Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 September, 2015
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 35/2015 Reserved on: 16.9.2015 Decided on: 22.9.2015 .
_________________________________________________________________ Kuldeep Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram:
of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant: rt Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General.
_________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 9.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP in Sessions trial No. 53-ST/7 of 2013, whereby appellant-
accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and to pay a fine of `10,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 2has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and year to pay a fine of `1,000/- for .
offence under Section 506 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `10,000/- for commission of offence under Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences of Act, 2012, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. rt Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the prosecutrix was a student of 7th class in Government Middle School Thod Niwad in the month of August, 2013. Her date of birth is 15.9.2001. Her grand mother had gone to Rajgarh.
Accused came to her house at 1 pm, gagged her mouth, took her to toilet and committed sexual intercourse with her. PW-5, father of prosecutrix woke up and found that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. Accused quarreled with father. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, disclosed the incident to PW-8 Jitender Vermani. He made PW-4 Shanti Devi talk with father (PW-5). Thereafter, PW-4 visited police station Rajgarh and informed the police. Statement of PW-4 was recorded vide Ext PW-4/A. FIR Ext. PW-10/A was recorded. Prosecutrix was produced before PW-12, Dr. Priyanka. During investigation, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 3 blood sample on FTA for DNA profiling was obtained. Accused was also arrested and medically examined. Blood sample of .
accused was obtained. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh vide Ext.
PW-3/A. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.
3. Prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses of to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. His case was that of denial rt simpliciter. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused.
5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
7. PW-2 Ramesh Vermani, deposed that during investigation, police associated him in the investigation.
Prosecutrix was with the police. She identified the place of occurrence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 4 29.8.2013 accused had confessed before him that he had committed a mistake.
.
8. PW-3 is the prosecutrix (name withheld). According to her, she was student of 7th class in Government Middle School Thod Niwad. She was born in 2001. She was cleaning utensils on 29.8.2013. Her father was sleeping in the house.
Her paternal grand mother had gone to Rajgarh. At about 1 pm, of accused Kuldeep came to her house, took her to the toilet, gagged her mouth, caught hold of her hands, and removed her rt Salwar and committed sexual intercourse with her. Her father got up and came to the spot. Accused quarreled with the father.
Thereafter, her father informed Teetu uncle, who informed her grand-mother about the incident. Medical examination was undertaken in Rajgarh Hospital. Her grand-mother accompanied them to police station. She narrated incident to her grand-mother. Police visited the spot. Her statement was recorded. Prior to the occurrence also accused used to commit sexual intercourse with her in the bushes while coming back from school. Statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC is Ext. PW-3/A. She has admitted in her cross-examination that her grand mother was quarrelsome lady and she used to file complaints with the police against villagers. Few of the complaints made by her were found to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 5 false by the police. Grand mother had earlier filed complaint against Satish that he had raped her. Complaint was found .
false. There was no fixed door on the toilet. She has also admitted that she implicated Satish in rape on 30.8.2013. She disclosed the name of Satish Kumar at the instance of grand mother. She admitted the suggestion that she had made statement in the court at the instance of her grand mother.
of
9. PW-4 is Shanti Devi, grand-mother of prosecutrix.
She had gone to Bazaar for shopping on 29.8.2013. She rt deposed that at about 4 pm, Teetu told her about the occurrence. Teetu disclosed that Sanjay Kumar told that accused had committed sexual intercourse with his daughter.
He visited the police station. Police told them to bring prosecutrix and her son. She engaged a vehicle and came to village Karein. She met her son and grand-daughter (prosecutrix) on the way. They came to Rajgarh from the village and reported the matter to the police. Police recorded statement Ext. PW-4/A. Her grand-daughter was medically examined. In her cross-examination she admitted the suggestion that she had made complaints against villagers from time to time. She also filed complaint against Satish and alleged that he committed rape upon her grand-daughter. She has also made complaint against the police.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 610. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar is the father of the prosecutrix.
He testified that on 29.8.2013, his mother had gone to Rajgarh .
for shopping. His son and daughter were present at home. He after taking lunch alongwith his son Rahul had gone to sleep.
His daughter was cleaning utensils in the courtyard. At about 1.00 pm, he got up to look after the goats. However, he did not find his daughter in the courtyard. He went towards toilet. He of found accused had gagged mouth of his daughter and committed sexual intercourse with her. He asked the accused rt what he was doing. Accused threatened him. He disclosed that altercation continued upto 2.30 pm. Thereafter he rang up Teetu and told him to tell his mother about the incident. He alongwith his daughter and son came on foot upto the road and thereafter his mother met them on way on the roadside. They went to Rajgarh.
11. PW-6 Devinder Chauhan has proved Ext. PW-6/C. According to it, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 15.9.2001.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not bring original record of admission of the prosecutrix in the school. He admitted that in rural areas, normally children are admitted to school at the age of 6 or 7 years.
12. PW-7 Pratap Singh is Panchayat Secretary. He has proved birth certificate Ext. PW-7/A. He has also proved the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 7 extract of Parivar register Ext. PW-7/B. He admitted in his cross-examination that entries regarding birth of prosecutrix .
were not incorporated by him. He also admitted that the register which he has brought to the Court contained entries which were wrongly incorporated. Later on these entries were deleted.
He has also admitted that in the birth register entries were made upto page 25 only and thereafter pages were blank. He of also admitted that column at page-8 was also blank. He also admitted there were cuttings and over-writings in the column rt against the entry of age of prosecutrix.
13. PW-8 Jitender Vermani alias Teetu deposed that on 29.8.2013, Sanjay Kumar rang him at about 11 am/ 12 noon and told him that his mother was at Rajgarh and he wanted to talk to her. Mother of PW-5 met him in the Bazaar at about 3/4 pm. Thereafter, he made her talk with Sanjay over the mobile phone. Sanjay did not disclose to him except that he wanted to talk to his mother. He was declared hostile. He was cross-
examined by learned Public Prosecutor. He was not in a position to say that he had received call on his mobile from Sanjay in the afternoon. He also denied the suggestion that Sanjay disclosed to him that accused had committed rape on his daughter. He has denied portion 'A' to 'A' of mark 'C'.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 814. PW-12 Dr. Priyanka has medically examined the prosecutrix on 29.8.2013. She issued MLC Ext. PW-12/C. .
According to her, it could not be said that sexual intercourse has not taken place. No fresh injury was present on vulva.
Labia Majora was normal. No injury was present. Labia Minora was normal. Hymen was ruptured with healed margins. No fresh injury present over it. Vagina admitted two fingers easily.
of In her cross-examination she admitted that prosecutrix was found habitual of sexual intercourse. There was no struggle rt marks present over the body of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix had told her that her hands were tied with rope. Clinically there was no evidence to this effect. Similarly, there was no mark on the mouth showing that her mouth was gagged.
15. Accused was examined by Dr. Bhupender Kumar.
He issued MLC Ext. PW-13/B.
16. PW-16 Sunita Verma PSI got statement of prosecutrix Ext. PW-3/A recorded in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Rajgarh. She obtained birth certificate of prosecutrix. She also recorded statement of Jitender Vermani on 10.9.2013, Ext. PW-16/F. Satish Kumar was arrested on the basis of the statement made by prosecutrix and her grand-
mother. However, in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she did not implicate Satish Kumar as such he was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 9 discharged. A separate FIR under Section 354 IPC was registered against Satish Kumar. She also admitted that on .
1.9.2013, Shanti Devi made statement that the name of Satish was taken out of anger.
17. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar had deposed that he took lunch on 29.8.2013. He alongwith his son had gone to sleep.
His daughter was cleaning the utensils in the courtyard. At of about 1.00 pm, he got up to look after goats. He went to toilet and found accused had gagged mouth of his daughter. Accused rt was committing sexual intercourse. Altercation took place between father and accused, which continued upto 2.30 pm. He then rang up Teetu to inform his mother about the occurrence.
However, PW-8, Jitender Vermani deposed that on 29.8.2013, PW-5 Sanjay Kumar has rung him up at 11 am/ 12.00 noon that his mother had come to Rajgarh. He wanted to talk to her.
He met his mother at about 3/4 pm and made her to talk to Sanjay Kumar on mobile. He was declared hostile as noticed above. In his cross-examination, he denied that he received call on mobile from Sanjay in the afternoon. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he told Teetu to inform his mother about the incident. However, PW-8 has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that Sanjay had not disclosed anything ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 10 except that he wanted to talk to his mother. He has denied portion 'A' to 'A' of mark 'C'.
.
18. PW-3 (Prosecutrix) has deposed that the accused came to her house at 1 pm. He gagged her mouth and caught hold of her hands, removed her Salwar and committed sexual intercourse. Father got up and came there. Accused quarreled with her father. Thereafter, father informed Teetu uncle who of informed grand-mother about the incident. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that her grand mother frequently rt used to file complaint to the police against villagers. Complaints filed by her grand mother were found to be false. Her grand-
mother filed complaint against Satish that he raped her but it was found false. There was no fixed door in their toilet. She has admitted that on 30.8.2013, she implicated Satish Kumar in rape. She specifically admitted that she made statement in the Court at the instance of her grand-mother.
19. PW-4 Shanti Devi is the grand-mother of the prosecutrix. According to her, Teetu had disclosed to her that Sanjay told them that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her grand-daughter. Thereafter, she visited the police station. However, PW-8 Jitender Vermani has specifically denied that he was told about the incident by PW-5 Sanjay Kumar. Now, as per statement of PW-5 Sanjay kumar, he told ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 11 Teetu about incident and thereafter, Teetu narrated the incident to PW-4 Shanti Devi. PW-8 Jitender Vermani has categorically .
denied that he was ever apprised about the incident by PW-5 Sanjay Kumar. Thus, it is intriguing how PW-4 Shanti Devi came to know about the incident. According to PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, he has rung up PW-8 Jitender Vermani at about 2.30 pm but PW-8 Jitender Vermani has testified that he received of phone call from PW-5 Sanjay Kumar, between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon. PW-3 has admitted that her grant mother used to rt file complaints with the police against the villagers. Prosecutrix has also implicated Satish Kumar on the basis of the statement dated 30.8.2013. PW-4 Shanti Devi has also admitted that she has made various complaints against villagers.
20. PW-16 Sunita Verma has also admitted in her cross-examination that Satish Kumar was also implicated in the case but later on, his name was dropped. In the instance case, false implication of accused can not be overruled when the statement of PW-3 (Prosecutrix), PW-4 Shanti Devi (grand-
mother of prosecutrix) and PW-5 Sanjay Kumar (father of prosecutrix) are scrutinized closely. In case, Satish Kumar was also involved, there was no occasion for the prosecution to drop his name. It has come on record that Satish Kumar was also implicated but only explanation is given by PW-16 Sunita ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 12 Verma that she has mentioned name of Satish Kumar out of anger. Incident has taken place at around 1 pm. It is not .
believable that accused would have entered house when father and brother of prosecutrix were at home. She has not raised any alarm.
21. PW-12 Priyanka has issued MLC Ext. PW-12/C. According to her cross-examination, prosecutrix was found of habitual of sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix told that her hands were tied. But clinically there is no evidence to this effect.
rt Similarly, there was no mark present on her mouth showing that her mouth was gagged. Prosecutrix has deposed that accused had raped her on earlier occasions also however, fact of the matter is that she has not narrated this incident to her family members. PW-6 Devinder Chauhan, though has issued certificate Ext. PW-6/C but he has not brought original record regarding admission of the prosecutrix in the school. PW-7 Pratap Singh issued birth certificate Ext. PW-7/A. He also proved extract of Parivar register Ext. PW-7/B. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that entries in the register have been incorporated upto page 25 and thereafter pages were blank. He admitted that column at page 10 were also blank. He did not know when name of prosecutrix was incorporated in the Parivar register. Name of mother of prosecutrix was not entered.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 13He admitted that there was cutting and over-writing in the column of age of the prosecutrix. PW-13 Dr. Bhupender Kumar .
has not found any symptoms of any recent sexual intercourse by accused at the time of examination on 30.8.2013. Incident has taken place on 29.8.2013 but the statement of PW-8 Jitender Verma was only recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 10.9.2013. No explanation has been given why statement of of PW-8 under Section 161 CrPC was recorded after ten days.
22. PW-3, prosecutrix has deposed that accused has rt come to her house, gagged her mouth and took her to bathroom and committed sexual intercourse. On seeing this by father, accused had quarreled with father. However, PW-5 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he went to toilet and found accused had gagged mouth of his daughter and committed sexual intercourse with her. PW-3, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has also deposed that accused has committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, father had come on spot and enquired from accused what he was doing. Thus, it can not be said that Sanjay Kumar had witnessed the incident.
Now, as far as DNA report is concerned, the incident took place on 29.8.2013. Prosecutrix was examined on 30.8.2013 and accused was also examined on 31.8.2013. However, blood samples were taken for the purpose of DNA profiling on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 14 4.9.2013. According to report of FSL, Ext. PW-12/B, human semen was detected on Ext. P1. No blood was detected or semen .
was found on other exhibits. In the DNA report, it has come that while major DNA completely matched, DNA Ext. P1 FTA card of prosecutrix and other minor profiles matched with DNA profile obtained from Ext. P2 except for three loci D7S820, D18S51 and FGA.
of
23. DW-1 Kuldeep Kumar has deposed that as per entry in the register regarding date of birth of daughter of Sanjay rt Kumar was 14.12.1994. Similarly, DW-2 Malti Devi deposed that in December, 1994, Shanti Devi called her for delivery of her daughter. A girl child was borne to Sanjay Kumar. DW-3 deposed that accused belonged to Koli caste and Shanti Devi (PW-4) had disputes with Koli community on account of local deity. She was a quarrelsome lady and litigant person. She had also filed cases against other persons. She had lodged complaint against Satish when she came to know of the incident. It was found to be false. DW-3 Ranjot Singh, ex Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kotihia Jhajar has deposed that Shanti Devi belonged to Chimba caste and accused to Koli community. Shanti Devi had a dispute with Koli community about the temple of Mahasu Devta and she has also filed complaint against other persons. Prosecutrix PW-3 has also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 15 admitted that there was a temple of Mahasu in village and there was a dispute qua the temple of Mahadsu with the villagers qua .
land on which temple was situate.
24. DW-1 Kuldeep Singh has deposed that Parivar Register was not maintained on day to day basis as there was no permanent staff. According to him, as per entries in Register, dated 22.12.1995, date of birth of prosecutrix was 14.12.1994.
of He was posted as Panchayat Secretary and was having additional charge of Gram Panchayats Kothiya, Jhajar, Thod rt Niwad, Nehar Bag and Dimbber. Name of the mother of prosecutrix is not mentioned in the Parivar Register. PW-5 Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he did not recall what was date of birth of his daughter. Father is expected to know the date of birth of his child or at least birth year. PW-7 has also stated that date of birth of prosecutrix was registered on the basis of information of Shanti Devi. But while appearing as PW-4, Shanti Devi has not made any averment with respect to age of prosecutrix that she has got entry made in the parivar register.
25. Prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. PW-6 Devinder Chauhan issued certificate Ext. PW-6/C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not brought original record regarding admission of the prosecutrix in the school. He was not aware at ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 16 what age prosecutrix was admitted to school in first class.
Similarly, PW-7 Pratap Singh has issued birth certificate Ext.
.
PW-7/A and also extract of parivar register. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that the register which he has produced did not contain certificate of Registrar, Deaths and Births. Same was never inspected by superior officer. Entries regarding birth of prosecutrix were not incorporated by him. He of has also admitted that in the register which he has brought, contained entries which were wrongly incorporated but later on rt entries were deleted. He also admitted that entries in register had been incorporated upto page 25 and thereafter pages were blank. He admitted that column at page 18 were blank. He did not know when name of prosecutrix was incorporated in the Parivar register. Name of mother or prosecutrix were also not mentioned in the same. He has also admitted specifically that there was cutting and overwriting in the column of age of prosecutrix. We have also gone through Ext. PW-7/B. There is over-writing in the column against age of prosecutrix.
26. Prosecution has placed reliance upon the attendance register Ext. PW-6/A. According to the prosecution, prosecutrix has not attended school on 29.8.2013. We have perused Ext. PW-6/A. It is evident to the naked eye that total students in 7th class are 17 in Government Middle School ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 17 concerned. Students on this date i.e. 29.8.2013 were 17 but the same has been changed to 16. Similarly, presence ('P') has been .
changed to absent ('A'') to show that the prosecutrix did not attend the school on that day.
27. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thimmakku and others. V. Bandlu Rangappa and others reported in AIR 1977 Karnataka 115, have held that in the of absence of the examination of and testimony by some person competent to speak to matters either as to the knowledge of the rt relationship or as to the source of the information or statements on which the said recitals came to be incorporated in the said documents, the recitals in themselves cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Their lordships have held as under:
5. Defendants have sought to rely upon Ex. D-9, certified copy of the extract of the School Admission Register, pertaining to the second plaintiff; Ex. D-4 and D-6 being extracts of birth registers and Ex. D-5, the extract of School Admission Register pertaining to the fifth plaintiff; and Ex.
D-7, another extract of School Admission Register pertaining to the sixth plaintiff, which contain recitals that the father of the plaintiffs concerned in the said documents one B. Thippa Reddy. The Court-below has relied upon these documents in support of its findings for the defendants. But, it appears to us that in the absence of the examination of and testimony by some witness competent to speak to matters either as to the knowledge of the relationship or as to the source of the information or statements on which the said recitals came to be incorporated in the said documents, the recitals in themselves cannot be treated as substantive evidence and as admissible on the question concerning paternity purportedly indicated in the said documents as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 18 such entries are matters extraneous to what is strictly enjoined upon the officer to record. The question whether the defendants have discharged their burden of showing that the first plaintiff and Hanumanthappa had had no access to .
each other after 26-3-1953 has therefore, to be decided with reference to the other evidence on record.
28. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P reported in AIR 2006 SC 2157, have held that school leaving certificate which was not of issued by the person who was present in the school, when person was admitted therein, can not be relied upon. Their lordships have held as under:
rt
35. We have not been shown as to whether any register was required to be maintained under any statute. We have further not been shown as to whether any register was maintained in the school at all. The original register has not been produced. The authenticity of the said register, if produced, could have been looked into. No person had been examined to prove as to who had made entries in the register. The school leaving certificate which was not issued by a person who was in the school at the time when the appellant was admitted therein, cannot be relied upon..
29. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh. V. Narender Kumar Alias Hira And Ors reported in 2010 Crl.L.J. 3545, has held that if the manner of preparation of parivar register raised doubt about the authenticity and genuineness, same can not be held to be a conclusive and binding evidentiary value. The Division Bench has held as under:
9. The other evidence on this issue itself is the Family Register (Ext. PW-8/A) maintained by the Gram Panchayat ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 19 Officer, Nayaye Panchayat Kendra, Titota, U.P., which records the date of birth of the prosecutrix to be 3.3.1977.
The same has been proved by Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma (PW-8), Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Titota, Tehsil .
Anup Shahar, Distt. Bulland Shahar, U.P. The document as prepared and maintained raises doubt about its genuineness. The Pariwar Register is not shown to be maintained under any statute. It does not bear the signature of either the Pradhan or any other officer of the Panchayat. Even according to PW-8 the register is neither printed in a government press nor issued by any panchayat officer and is of easily available in the open market. In fact the same was purchased and prepared by him in June, 1992 i.e. after the date of the alleged incident. He also did not verify the entries made in the register though previous registers were rt available with him. The prosecution has chosen neither to produce nor prove the entries made in the said registers.
This witness has admitted to be in touch with PW-4. He admitted to have deleted the names of two persons entered as family members of PW-4. This he did even though they had died in the year 1987 and 1969. If the register was prepared in June, 1992 then obviously the names of the persons having died prior thereto could not have been entered into therein. The manner of preparation of the Pariwar Register raises doubt about its authenticity and genuineness. Importantly the Pariwar Register does not disclose the name of the person who had disclosed the information on the basis of which the said entry of date of birth of the prosecutrix was made there. PW-8 was not in service at the time of making the entry in the earlier registers and the Pariwar Register is also not shown to be maintained under any statute. It is also not the case of PW-4 that he had got the particulars entered in the Pariwar Register at the time of the birth of the prosecutrix. In fact it is not the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was not born in Kasauli and was in fact born at the native place of her parents in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In any event Pariwar Registers cannot be held to be of conclusive and binding evidentiary value.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP 2030. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 9.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, .
HP in Sessions trial No. 53-ST/7 of 2013 is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by giving him benefit of doubt. He be of released if not required in any other case by the Police. Fine amount, if any paid by him, be refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send rt the same to the Superintendent Jail concerned forthwith.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge (Sureshwar Thakur) Judge September 22, 2015 vikrant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:23 :::HCHP