Ishwar Lal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now C.G.

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years

Under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year

despite advice of Dr. Alpana Agrawal for ossification test of the prosecutrix, no such test was conducted.",

Headmaster Humanlal Sahu (PW4) has stated that as per the transfer (school leaving) certificate (Ex.P4) of the prosecutrix, her date of birth is",

3.12.1982. He has admitted that at the time of admission of the students, the date of birth his recorded in the school record as told by the parents of",

the students.,

Vishal (PW7), father of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix took birth in the year 1982 and he had got entered her date of birth in the",

school. This witness has been unable to state about the date and month of birth of the prosecutrix. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has",

stated that his eldest son took birth in the year 1977, elder daughter Kamla took birth in the year 1979 and younger daughter (the prosecutrix) took",

birth in the year 1982. Contrary to this, Narbadiya (PW9), mother of the prosecutrix has stated that her all 3 children took birth with an interval of",

1½ years. If the testimony of Narbadiya (PW9) is considered that her all the children took birth with an interval of 1½ years, the prosecutrix would",

have taken birth in the year 1981. Vishal (PW7) has stated that Kotwar of the village would have also recorded date of birth of the prosecutrix, but no",

Kotwari Book/Register has been produced on record by the prosecution.,

From the above, it is clear that except the school leaving certificate (Ex.P4), no other documentary evidence is available on record regarding the",

date of birth of the prosecutrix. Though the entry regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school was got recorded by her father Vishal,

(PW7) yet he has not been able to state about the date and month of birth of the prosecutrix. What was the actual gap between the birth of their 3,

children, statements in this regard of Vishal (PW7), father of the prosecutrix and Narbadiya (PW9), mother of the prosecutrix are contradictory.",

From the above, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of incident. Since she",

was a consenting party and it is not established that she was below 16 years of age on the date of incident, the alleged offence is not made out against",

the Appellant.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the",

charges framed against him.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,