Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.

9. PW-4 Dr. Ambudhar Sharma has examined the accused and issued MLC vide Ext. PW-4/B.

10. PW-5 Sita Ram testified that he was posted in CRPF for the last three years. He had three children out of whom, prosecutrix was the eldest one and completed 15 years of age. Satya Devi informed him on 22.5.2012 that prosecutrix had gone missing on 17.5.2012 and did not return home. She asked him to proceed on leave. He reached home on 28.5.2012. They went to Shri Teja Ram, owner of the building, who disclosed that one person Sumit was also his tenant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has got recorded entry regarding date of birth of his daughter at Behna Jattan Panchayat. He admitted that date of birth of his daughter Pooja Devi was not mentioned. He also admitted that copy of Parivar Register, in which details of his family have been recorded is not correct. According to him, he got prosecutrix admitted to school at the age of six years.

15. PW-11 Om Parkash deposed that he prepared the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix vide Ext. PW-11/A. Date of birth was recorded as 13.4.1997. He handed over the extract of the Parivar Register on an application Ext. PW-11/B moved by the police. The abstract of the same is Ext. PW-

11/C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that entries in the record in the Parivar Register were not in his hand. As per birth register entry at Sr. No. 26, was made at the instance of Mahanta on 26.4.1997. He also admitted that original record of Behna Jattan was lying with parental .

Panchayat namely Badol Panchayat.

16. PW-12 Sushil Kumar is a formal witness.

17. PW-13 Prem Lal deposed that at the request of police vide Ext. PW13/A, he prepared copy of Parivar register of Sumit Kumar son of Piar Singh and handed over to the Police. Copy is Ext. PW-13/B. He admitted in his cross-

examination that at Sr. No. 5 of the register, in the family of Piar Singh name of accused was written in a different ink.

18. PW-14, Bharat Bhushan, PW-15 Nirmla Devi and PW-16 Jiwan Singh are formal witnesses.

There is no evidence on record to prove that the entry in the .

family register was made on the basis of birth register issued by the Hospital where the prosecutrix was born. Age of the Prosecutrix was not got determined from the radiologist in order to corroborate the entry made in the Parivar Register.

The conclusive findings of the trial Court are that the prosecutrix was not below the age of 18 years. This Court agrees with the findings recorded by the trial Court qua the age of the prosecutrix.