hence, !he judgment of the High Court convicting the accused by reversing the order of the trial Court can not be sustained and set aside. Sentencing-Abduction and rape of a minor -Held: Prosecutrix could E not prove that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by the accused--Jn the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, both the Courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party-Hence in the interest of justice. the accused is directed to be sentenced to the period already undergone by him-Directions issued F The Respondent was working in the house of the father of the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was married in the year 1985. When she came back to her parent's house after the 'gauna' ceremony she was allegedly induced by the respondent to leave the village along with him in the night intervening between 25th and 26th February, 1986. First Information Report was lodged G on 26.2.1986 by brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, PW6. A case under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. was registered against the accused respondent. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was recovered on 23.3.1987. The Trial Com1 on the basis of the evidence opined that on the date of H 826 .... 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C R. A sustained.his set aside accordingly. (831-B-C) 2. The prosecutrix was a mature girl. She was married. She spent a few months in her in-laws' place. The Respondent was working in her house. They, thus, knew each other for a long time. The prosecution evidently could not prove its case that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by B the Respondent on a false plea that he would marry her. She denied the said suggestion as presumably she was aware that she being married, the question of her marrying the Respondent again may not arise. She lived for some time with the Respondent in a rented house. Both the Courts proceeded on the basis that she was a consenting party. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of C this case and having regard to the fact that both the courts have arrived at the conclusion that she was a consenting party, it may not be proper to send the Appellant back to prisori. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Respondent is directed to be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. [831-E-F-GJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 326 of D 1999. E From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1997 of the High Court of M.P. in Crl. A. No. 269/57. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Atul Jha and D.K. Sinha for the Appellants. Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. The Respondent herein was working in the house of the F father of Sushila Bai (PW-I). She is said to have been born on 25.12.1970. She was admitted in a village school in 1977. She was married in the year 1985. She came back to her parent's place from her in-laws house after the 'gauna' ceremony was celebrated. The Respondent herein is said to have induced her to !eave the village along with him in the night intervening between 25th and 26th February, 1986. A First Information Report was lodged G on 26.2.1986 by Jeewan Ram Chandel (PW-6) who happened to be the brother- in-law of the prosecutrix Sushila Bai. In the said report, the Respondent herein was said to have been abducted her. The father of the prosecutrix, however, was asked by the officer-in-charge of the police station to produce proof of her age whereupon certificate as per the school register was filed. A case H under Sections 366 and 376 was thereafter initiated against the Respondent. -- STA TE OF CHI-IA l flSGARH v. Ll.KHRAM 827 occurrence she was a minor, and that in view of the fact that the Respondent A had sexua
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.