Bombay High Court
Vishnu S/O Parmeshwar Yadav And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ1724
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is at the instance of the three appellants who are convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant/accused No. 1 - Vishnu Parameshwar Yadav additionally has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Originally, in all four accused persons came to be tried on the allegation that on or about 15th day of August, 1990, at about 7-O' clock, they kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl about 15 years old from Sudamnagar, Nagpur as also from the lawful guardianship of her parents. It was alleged that this kidnapping was with the intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against will, or may be forced to illicit inter-course.
3. Charge against the accused No. 1 was specific that he committed rape on the said girl on or about 17-8-1990 and, therefore, committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The accused persons as also the prosecutrix are the residents of Sudamnagar, Nagpur. Original accused No. 4 was the husband of appellant accused No. 3, while the other two appellants/accused are also belonging to same caste and are near relations of accused Nos. 3 and 4. At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was living with and in the custody of her parents who lived in Sudamnagar, Nagpur. Her mother, Smt. Sudha, who is examined as P.W. 1 runs a grocery shop at some distance from her residential house, while her father worked in an Automobile shop. The prosecutrix is the eldest amongst the three sisters, her two other sisters being Ku. Swarna aged about 13 years and Ku. Manisha aged about 11 years. At the relevant time, prosecutrix was studying in 10th Standard in Maharashtra Adhyayan Mandir, Gandhinagar, Nagpur. The accused persons, who were residing together, knew the family of the prosecutrix and were on the visiting terms with each other. The prosecution case is that on 15th August, 1990 at about 7-O' clock, prosecutrix left her house for going to school for attending the flag-hoisting ceremony. Before that, appellant/accused No. 2 - Ravindra had come on the previous day to her house to enquire as to whether she was going to the school for flag-hoisting day or not. He also took his meals and told her that he was going away to his native place by the night train. While she was on her way to the school on 15th August, 1990, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in an auto-rickshaw and stopped her while she was crossing Gandhinagar ground and told her that accused No. 3 - Rajkumari was calling her and insisted upon her to accompany them. They forced her to sit with them in the auto-rickshaw and they took her to Nagpur Railway Station where she found that accused No. 3 was also there. All the four of them boarded the train and went to Itarsi where they reached in the evening. Thereafter, all of them went to the house of the parents of accused No. 3. There some rituals were performed by accused No. 3. She was made to wear one Sari and also put Mayuri (red colour) on her feet. The prosecution further alleged that thereafter the accused Nos. 1 and 2 took her to the Railway Station and they went to Allahabad by train where they reached next day, i.e., on 16th August, 1990, in the afternoon. It is the further case of the prosecution that then the accused No. 1 and prosecutrix sat in a train bound for Patna and accused No. 2 went back and returned to Itarsi. It is the further case of prosecution that in Patna, accused No. 1 stayed with her in one Lodging and Boarding House where he committed rape on her on 3 or 4 occasions. After two days, both of them left Patan and reached Nagpur in two or three day's time. The accused No. 1 took her to Sai Mandir by an autorickshaw where they stayed for 2 to 3 hours. From there they went to Tajbag shrine where they stayed throughout the night, and on the next day, they went to Hanuman Mandir of Rajabaksha area where the friends of accused No. 1 informed that the matter was already reported to the police. Therefore, accused No. 1 went to the house of the parents and he requested her parents to withdraw the report. Thereafter, on the next day early in the morning at about 4.00 a.m., the accused No. 1 dropped her near Amravati Road near her house. She thereafter went to her house and narrated the entire incident to her parents.
5. In the meantime, finding that prosecutrix had not returned from her school, Sudha, her mother, started enquiries into the matter. She had tried to locate the prosecutrix in her relatives at Nagpur and also at Karanja, thinking that she might have gone to Karanja. She also sent couple of boys to Itarsi suspecting that the prosecutrix might have gone to Itarsi suspecting that the prosecutrix might have gone to Itarsi alongwith the accused persons. She found a chit in books of the prosecutrix and on that basis she made a report to Ambazari Police Station on 22-8-1990.
6. The investigation started. One Police Constable Bhiwaji was sent to Itarsi for investigation, where he arrested accused Nos. 2 and 4. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of other witnesses on 23-8-1990. The girl, however, was reported to have come back by her mother Sudhabai. Her statement was also recorded. On 1-9-1990, the accused No. 3 was also arrested. Ultimately, even accused No. 1 came to be arrested and was referred for medical examination. Ultimately, on this basis, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the four accused, and the accused were committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judical Magistrate, Nagpur.
7. The accused persons abjured there guilt and raised the plea that they were not guilty. Accused No. 1 claimed that he was out of Nagpur at the relevant time and was not in Nagpur at all on 15th August, 1990. He claimed to have come to Nagpur on or about 15th September, 1990 from Kanpur. His claim was that the girl's statement was full of falsehood. In short, he made a plea of complete denial. Accused No. 2 admitted that accused No. 3 was his elder sister and that he knew the family of the prosecutrix. He also raised a plea that prosecutrix was falsely implicating him. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 claimed complete ignorance about the whole story.
8. In support of the prosecution case, the evidence of Sudha, the complainant; prosecutrix herself as also the two boys who had gone in search of girl to Itarsi, was led. Her father's evidence was also recorded. The other witnesses examined by the prosecutrix were P.W. 4-Swarna, the sister of Prosecutrix; P.W. 6-Mahadeo, the Head Master to establish the age of the girl; Investigating Officer, etc. On the basis of this evidence, the trial Court acquitted the original accused No. 4 holding that he had no concern in the whole matter. The trial Court, however, convicted the other three accused persons for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted accused No. 1 additionally for having committed an offence of rape against the prosecutrix. This is how the present appeal is necessitated at the instance of original accused Nos. 1 to 3.
9. Shri M. R. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused, forcefully submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave error in firstly convicting the appellant-accused No. 1 of the offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He pointed out that in this case, it has not been established at all that there was any sexual inter-course committed with the prosecutrix, which was against her will or without her consent. According to him, if the factor of sexual intercourse itself is not established, then there was no question of the further finding regarding the said sexual intercourse being without consent or against the will of the prosecutrix. For this purpose he heavily relied upon the medical certificate. Shri Daga secondly contended that even otherwise the conviction of appellant-accused No. 3 was wholly uncalled for, inasmuch as it could not be said that she was in any manner responsible for taking the minor out of the custody of her parents. He pointed out that even as per prosecution case, the appellant-accused No. 3 had not in any manner participated in the actual act of taking the minor out of the custody of her lawful guardians, namely, the parents, nor was there any evidence regarding her activities prior to the said Act. Shri Daga submitted that even if it is presumed that afterwards the minor went and joined the company of the appellant-accused No. 3 who was on her way to Itarsi, she could be said to the accessory after the offence and as such there will be no criminal liability fixed against her.
As regards the appellant/accused Nos. 1 and 2, insofar as their conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned, his contention is that it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was an innocent girl and that she was in any manner coerced or influenced by the accused persons to go with appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2. He pointed out from the letters which are proved that the language of the letters shows that the prosecutrix was a girl of full and mature understanding and carrying love affairs with the appellant/accused No. 1, and there was enough evidence on record to show that she of her own accord had left her house and joined the appellant/accused Nos. 1 and 2, as the case may be, if at all it is proved that she was in the company of accused Nos. 1 and 2, after she left her house.
10. Shri S. B. Dawale, learned Public Prosecutor, however, vehemently submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be given a full weight as she had categorically stated about the sexual intercourse having been committed by the appellant/accused No. 1. He pointed out that the age of the girl was fully established by the prosecution, by producing her birth certificate and by leading the evidence of the Head Master of her school. According to the Public Prosecutor, there was absolutely no challenge to the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix as also the Head Master regarding the age of the girl and it was fully established that she was below the consenting age of 16 years. He further submitted that even if the medical certificate showed that the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact, it could not be said that no sexual intercourse was committed, as even after the sexual intercouse the hymen could remain intact. He more particularly pointed out that there was absolutely no challage to the version of the girl that the sexual intercourse was committed with the girl. As regards the other contentions of the defence in respect of the criminal liability of the other accused, according to him, the offences for which they were convicted were fully brought home.
11. On this back-drop of rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the accused persons are, in any manner, guilty as held by the trial Court.
12. Since the prosecution alleges the commission of offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be first essential to see as to what is the exact age of the prosecutrix. Sudha (P.W. 1) is the mother of the girl. She has stated that the age of the prosecutrix was about 15 years. To be more precise, she has stated the birth date of her daughter to be 29-5-1976. The incident in question has taken place on 15-8-1990 and that way the age of the girl on the date of the incident would be 14 years and 8 months. In her cross-examination, there is absolutely no challenge to this claim. The only cross-examination is that the ages of the other two daughters of Sudha has been got fixed. Sudha states that her youngest daughter Manisha was 11 years old and was studying in 7th Class while her second daughter Swarna was 13 years old and was studying in the 9th Standard. Considering the age difference, it cannot be said that the age of the prosecutrix could not be 14 years and 8 months on the day when she was allegedly kidnapped. It has not been suggested in the cross-examination of this witness that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was not 29-5-1976 as alleged by the witness. The age of girl is reflected in the First Information Report where the age is given as 15 years. There is nothing unnatural about it for the simple reason that, in fact, the prosecutrix had completed the age of 14 years and was running 15 years. If her age was described as 15 years in the First Information Report, there is nothing wrong about it.
12A. The second witness regarding the age of the prosecutrix is P.W. 6-Mahadeo Rajaram Aakhude, who is the Head Master of Maharashtra Adhyayan Mandir High School, Nagpur. He has deposed that from the school record, the prosecutrix was one of the students of the school since 24-5-1985 and was in the school till 17-9-1995, and it was on that day that her father applied for the transfer certificate and she ultimately left the school. The witness further deposes that on 24-5-1995, she was admitted to the school in the 5th Standard and as per the record of the school, her date of birth was 29-5-1976. It has to be observed in this behalf that the date of birth stated by her mother corresponds to this date. The Head Master further goes on to depose that the date of birth is as per the school records and he had issued a certificate to that effect. There is practically no cross-examination. He admitted that he did not know as to on what basis the prosecutrix was admitted to the 1st Standard in Primary School. He also admits that he did not know as to which hospital she was born in. In the further cross-examination, he admitted that the records remain in possession of the clerks who take the entry. However, he asserted that he examines the said entries. He was not in a position to tell as to which clerk had taken the concerned entry. The cross-examination takes us nowhere and it is clear that from the school record the age of the girl was fixed to be 14 years and 3 months approximately on the date of the incident.
13. Insofar as the medical examination of the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecution has not examined the doctor. The medical certificate was admitted by the defence. The medical certificate is Exhibit 34 wherein the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 15 years. It does not seem that the prosecutrix was sent for ossification test. Even in her evidence, the prosecutrix has given out her age as 15 years. From all this material, it can be safely said that the prosecutrix had not crossed the age of consent, i.e., 16 years on the date of the incident. It is true that the prosecution could have established the age by more positive evidence like from the Births and Deaths Register, or her age could have been fixed even by sending her for the ossification test. However, the fact remains that at no point of time has the defence challenged the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix herself; or even the evidence of the Head Master of the school regarding the age of the prosecutrix. It can, therefore, be easily deduced that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years on the date when her alleged kidnapping took place or even on the day when there was alleged sexual intercourse with her. The trial Court has also correctly arrived at the finding regarding her age on the basis of the evidence pointed out above.
14. It will then be useful to see as to whether the prosecutrix could be said to have been kidnapped from the lawful custody of her parents. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses on this issue, first amongst them being the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1-Sudha. In her evidence, Sudha has deposed to the incident which took place on 15th August, 1990. According to her, her daughter, the prosecutrix had left the house in the morning at 7-O' clock for attending the Independence Day function in the school. She says that her girl-friends had come but she did not remember their names. It is clear that on that day, the prosecutrix had left alone for the school. She thereafter goes on to say that the prosecutrix did not return for quite sometime and since she was to accompany her girl-friends to the garden and since she was not to be seen around, the mother naturally got worried and started enquiring with the relatives. She claims that she had made enquiries with the maternal sister at Saunsar as also in the house of her husband's brother and could not find the prosecutrix. She also claims that she enquired at Karanja but to no effect. She has also deposed that prior to the incident on 14th August night, accused No. 2 had come to their shop in the evening at about 7 O' clock and he had said that he was going to Itarsi by a train in the said evidence (sic). He also had gone to her house and had meals. This signifies that there were good relations between the family of the accused persons on one hand and that of the prosecutrix on the other. She claims that she suspected foul play on account of Ravindra leaving the town on that very day and, therefore, she sent one Raju and one Dinesh for enquiry. She also had taken the search of the school bag where she had found one chit. She, however, claimed that the chit was not in the handwriting of the prosecutrix. She has described the inter se relations between the two families and she claims that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were on visiting terms to her house. From her evidence, it is clear that accused No. 2 had visited the place of the prosecutrix on the previous day and had his meals there. He was also knowing the prosecutrix as well as her family members and that on the relevant day, i.e., on 15th August, 1990, the prosecutrix had left the house for going to school. There is not much challenge to this version.
15. As regards the evidence of P.W. 2 - Yuvaraj also, there is nothing much questioning to which he has deposed except that the prosecutrix who had gone out in the morning and not returned till 1.00 or 1.30 p.m., i.e., in the afternoon. He has also deposed about the efforts made by them to locate the prosecutrix. He was asked about the so-called chit which was allegedly found in the school bag of the prosecutrix but he was unable to tell as to whose handwriting the said chit was.
16. P.W. 3-Raju claims to have gone to Itarsi along with one Dinesh, and more particularly the Railway Quarters where the parents of accused No. 3 used to stay. There he found accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 present. He claims that they enquired about the prosecutrix, but she was not there. This evidence really takes us nowhere.
17. Further evidence is that of P.W. 4 - Swarna, the younger sister of the prosecutrix who, at that time, was a student of 9th-Standard in the same school where the prosecutrix was studying. She claims that on 14-8-1990, she was not feeling well and she had not gone to school also. She claims that in the evening on that day, accused No. 2 Ravindra had come to their house when prosecutrix was studying. He started handling the books of the prosecutrix and asked the prosecutrix whether she was going to the school on 15th August, whereupon the prosecutrix told that she was not going to the school, whereupon he told her that the next day was the Independence Day and that she must go to the school. The witness claims that thereafter the accused No. 2 went away and again came back on 9.00 p.m. to take meals. Thus, it is clear that accused No. 2 - Ravindra had visited the house of the prosecutrix on the earlier day, i.e., on 14th August 1990, and he also made it sure that the prosecutrix goes on the next day to the school for Independence Day function. The witness claims in her cross-examination that she did not go to the school on the next day as she was not feeling well, but her sister, the prosecutrix, did go to the school at 7.00 a.m., and that she did not return back even till the afternoon, when her, girl-friends had come to fetch her. She also asserts that the prosecutrix did not attend the school on that day. This probably she was saying on the information that she had received from the friends of the prosecutrix.
18. Last, but not the least, is the evidence of the prosecutrix herself. She was examined as P.W. 5. In her evidence she has given a complete family background of her family as well as of the accused persons. She claims that she was knowing all the accused persons who used to come to their house often. She claims that on that day, she started going to the school along with her sister Manisha and from Ambazari Bus Stand, Manisha left for her school by bus. She claims that thereafter she started going ahead on foot and when she came near Gandhinagar Library, an auto-rickshaw came in which accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sitting. She claims that accused No. 2 called her by her name and told her that the accused No. 3 Rajkumari had called her. She claims that she refused to go on the grounds that she had to go to the Independence Day function to the school. However, according to her, accused Nos. 1 and 2 pressed her mouth and took her in the auto-rickshaw. She tried to raise shouts but she was threatened and thereafter by auto-rickshaw they all went to Nagpur Railway Station where accused No. 3 Rajkumari was standing outside the Railway Station. She was offered tea, and though initially she had refused to take tea, she ultimately took tea in the restaurant opposite the Railway Station. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the tickets, while she and accused No. 3-Rajkumari kept on standing there only. She claims that after purchasing the tickets, all of them alighted the train and they all reached Itarsi in the evening. She claims that the accused No. 3 alone went to her parent's house, while accused Nos. 1 and 2 and herself waited at the Railway Station. Thereafter, the accused No. 3 came back and all of them ultimately went to the house of the parents of accused No. 3. She says that she was made to wear a Sari at the house of accused No. 3's parents and red-colour was put on her feet and that they were in the house of the parents of accused No. 3 for about an hour and thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 2 and she herself went to the Railway Station again and got into the train which train reached Allahabad Railway Station in the after-noon next day. She further claims that the accused No. 2 then left them at Allahabad, but before that, she and accused No. 1 Vishnu boarded another train while accused No. 2 returned back. She claims that she and Vishnu reached Patna Railway Station on the next day in the early morning and from Patna Railway Station, they went to one Lodging house, where they stayed for couple of days. She claims that during those two days, accused No. 1 - Vishnu committed sexual intercourse with her on three or four occasions. Her further version is that after staying for 2 or 3 days, they left Patna for Nagpur and on reaching Nagpur, they went to Sai Mandir by an auto-rickshaw where they stayed for 3 and 4 four hours, whereafter they went to Tajbaugh Shrine in the evening, where they spent the night. Again, on the next day, they went to Hanuman mandir of Rajabaksha area, where accused No. 1 met few of his friends who told him that the matter was reported to the police. Then again she claims that the accused No. 1 went to meet her parents and after coming back, told her that when she reached home back, the parents should withdraw the report from the police. She, therefore, claims that she was dropped at about 4.00 a.m., in the morning, near the Amravati-road near her house and she then reached the house. She has also confirmed that on 14th August, 1990, accused No. 2 had come to their house and had a chitchat with her, that he had taken his meals and he had also known that she was going to attend the school. She claims that accused No. 2 had insisted upon her for attending the school on the next day. She was confronted with the chit which was allegedly found by her mother in her book, but she denies to have written the same.
19. Her cross-examination is a classic example of haphazardness. She was confronted with her police statement and she had to admit that she had not told the police that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 pressed her mouth while pushing her into the auto-rickshaw. That is undoubtedly a major improvement made by the prosecutrix. She was asked about the number of the auto-rickshaw and she could not give the same. Again, there is nothing unusual if the prosecutrix is not able to give the number of the auto-rickshaw. A very strange suggestion has been given that accused Nos.1 and 2 had not come on the spot and had not pressed her mouth. A direct suggestion was, however, given to her that she had developed a love affair with accused No. 1 and she had thought of marrying him after attaining the age of majority in future. Now, this suggestion is also extremely damaging which suggests that the prosecutrix had, in fact, not reached the age of majority. She was also confronted with two letters which are in her handwriting. The two letters are Exhibits 39 and 39. She then turned back and said that Exhibit 39 was not in her handwriting. A direct suggestion was given to her that when her parents came to know of her alleged love affair with accused No. 1 on or about 14th August, 1990, they sent her to Karanja, which she denied. She then gave the reason for not shouting when she was taken in an auto-rickshaw by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. She insisted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened her to kill. She denied the suggestion that accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not take her anywhere on 15th August, 1990. Beyond this, there is no cross-examination at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 3. In the cross-examination by accused No. 2, she was made to admit that she was talking with accused Nos. 1 and 2 outside the auto-rickshaw on the ground for less than 5 minutes. She also admitted that she did not tell anybody that accused nos. 1 and 2 were forcibly taking her. She claims that she did not do so because both of them were standing near her on both sides. Then a round-about suggestion was given to her in the cross-examination that no incident had taken place and that she was falsely deposing against the accused persons at the instance of her parents.
20. At least, from the cross-examination of this witness, it cannot be said that her story given in the examination-in-chief got damaged even in the slightest way. A round-about defence in a halting manner has been tried in the cross-examination. In the first instance, it is tried to be suggested that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had not even surfaced anywhere in the whole affair; then it is tried to be suggested that there was a love affair between accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix and probably as a result of that love affair, the prosecutrix was sent away to Karanja and no incident had taken place. One fails to understand the propriety of this cross-examination. If the prosecutrix was safely sent to Karanja straightway, there was no reason whatsoever for her parents to start hue and cry as regards her disappearance. It is to be seen in this behalf that the unfortunate parents had suffered the agony of the disappearance of their daughter for eight days, as in fact the report had been filed only on 22nd August, 1990. They had made a hectic search for the prosecutrix at all the places like Saunsar, Karanja and even in Nagpur, with all the relatives, but without any effect, and it was only when their last hope of finding the girl was extinguished, that they seem to have filed a report with the police. One can understand the apathy and the reluctance to file the report, as this was a question of the life of a young unmarried girl. They could not have given the matter to the police so as to bring her life into permanent disgrace. After all, this was a middle class family and they had tried to stick to their values by privately searching for the girl. Much was made by the learned defence Counsel of the fact that the parents had not reported the matter earlier. As has already been pointed out, in the peculiar circumstances this delay cannot affect the credibility of the prosecution case that the prosecutrix had disappeared from the house. The defence case that the prosecutrix was deliberately sent to Karanja and a false incident was reported, thus has absolutely no basis and it can be said that it has been established by the prosecution that the prosecutrix disappeared right from the morning of 15th August, 1996 (1990).
21. There would be nothing unnatural in the departure of the prosecutrix from the house to her school. it is a common knowledge that the students are required to attend the flag-hoisting function in the schools, which are held normally in the early hours of the Independence Day. Therefore, even if the prosecutrix left the house for going to the school, it cannot be said that she had herself stepped out of the guardianship of her parents. So long as a girl was going to the school, it cannot be said that she had stepped out of the control of her parents. The evidence of the prosecutrix clearly establishes that she was taken out of the custody by accused Nos. 1 and 2, whom she had clearly named as the persons who met her on her way to the school. Her inability to give the description of the auto-rickshaw and to give its registration number thereafter, really proves nothing. No one would be expected to note the number at such hour. She was then taken in the auto-rickshaw by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the threesome went to the Railway Station. The story that she was pounced upon by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and made to sit her in the auto-rickshaw appears to be an exaggerated version. There can be no doubt that the two families were on the visiting terms and that the prosecutrix was on intimate terms with the family members of the accused. This becomes certain because of the fact that even on the earlier day, the accused No. 1 had gone to the house of the parents of the prosecutrix and taken his meals there. The evidence of the prosecutrix, therefore, can be believed to the extent that she was asked by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to accompany them and on their say that accused No. 3 - Rajkumari was calling her, she got into the auto-rickshaw and left. As a matter of fact, when the accused Nos. 1 1 and 2 took her to the Railway Station by first taking her from the road, an offence of kidnapping was complete. It was at this point of time that the prosecutrix was taken out of the custody of her parents. It is not a case where the girl herself had offered and joined the company of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no business to be loitering near the way of the prosecutrix to the school. They had also no reason to be in the way of the girl to the school. If they invited the prosecutrix to accompany them, on the ground that accused No. 3 - Rajkumari was calling her and then they proceeded straight to the Railway Station, it is clear that they had at that very point taken the minor girl like the prosecutrix out of the lawful custody of her parents. Insofar as, therefore, the liability of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, it is fully established. If the young minor girl was taken out of the custody and was taken to Itarsi as is the claim of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was taken out of the custody with some lofty ideals. It is no doubt true that at the Railway Station, the prosecutrix did not make any hue and cry, nor did she make any hue and cry when she was seated in the auto-rickshaw. However, her sitting in the auto-rickshaw is very natural, because firstly she knew the accused Nos. 1 and 2. They were almost on the intimate terms and, secondly, they had also taken the name of accused No. 3 - Rajkumari who was also known to the prosecutrix and who was an elderly and married person. Therefore, her meekly submitting to the request of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 can be well understood. The moment the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been successful in taking the prosecutrix in the auto-rickshaw, which fact is fully established from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, the offence of kidnapping as against her was complete. Once the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken her out of the custody and had taken her to the Railway Station, instead of going back to the house of either accused No. 3 or the house of the prosecutrix, the offence was continued. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix at all when she says that she was taken by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the auto-rickshaw, on the ground that accused No. 3 was calling her. There was absolutely no reason for the prosecutrix to suggest all this falsely.
22. The prosecutrix has thereafter justified that from the Railway Station, they went to Itarsi where they were hardly about an hour or so. It is true that there is no corroborating piece of evidence which could have been collected by the investigating agency. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix that she went to Itarsi in the company of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. If the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken a young girl, the prosecutrix, on the false pretext out of the guardianship of her parent, there was no question of their being any other purpose except the sexual purpose for such taking out. Therefore, insofar as the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code against them is fully established by the evidence of the prosecutrix alone.
23. However, the same logic cannot be applied to the accused No. 3. Accused No. 3 is a house-wife. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 3 had in any manner convinced or tried to impress upon the mind of the prosecutrix to leave the house of her parents or to join her. Insofar as the actual incident of taking is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that she (accused No. 3) in any way responsible. If a minor girl is taken out of the guardianship of her parents by other accused and if the said girl joins the company of accused No. 3 on the Railway Station as is the version of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said that the accused No. 3 had taken part in the said offence of kidnapping. After all the initial act of taking out the minor out of custody is not committed by the accused No. 3, at all, and even if the prosecutrix comes in her company later on, she is not under law bound to restore the custody. That apart, there is no positive evidence as against the accused No. 3 that she had in any manner persuaded the prosecutrix to leave the company of her parents and to proceed with her. The main role appears to be that of accused No. 2 who had gone to the house of the prosecutrix on the previous day and had made it sure that she was going to the school the next day and, subsequently, accused Nos. 1 and 2 intervened the prosecutrix while she was going to school in the morning and took her away to the Railway Station. It will be, therefore, difficult to hold accused No. 3 guilty of kidnapping because she had not taken the prosecutrix out of the lawful guardianship without the consent of such guardians. The accused No. 3, therefore, deserves to be acquitted.
24. The trial Court has convicted both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences both under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, as a matter of fact, offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is merely an aggravated form of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and on the same facts, these accused persons cannot be convicted of both the offences. The finding of the trial Court as regards the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, confirmed, while the separate sentence ordered for the offence under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.
25. That takes me to the question of the offence of rape. I have already held that considering the ages of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and considering the age of the prosecutrix, the purpose of taking of the minor girl, the prosecutrix, could not be any other purpose than forcing or seducing her to sexual intercourse. There can be no dispute, considering the evidence, that there was some infatuation on the part of the prosecutrix at least for accused No. 1. The prosecutrix in her evidence has accepted the authorship of the two letters, namely, Exhibits 38 and 39. The language of Exhibit 38, which letter was confronted by the accused to the prosecutrix in the evidence, clearly shows that the unfortunate minor girl was infatuated and treated herself to be in love with accused No. 1. That indeed is the say of accused No. 1 also. The second letter, of which the authorship is denied by the prosecutrix, has strangely come from the accused persons when, in fact, it should have come from the custody of the parents of the unfortunate girl. Exhibit 39, therefore, appears to be only a defence machanism on the part of the accused No. 1 wherein the unfortunate girl declares that she was going willingly and was not forced by anybody to leave the house. She also gave a declaration of her love and goes to the extent of saying that if anything happens to 'Pyare', the parents will not find her alive and in that case her life would be spoiled. Exhibit 39 really speaking does not help the defence at all for the simple reason that it is obviously a manufactured document, probably after the girl was taken away by the accused persons from the lawful custody of her parents in order to cover or shield their illegalities. However, Exhibit 38 by itself goes on to suggest that there was something going on between the accused No. 1 and the unfortunate girl and that the accused No. 1 took the advantage of these tender feelings which the unfortunate minor had for him and ultimately took her away of the lawful guardianship thereby committing an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
26. However, that does not solve the further mystery regarding the commitment of the offence under Section 376 i.e., of rape, as for that offence we only have the evidence of the prosecutrix herself and beyond that we do not have any single piece of evidence. According to the prosecutrix she was taken to Patna via Allahabad by accused No. 1, while accused No. 2 returned to Itarsi from Allahabad Railway Station. Now, there is no evidence available, besides the words of the prosecutrix regarding as to what happened at Itarsi, Allahabad or Patna. We do not have any evidence as to whether the prosecutrix really reached Allahabad or thereafter upto Patna or what their whereabouts were at Patna. Unfortunately, the investigating agency has drawn a completely blank as to what really happened at Patna. So much so that the girl who was in the 10th class and who was having an urban back-ground, did not even depose to which stations they passed while coming back from Patna. In her evidence, undoubtedly the prosecutrix says only : "Aaropi No. Ek Vishnu yanni majheshi sharir sambandh 3-4 wela don divsanmadhye kela."
The exact translation of this sentence would be : "Accused No. 1 had physical contact with me 3-4 times in these two days." This testimony of the prosecutrix will have to be tested against the other evidence as it has already been pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence. The two some stayed in Patna in some Lodging & Boarding. The investigating agency has not been able to collect any evidence in this behalf. As a matter of fact, the sequence of events as stated by the prosecutrix also does not match, because if her evidence were to be accepted as it is, she would take only about 8 days to come back. In fact, the evidence which has come from the prosecutrix, is that they came back much after that. She disappeared on 15th August, 1990 and came back only by the end of August. P.W. 10 PSI Dadaji Kapadnis suggests that P.W. 2 - Sunanda had reported to the Police Station only on 1-9-1990 that the prosecutrix had come back. Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix on that count is also unreliable.
27. What is further striking is that the prosecutrix was thereafter immediately sent for her physical examination by the doctor. The defence has admitted the medical certificate of which the notice was given by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was sent for the medical examination vide requisition Exhibit 24 wherein a detailed questionnaire has been given to the doctor. Thereafter it seems that the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. The evidence of P.W. 7 - PSI Ku. Subhadra is to the same effect. Then we have staightway the medical report of the prosecutrix at Exhibit 34 which appears to have been admitted by the defence. The said report suggests that the prosecutrix was examined on 1-9-1990 at 10.00 p.m. In the said report, it is suggested that there were no signs of external injuries on any part of her body. There were no seminal or blood stains found on the body. Her hymen was found to be intact. Her pubic hair, vaginal swab, vaginal smear and blood samples were obtained and sent for further investigation. It was opined further that the girl was capable of sexual intercourse, and whether she was raped or not, could not be said. Now, unfortunately, there is no explanation given by the prosecuting agency as to what happened to the questionnaire which was sent to the Medical Officer vide Exhibit 24, which questionnaire was sent by PSI Dadaji Kapadnis, the Investigating Officer. PSI Kapadnis had entered into the witness-box as P.W. 10, but has kept quiet. He only said that the further investigation was carried out by PSI Ingle. The said PSI Ingle has also been examined as P.W. 9 but even he has also maintained a studied silence as to what happened to the medical examination and the requisition which was sent by PSI Kapadnis to the Medical Officer. Thus, as to whether the said requisition was answered or not, is a question left unanswered by the prosecuting agency. What has happened to the cotton swab, etc., which were collected during the medical examination has also been left unanswered by the investigating agency. As if all this is not sufficient, the concerned Medical Officer has not been examined at all. Thus, a very important clue as to whether the sexual intercourse had taken place or not, is left out of the circumspection of the Court either because of apathy on the part of the investigating officer or because of the casual attitude by the prosecuting agency and the complacent attitude of the trial Court. In fact, it was for the prosecuting agency to examine the doctor and to bring all the evidence on record which would have gone long way to suggest that as to whether there really was sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix or not. On the back-drop of the medical certificate of the prosecutrix, which was gleefully admitted by the defence, it is certain that the hymen of the girl was intact and that there were no outward signs of injuries or violence or anything suggesting that the prosecutrix had taken part in the sexual intercourse. If the hymen was intact, then the claim of the prosecutrix that there was a physical contact 3-4 times in the two days at Patna becomes really suspicious. In this, the tender age of the prosecutrix will also have to be taken into consideration as to whether she knew what the sexual intercourse was. If the hymen was intact and if the doctor in her certificate could not state as to whether there was rape or not, it would be highly doubtful as to whether any sexual intercourse had taken place between the accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix. It will be seen from the evidence of the prosecutrix that the Public Prosecutor also did not get it clarified in the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix what she had exactly meant by 'shareer sambandh' (physical contact). In order to bring home the offence of rape, the prosecuting agency should have brought on record the clinching evidence of penetration which is conspicuously absent. The Public Prosecutor has complacently left the matter for the Courts to interpret what the prosecutrix meant by 'shareer sambandh'.
28. Thus, the following factors, therefore, render the theory of sexual intercourse highly doubtful :
(i) Complete absence of evidence as to what transpired at Allahabad and at Patna.
(ii) The tender age of the prosecutrix which was only 14 years and 8 months as per her parents' version and, therefore, she probably being unable to know what the sexual intercourse was.
(iii) Apathy on the part of the prosecuting agency to get the term explained by the prosecutrix and the absence of the actual evidence of penetration in the oral testimony of the prosecutrix.
(iv) Apathy on the part of the investigating agency to place the reply to the requisition Exhibit 24 on the record, if there was any.
(v) Non-examination of the concerned doctor at the trial.
(vi) Finding in the medical certificate that the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact and there were no signs of any physical violence.
(vii) Last, but not the least, the opinion expressed in the medical certificate to the effect that it could not be said as to whether the rape has taken place or not.
All these factors should put the Court on guard against the finding of rape. It is really unfortunate that in a serious matter like this the investigating agency should have been so reckless and so complacent. If all these factors are considered together, and all the cumulative effect of the same is taken into consideration, it really becomes doubtful as to whether there was any sexual intercourse at all between the prosecutrix and the accused No. 1, and in that event, benefit of doubt must go to accused No. 1. Under the circumstances, therefore, the accused No. 1 who has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, will have to be acquitted of the offence, but not before putting on record that the investigating agency as well as the prosecuting agency have treated the matter with extreme casualness.
29. Shri Daga, at this stage pleaded for leniency to the two accused, in view of their age and also in view of the clean past that the accused persons have. I am afraid, such lenient attitude cannot be taken in respect of both the accused persons. They took advantage of the good relations that they had between the two families. They have also taken advantage of the innocence of the prosecutrix. The sentence as awarded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code to both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 is apt, in the circumstances. Hence, the following order :-
The appeal is partly allowed.
The order of conviction and sentence of the appellant accused No. 1 - Vishnu s/o Parmeshwar Yadav and appellant accused No. 2-Ravindrakumar s/o Ramdhiraj Yadav, for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court, is confirmed.
The order of conviction and sentence of appellant-accused No. 1-Vishnu s/o Parmeshwar Yadav, for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court is set aside and he is acquitted of that offence.
The separate sentences ordered by the trial Court to the appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside, as they have already been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused No. 3 Smt. Rajkumari w/o Kariya Yadav for the offence under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court, is set aside and she is acquitted of those offences. Her bail-bond stands cancelled.
The appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall surrender to their bail within one month from today.
30. Appeal partly allowed.