Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) Alamelu v. State reported in (2011) 2 SCC 385,
b) Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 10 SCC 192,
c) S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 942,
d) Shyam and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2169,
e) Bhartiben W/o. Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Chauhan v. Sushilaben Kanubhai Tevar and Anr. reported in 2009 3 G.L.H. 664,

She also relied on the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in Naushad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.4505/2005, decided on 16.03.2007). She has therefore submitted that in view of the fact the accused had promised her to marry and later on did not marry her, this is a ground to uphold the judgment of the learned Trial Judge.

Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt has tried to distinguish the decision reported in the case of Bhartiben W/o. Sureshbhai R/CR.A/160/1997 JUDGMENT Bhikhabhai Chauhan v. Sushilaben Kanubhai Tevar and Anr. reported in 2009 3 G.L.H. 664 and has stated that the girl in the said case was more than 18 years. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to the facts of this case.

(d) The Birth Certificate reveals her age to be more than 17 years on date of incident.

7. Having heard learned Advocates R/CR.A/160/1997 JUDGMENT appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that the decision in the case of Bhartiben W/o. Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Chauhan v. Sushilaben Kanubhai Tevar and Anr. would apply to the facts of this case as in this case also, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was below the marriageable age. She having moved from place to place with the accused, it would not be out of place to state that she was a consenting party. It cannot be said that she was abducted or was seduced.