Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. The possibility of the prosecutrix being above the age of 18 years on the date of incident is also not ruled out. The nature of allegations go to show that after being with the accused for two months, he either tutored or under great pressure to change her version. Though in the charge, it was mentioned that the prosecutrix was allured and thereby the accused was charged under Section 363 read with Section 366 IPC. No certificate whatsoever about the age of girl was given by father to Investigating Officer is an admitted position of fact which the witness father namely PW-3 (Diwari Lal) has accepted in the cross-examination.

35. While going through the record also we donot find any certificate describing the age of the prosecutrix. The entire change of version of the prosecutrix goes to show that she was tutored. According to the prosecutrix, she has narrated the journey between her place to Faridabad. We are unable to satisfy ourselves that a grown up girl, would gain consciousness only after she reached Faridabad was transferred to train to bus by the accused. She has been with her parents. The statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. goes to show that she has taken U-turn in her oral testimony. The medical evidence also will not permit us to hold that there was forcible sex with her, which will fall under Section 375, the doctor has given opinion that no opinion can be given about rape as there was no injury and she was above the age of 17 years. Hence, we satisfy ourselves that no case under Section 376 IPC, for which the accused has been charged, is made out.